What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5043170?

The tribunal order states: Kie Laumau and Pualegasu Laumau to pay Manuwai Investments Ltd $3,922.61

How much money was awarded in case 5043170?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,809.48 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $86.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5043170?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5043170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11423375-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5043170?

The tribunal order states: Kie Laumau and Pualegasu Laumau to pay Manuwai Investments Ltd $3,922.61

How much money was awarded in case 5043170?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,809.48 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $86.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5043170?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5043170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11423375-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11D Manuwai Road, Torbay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5043170 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5043170 — net $3,922.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,809.48	Rent arrears
Water rates	$86.13	Water rates
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$3,922.61
Bond	$4,240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,922.61

Order

Kie Laumau and Pualegasu Laumau to pay Manuwai Investments Ltd $3,922.61 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,240.00 (6384786-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Manuwai Investments Ltd LI Li: $3,922.61 Kie Laumau and Pualegasu Laumau: $317.39

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in the North Shore District Courthouse today.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 4 August 2023 as a one-year fixed-term tenancy, ending on 9 August 2024.
As I will explain further below, the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy, and moved out.
The landlord considers the tenant owes rent arrears and water rates. The tenant disputes the claims (at least the rent arrears).
Both parties then lodged claims in the Tenancy Tribunal.
A hearing was convened on 12 February 2024. Both parties appeared at the hearing. However, during the hearing the tenant removed herself from the hearing room. When I was explaining to the tenant the respective legal obligations around rent (as I will set out below), and advising that I considered the tenant was liable for the rent claimed, the tenant exclaimed that she was “not having this” and left the hearing room. The hearing continued to hear the landlord’s water rates claim.

CLAIMS TO BE CONSIDERED

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears b. Water rates
The tenant confirmed that she only seeks return of the bond from her claim.

ANALYSIS

I will consider the claims in turn. Landlords Claim 1 – Rent arrears
The landlord claims rent arrears as of 5 November 2024, being the sum of $3,809.48. The landlord states that date was the date at the end of the tenant’s notice period.
The tenant disagrees with that calculation. The tenant says that she asked the landlord if the landlord was agreeable to moving out earlier if they found another house to live, with reference to emails on 12 September 2024.
I asked the tenant if she otherwise gave any notice to the landlord, and the tenant referred me to an email she sent on 8 October 2024, which I will set out below.
The landlord confirmed that she received that email on 8 October 2024, and has taken that to be notice ending the tenancy.
The tenant otherwise says that she moved out of the tenancy in early October.
The tenant submitted that if notice was to be given it needed to be from the landlord, and it was the landlord who should have advised what was needed. Analysis
The landlord seeks an order that the tenant pay rent arrears until 5 October 2024, which is the date the landlord calculated as 28 days after the tenant gave notice on 8 October 2024.
As I noted at the hearing, once the fixed term tenancy came to an end on 9 August 2024, the tenancy became a periodic tenancy. The primary difference between a fixed term tenancy, and a periodic tenancy, is that the tenancy can be ended with notice from either the landlord or tenant.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies. Section 51 of the RTA sets out the requirements for a tenancy to be terminated by notice, and confirms at subsection 2B that: A tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 28 days’ notice.
As I understand matters, the tenant considers that the landlord should have advised of any obligations around ending the tenancy, but that is not the case. Tenants and landlords are expected to know their legal obligations in a tenancy, particularly the basic obligations such as how tenancies are ended. The landlord has no legal obligation to instruct the tenant as to her legal requirements to give notice.
The question then becomes, when was notice given by the tenant?
The tenant considers that the email sent on 12 September 2024, was noticed. That email states: Hi Li just emailing about my tenancy agreement has already expired, also was wanting to let you know that I am looking into houses. If you can give me 2 to 6 weeks notice if I don’t find a house by then will move next year.
At the hearing I advised the tenant I did not consider that was noticed to end the tenancy, at best it was a communication to the landlord to advise the tenant was looking at another property, and the details around the ending the tenancy will be confirmed later. The email does not state what the termination date would be, it is too vague to be notice ending a tenancy to that extent.
The tenant then referred to the email of 8 October 2024, which was as follows: Hi Li, just updating you that I found a place we will be moving out on Sunday, I will make sure that the house is clean and the grass is mown. I will be paying the last rent which is this week, it will also include the water bill. Thank you for having us as your tenants...
This email was accepted by the landlord as notice to end the tenancy, and I agree it was. The notice has certainty, because it confirms the tenant was moving out “on Sunday”. But nevertheless, the minimum notice period is 28 days, so the landlord is entitled to be paid rent for that notice period.
At the hearing I calculated 28 days’ notice, which was 5 November, the same date applied by the landlord.
Finding as I do that the landlord is entitled to rent until 5 November 2024, the landlord’s claim is established.
At the hearing, the tenant states when the tenancy started, she needed to pay the landlord $1,060 as well as the bond. That might well be correct. The rental for the premises was $1,060 per week, and the tenancy agreement required that it be paid in advance. So there would be no issue with the landlord requiring that payment, as well as the bond, before the commencement of the tenancy. I note that the landlords rent ledger records that $1,060 was received at the commencement of the tenancy, so it does appear that this money has been accounted for. Landlords Claim 2 – Water rates
The landlord has claimed $86.13 for outstanding water rates. The landlord confirmed that amount is only the consumption charge outstanding from the tenant. Analysis
Tenants are liable for utility charges like water, that are exclusively the result of the tenants occupation of the premises. That means the tenant is liable to pay the consumption charges for the water. The landlord has provided a ledger which shows the relevant charges, and the payments made by the tenant, if anything the amount owing maybe higher than that claimed at the hearing. In any event, the tenant has not disproven liability to the water charges, so this claim is established. Tenants Claim
The only claim from the tenant was around a bond release. As I advised at the hearing, the Tribunal would order the bond be released based on the level of success the landlord had. The bond is to be split between the parties as ordered above.

FILING FEE

Because the landlord has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $27.00.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case only the tenant applied for name suppression. However as the tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding, the tenants application for name suppression is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5043170 — net $3,922.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,809.48	Rent arrears
Water rates	$86.13	Water rates
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$3,922.61
Bond	$4,240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,922.61

Order

Kie Laumau and Pualegasu Laumau to pay Manuwai Investments Ltd $3,922.61 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,240.00 (6384786-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Manuwai Investments Ltd LI Li: $3,922.61 Kie Laumau and Pualegasu Laumau: $317.39

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenant.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in the North Shore District Courthouse today.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 4 August 2023 as a one-year fixed-term tenancy, ending on 9 August 2024.
As I will explain further below, the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy, and moved out.
The landlord considers the tenant owes rent arrears and water rates. The tenant disputes the claims (at least the rent arrears).
Both parties then lodged claims in the Tenancy Tribunal.
A hearing was convened on 12 February 2024. Both parties appeared at the hearing. However, during the hearing the tenant removed herself from the hearing room. When I was explaining to the tenant the respective legal obligations around rent (as I will set out below), and advising that I considered the tenant was liable for the rent claimed, the tenant exclaimed that she was “not having this” and left the hearing room. The hearing continued to hear the landlord’s water rates claim.

CLAIMS TO BE CONSIDERED

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears b. Water rates
The tenant confirmed that she only seeks return of the bond from her claim.

ANALYSIS

I will consider the claims in turn. Landlords Claim 1 – Rent arrears
The landlord claims rent arrears as of 5 November 2024, being the sum of $3,809.48. The landlord states that date was the date at the end of the tenant’s notice period.
The tenant disagrees with that calculation. The tenant says that she asked the landlord if the landlord was agreeable to moving out earlier if they found another house to live, with reference to emails on 12 September 2024.
I asked the tenant if she otherwise gave any notice to the landlord, and the tenant referred me to an email she sent on 8 October 2024, which I will set out below.
The landlord confirmed that she received that email on 8 October 2024, and has taken that to be notice ending the tenancy.
The tenant otherwise says that she moved out of the tenancy in early October.
The tenant submitted that if notice was to be given it needed to be from the landlord, and it was the landlord who should have advised what was needed. Analysis
The landlord seeks an order that the tenant pay rent arrears until 5 October 2024, which is the date the landlord calculated as 28 days after the tenant gave notice on 8 October 2024.
As I noted at the hearing, once the fixed term tenancy came to an end on 9 August 2024, the tenancy became a periodic tenancy. The primary difference between a fixed term tenancy, and a periodic tenancy, is that the tenancy can be ended with notice from either the landlord or tenant.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) applies. Section 51 of the RTA sets out the requirements for a tenancy to be terminated by notice, and confirms at subsection 2B that: A tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 28 days’ notice.
As I understand matters, the tenant considers that the landlord should have advised of any obligations around ending the tenancy, but that is not the case. Tenants and landlords are expected to know their legal obligations in a tenancy, particularly the basic obligations such as how tenancies are ended. The landlord has no legal obligation to instruct the tenant as to her legal requirements to give notice.
The question then becomes, when was notice given by the tenant?
The tenant considers that the email sent on 12 September 2024, was noticed. That email states: Hi Li just emailing about my tenancy agreement has already expired, also was wanting to let you know that I am looking into houses. If you can give me 2 to 6 weeks notice if I don’t find a house by then will move next year.
At the hearing I advised the tenant I did not consider that was noticed to end the tenancy, at best it was a communication to the landlord to advise the tenant was looking at another property, and the details around the ending the tenancy will be confirmed later. The email does not state what the termination date would be, it is too vague to be notice ending a tenancy to that extent.
The tenant then referred to the email of 8 October 2024, which was as follows: Hi Li, just updating you that I found a place we will be moving out on Sunday, I will make sure that the house is clean and the grass is mown. I will be paying the last rent which is this week, it will also include the water bill. Thank you for having us as your tenants...
This email was accepted by the landlord as notice to end the tenancy, and I agree it was. The notice has certainty, because it confirms the tenant was moving out “on Sunday”. But nevertheless, the minimum notice period is 28 days, so the landlord is entitled to be paid rent for that notice period.
At the hearing I calculated 28 days’ notice, which was 5 November, the same date applied by the landlord.
Finding as I do that the landlord is entitled to rent until 5 November 2024, the landlord’s claim is established.
At the hearing, the tenant states when the tenancy started, she needed to pay the landlord $1,060 as well as the bond. That might well be correct. The rental for the premises was $1,060 per week, and the tenancy agreement required that it be paid in advance. So there would be no issue with the landlord requiring that payment, as well as the bond, before the commencement of the tenancy. I note that the landlords rent ledger records that $1,060 was received at the commencement of the tenancy, so it does appear that this money has been accounted for. Landlords Claim 2 – Water rates
The landlord has claimed $86.13 for outstanding water rates. The landlord confirmed that amount is only the consumption charge outstanding from the tenant. Analysis
Tenants are liable for utility charges like water, that are exclusively the result of the tenants occupation of the premises. That means the tenant is liable to pay the consumption charges for the water. The landlord has provided a ledger which shows the relevant charges, and the payments made by the tenant, if anything the amount owing maybe higher than that claimed at the hearing. In any event, the tenant has not disproven liability to the water charges, so this claim is established. Tenants Claim
The only claim from the tenant was around a bond release. As I advised at the hearing, the Tribunal would order the bond be released based on the level of success the landlord had. The bond is to be split between the parties as ordered above.

FILING FEE

Because the landlord has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal, which is $27.00.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case only the tenant applied for name suppression. However as the tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding, the tenants application for name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5043170 — Rent arrears at 11D Manuwai Road, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5043170 — Rent arrears at 11D Manuwai Road, Torbay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

CLAIMS TO BE CONSIDERED

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

CLAIMS TO BE CONSIDERED

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions