What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5174753?

The tribunal order states: Gwen Slote must pay Propertyscouts Dunedin 2017 Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5174753?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5174753?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5174753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12151754-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5174753?

The tribunal order states: Gwen Slote must pay Propertyscouts Dunedin 2017 Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5174753?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5174753?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5174753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12151754-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

51 Cannington Road, Maori Hill, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5174753 — Rent arrears

Order

Gwen Slote must pay Propertyscouts Dunedin 2017 Limited As Agent For Judith Middendorf & Whitney Middendorf $1,370.00 from the bond, being rent arrears.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,740.00 (3354862-014) immediately apportioned as follows: Propertyscouts Dunedin 2017 Limited As Agent For Judith Middendorf & Whitney Middendorf: $1,370.00 Gwen Slote: $1,370.00
The landlord did not pursue a claim for early termination/break lease/assignment of tenancy fees at the hearing.
The tenant’s claim for reduction of a fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 18 April 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears to 11 March, being the day before a new tenancy started.
The tenant says that it paid rent up to the agreed end of the tenancy on 14 February 2025.
On 15 January 2025 the tenant sent an email to the landlord asking to break the fixed-term tenancy early as she had purchased a house. She asked if the tenancy could end on 14 February 2025. She acknowledged that she would have to find a replacement tenant.
The landlord responded by sending an application for assignment of lease form to the tenant. The application advised that the landlord would find new tenants to allow the tenant to move on and there would be a charge to cover costs. The tenant was reminded that the tenancy would continue until a new tenancy begins or until the fixed term expires. The tenant completed the form sent by the landlord and submitted it back to the landlord on 16 January 2024.
At 10:40am on 20 January, the landlord advised: “Your tenancy at 51 Cannington Road Maori Hill will be ending on 14 February 2025.” The email also gave a final amount payable for rent to the vacate date.
At 10:45am on 20 January, the landlord sent another email which stated that the landlord would like to begin viewings and asked if Friday was suitable to the tenant.
The tenant replied that the viewing time was fine. She also noted that she had received the email stating that her tenancy would end on 14 February 2025, and that she had seen the advertisement for the new tenancy, at a higher rent than she was paying. She said that she assumed that meant that the lease wasn’t being assigned, as her tenancy was ending.
The landlord replied that there had been an error. The landlord’s email said that there needed to be a few days to accommodate the change of tenancies, so the tenant should work to 18 February as an approximate move out date.
The tenant was, understandably, confused by this point and sought further clarification about whether her lease was ending, whether she could assign her lease, or whether the landlord was looking for alternative tenants on new terms. The only reply the parties provided me with was an email from the landlord, stating the rent would increase at the end of the fixed term in April anyway, so it seemed reasonable to advertise the property that way to new tenants.
The tenant maintains that her tenancy ended on 14 February 2025, as advised in the landlord’s email of 20 January 2025. The landlord says it did not release the tenant, the tenant still had keys 1 and is liable to pay rent until a new tenancy started (or this tenancy was assigned) on 12 March 2025.
Having completed forms supplied by the landlord, and then receiving notification that her tenancy would end on 14 February 2025, the tenant had a reasonable expectation that the landlord had released her from her obligations under the lease from that date. Further, the tenant had requested an assignment of the tenancy. Where a tenancy is assigned, a tenant transfers their rights and responsibilities under the agreement to a new tenant, effectively replacing them for the remaining lease term.
Even at the hearing, the landlord seemed confused about the process followed. The landlord’s representative repeated that the tenancy had been assigned and then maintained that it couldn’t be assigned because there was only a short time left to run on it. The landlord provided no documentary evidence of the new tenancy (or assignment) including the date replacement tenants began paying rent. She also provided no evidence of the rent being paid by the new tenants; however, their bond payment was four times the higher weekly rent advertised by the landlord.
So, based on communication from the landlord, the tenant understood that a new tenant would be found at the current rent to take over her lease. The landlord then advertised the premises at a higher rental and notified the tenant that her lease would end on 14 March (as requested). Responses from the landlord from that point were vague and unhelpful.
Balanced against that, the tenant had been advised that she would be liable for rent until a new tenant was found. 2 I accept the landlord’s oral evidence that new tenants became liable for rent from 12 March 2025.
I have awarded rent to 27 February 2025, being the mid-point between the dates advanced by each of the parties. In my view that result best reflects the overall interests and justice of the parties, having regard to the evidence outlined above.
I also record that the landlord did not advance its claim for break lease/early termination costs at the hearing. The landlord’s representative confirmed several times, that its claim was only for the rent arrears. 1 The tenant says she left the keys on the bench at the property. Whether the tenant had a key, or not, does not alter my decision. 2 That is consistent with a tenant’s usual obligation when they are released from a fixed term tenancy. Tenant Application
For completeness, I deal briefly with the tenant application for early termination of the fixed term tenancy.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The initial change in the tenant's circumstances was she purchased a home with the possession date taking place during the term of this tenancy. That change was within the tenant’s control and was not unforeseen. Also, at the hearing there was no substantive evidence in relation to hardship from either party.
The tenant said that she made the application because the landlord has denied an assignment of the tenancy. That is not a ground for early termination under s66. Further, while the landlord was unclear about the process, it did agree to release the tenant from the fixed term.
The tenant’s application to reduce the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.
I have released the bond taking account of the rent arrears awarded.
As both parties have been partially successful, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order

Gwen Slote must pay Propertyscouts Dunedin 2017 Limited As Agent For Judith Middendorf & Whitney Middendorf $1,370.00 from the bond, being rent arrears.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,740.00 (3354862-014) immediately apportioned as follows: Propertyscouts Dunedin 2017 Limited As Agent For Judith Middendorf & Whitney Middendorf: $1,370.00 Gwen Slote: $1,370.00
The landlord did not pursue a claim for early termination/break lease/assignment of tenancy fees at the hearing.
The tenant’s claim for reduction of a fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 18 April 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears to 11 March, being the day before a new tenancy started.
The tenant says that it paid rent up to the agreed end of the tenancy on 14 February 2025.
On 15 January 2025 the tenant sent an email to the landlord asking to break the fixed-term tenancy early as she had purchased a house. She asked if the tenancy could end on 14 February 2025. She acknowledged that she would have to find a replacement tenant.
The landlord responded by sending an application for assignment of lease form to the tenant. The application advised that the landlord would find new tenants to allow the tenant to move on and there would be a charge to cover costs. The tenant was reminded that the tenancy would continue until a new tenancy begins or until the fixed term expires. The tenant completed the form sent by the landlord and submitted it back to the landlord on 16 January 2024.
At 10:40am on 20 January, the landlord advised: “Your tenancy at 51 Cannington Road Maori Hill will be ending on 14 February 2025.” The email also gave a final amount payable for rent to the vacate date.
At 10:45am on 20 January, the landlord sent another email which stated that the landlord would like to begin viewings and asked if Friday was suitable to the tenant.
The tenant replied that the viewing time was fine. She also noted that she had received the email stating that her tenancy would end on 14 February 2025, and that she had seen the advertisement for the new tenancy, at a higher rent than she was paying. She said that she assumed that meant that the lease wasn’t being assigned, as her tenancy was ending.
The landlord replied that there had been an error. The landlord’s email said that there needed to be a few days to accommodate the change of tenancies, so the tenant should work to 18 February as an approximate move out date.
The tenant was, understandably, confused by this point and sought further clarification about whether her lease was ending, whether she could assign her lease, or whether the landlord was looking for alternative tenants on new terms. The only reply the parties provided me with was an email from the landlord, stating the rent would increase at the end of the fixed term in April anyway, so it seemed reasonable to advertise the property that way to new tenants.
The tenant maintains that her tenancy ended on 14 February 2025, as advised in the landlord’s email of 20 January 2025. The landlord says it did not release the tenant, the tenant still had keys 1 and is liable to pay rent until a new tenancy started (or this tenancy was assigned) on 12 March 2025.
Having completed forms supplied by the landlord, and then receiving notification that her tenancy would end on 14 February 2025, the tenant had a reasonable expectation that the landlord had released her from her obligations under the lease from that date. Further, the tenant had requested an assignment of the tenancy. Where a tenancy is assigned, a tenant transfers their rights and responsibilities under the agreement to a new tenant, effectively replacing them for the remaining lease term.
Even at the hearing, the landlord seemed confused about the process followed. The landlord’s representative repeated that the tenancy had been assigned and then maintained that it couldn’t be assigned because there was only a short time left to run on it. The landlord provided no documentary evidence of the new tenancy (or assignment) including the date replacement tenants began paying rent. She also provided no evidence of the rent being paid by the new tenants; however, their bond payment was four times the higher weekly rent advertised by the landlord.
So, based on communication from the landlord, the tenant understood that a new tenant would be found at the current rent to take over her lease. The landlord then advertised the premises at a higher rental and notified the tenant that her lease would end on 14 March (as requested). Responses from the landlord from that point were vague and unhelpful.
Balanced against that, the tenant had been advised that she would be liable for rent until a new tenant was found. 2 I accept the landlord’s oral evidence that new tenants became liable for rent from 12 March 2025.
I have awarded rent to 27 February 2025, being the mid-point between the dates advanced by each of the parties. In my view that result best reflects the overall interests and justice of the parties, having regard to the evidence outlined above.
I also record that the landlord did not advance its claim for break lease/early termination costs at the hearing. The landlord’s representative confirmed several times, that its claim was only for the rent arrears. 1 The tenant says she left the keys on the bench at the property. Whether the tenant had a key, or not, does not alter my decision. 2 That is consistent with a tenant’s usual obligation when they are released from a fixed term tenancy. Tenant Application
For completeness, I deal briefly with the tenant application for early termination of the fixed term tenancy.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The initial change in the tenant's circumstances was she purchased a home with the possession date taking place during the term of this tenancy. That change was within the tenant’s control and was not unforeseen. Also, at the hearing there was no substantive evidence in relation to hardship from either party.
The tenant said that she made the application because the landlord has denied an assignment of the tenancy. That is not a ground for early termination under s66. Further, while the landlord was unclear about the process, it did agree to release the tenant from the fixed term.
The tenant’s application to reduce the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.
I have released the bond taking account of the rent arrears awarded.
As both parties have been partially successful, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5174753 — Rent arrears at 51 Cannington Road, Maori Hill, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5174753 — Rent arrears at 51 Cannington Road, Maori Hill, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions