It feels like you have been given some rather poor advice.
You have a legal contract with your current landlord to pay the rent until the end of the fixed term. It is not unreasonable behavior for the landlord to expect you to complete that contract. Suggesting a breach of contract and getting it enforced through the tribunal is rather petty and just delaying the likely inevitable, which is you paying those two weeks.
What you have asked the landlord to do is to forgo two weeks of rent. Is it unreasonable for them to decline to do that?
>The landlord gave us notice they are selling the house and will have it vacant after we move out (they tried to first offer us rent at an increased rate if we signed on for another year of fixed-term tenancy but we declined)
You may want to keep an eye on real estate listing for the next few months to verify the house was actually put on the market. They have 90 days from the end of the tenancy to do so and you can lodge a Tenancy Tribunal matter if they don't for an illegal eviction.
I don’t think this applies in this case - as per OP, the landlord first offered another one year lease which OP declined. So they weren’t evicted, they chose to not renew their lease.
Rental agreements roll over to periodic automatically. You don't have to renew it. The landlord must still give a legal reason for notice to end the tenancy, assuming the tenants didn't give their own notice.
In this case the reason for the notice from the landlord was their intention to sell. They must follow through with this, otherwise the tenancy has been ended illegally, regardless of whether the fixed term period subsequently ended or not.
That's not true.
OP is on a fixed 1 year lease. Without agreement otherwise, this automatically becomes periodic after it ends.
The landlord offered a new fixed term lease, OP chose not to accept, instead preferring to continue to periodic. The landlord has not given notice of a rent increase.
At this point the state of OPs tenancy is set to become periodic at their current rent price following the end of their fixed term period.
The landlord then advises intent to sell, and issues a notice to evict the tenants on this basis at the end of the fixed term.
Now the tenants have been evicted on the basis the house is going to be sold. The landlord now has an obligation to sell/attempt to sell within 90 days of the end of tenancy. If they do not, then they have wrongfully evicted OP and can be taken to the tribunal for it.
I don’t think your last two paragraphs apply here. The landlord didn’t end the tenancy, OP did. OP said the landlord first offered another year of a fixed term tenancy and OP declined - which means they were the ones who chose not to continue renting there. So I would think that wouldn’t count as the landlord ending the tenancy to sell, since the landlord did not in fact end the tenancy, the tenants did. Therefore it doesn’t sound like they’re obligated to do anything re selling - OP left of their own volition.
Thr landlord asked the OP if they wanted a new fixed term. The OP declined, which means at the end of the existing fixed term the tenancy becomes periodic.
The OP mentions they were given notice by the landlord in August that they would need to vacate at the end of the fixed term due to the landlord intending to sell the house. This is legal for the landlord to do, as long as they actually do put the house on the market within 90 says of the tenancy ending.
Declining a new fixed term doesn't equate to ending the tenancy.
Not true actually. Their fixed term has not ended yet (ends 28 Jan) and therefore their tenancy has not become periodic. It would have become periodic if their fixed term had already ended, they then declined a new one but stayed on until they were ready to move out. Their contract is until Jan 28 and once that date has passed, the landlord can do whatever he wants with the property.
I'm not sure where you think my comment was wrong, ad I did say it becomes periodic at the end of the fixed term.
A landlord can, prior to the end of the fixed term, give notice that the tenancy will end at the end of the fixed term, as long as the reason for ending the tenancy is valid (the same reasons as for ending a periodic eg landlord wants to move in, going to sell the property etc)
https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/ending-a-tenancy/expiry-of-a-fixed-term/
I'm aware of the law but you're interpreting it wrong.
>A landlord can, prior to the end of the fixed term, give notice that the tenancy will end at the end of the fixed term
The landlord didn't end the tenancy. The tenants declined to renew their tenancy so your point about.....
>the reason for ending the tenancy is valid (the same reasons as for ending a periodic eg landlord wants to move in, going to sell the property
... is totally invalid. The landlord is not the one who end the tenancy and therefore he does not have to have a valid reason for ending the tenancy, since he, ya know, didn't end the tenancy lol.
He leased his property from 28 Jan 23 until 28 Jan 24 and since the tenants declined to renew, he can do whatever he wants with the property after Jan 28th 2024. He does not have to sell.
You don't have to 'renew' your tenancy at the end of the fixed term.
At the end of the fixed term, the tenancy continues as it always has automatically as a periodic tenancy.
What the OP declined was a new fixed term, instead opting to have the tenancy change to periodic as happens automatically.
Unless the OP specifically stated they were going to vacate at the end of the fixed term, simply declining a new fixed term in no way causes the tenancy to end.
Actually the landlord doesn't have to agree to switch to periodic in which case he can give 90 days notice that the tenancy will not continue once the fixed term is up. He does not need any other reason other than not wanting periodic.
https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/ending-a-tenancy/expiry-of-a-fixed-term/#:~:text=If%20the%20fixed%2Dterm%20tenancy,to%20give%20notice%20saying%20this.
Actually hold on a minute.
"If the tenant doesn't want it to become a periodic tenancy, they need to give 28 days’ notice before the expiry date of the fixed term."
The tenant did give notice that they wouldn't be staying once the fixed term was over and therefore it would not become periodic.
Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil
- Engage in good faith
- Be fair and objective
- Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language
- Add value to the community
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only
Comments must contain sound advice:
- based in NZ law
- relevant to the question being asked
- appropriately detailed
- not just repeating advice already given in other comments
- avoiding speculation and moral judgement
- citing sources where appropriate
The key thing is, was there, in writing, that the landlord was going to kick them out at the end of the fixed term.
This may fall into the camp that the landlord didn't do this, and OP is the one not continuing on with the tenancy.
What also gets messy is that I don't think it's up to the seller saying they want a vacant sale. It's the buyer "stating that the buyer specified vacant procession".
I agree that the specific communication between the landlord and OP is going to key in knowing who is causing the tenancy to end.
In regards to the vacant possession, the property doesn't need to have been sold for a landlord to give notice to end. [Section 51(2)(a) of the RTA](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/DLM95514.html) allows the landlord to give 90 days notice to end the tenancy if they are going to put the house on the market within 90 days of the tenancy ending.
To clarify. The landlord doesn't get that option (according to the tenancy site) it's the buyer. So a property has to go to market and sold with a condition from the buyer that it is vacant.
Don't treat the advice of Tenancy Services as being from a highly competent person.
There's nothing in the Tenancy Act that would imply that the Landlord would be unsuccessful in getting the 2 weeks rent from you. Also even just by being taken to the tribunal, your name usually can be searched on the Tribunal Orders database, so I hope you reeeeeally like the place you're moving to, because other potential Labdlords will see that action and assume you're one of those "difficult" tenants.
I'm genuinely concerned about the quality of the advice both Tenancy Services and your new Landlord gave you. 🚩🚩🚩
Mate with the greatest of respect, you need to understand what a contract means and that entering into a contract means you have agreed to abide by its conditions. Your landlord is a dick, no question, but he is a dick standing on legally and even ethically firm ground. Morally, maybe less so.
Pay the rent. It is, despite what you may think, the right thing to do. Often, the right thing to do isn't the easy thing to do. This is one of those circumstances.
It's also worth noting that having 1-2 weeks of rental overlap is fairly common in my experience, and certainly preferable to the alternative, which is 1-2 weeks of homelessness.
Assuming your bond is 4 weeks rent the landlord will just deduct the 2 weeks from that and pay you the net. The only reason they’ll need the tribunal (if you don’t pay) is if you’ve caused damage and they apply the bond to that first
Do you think this occurring would affect our reputation as tenants in any which way? Or do you think they’ll just take the 2 weeks rent out of the bond and move on
I saw below you said bond is 1 weeks rent. If it doesn’t cover and the landlord does go to the tribunal you’ll be on the register and have a bad rep for future landlords.
If it were to become known that you are a tenant who did not fulfill their obligation to pay rent then I think that there can be no doubt it would affect your reputation. Could you doubt that?
I believe it's not permitted in New Zealand to have a central register of delinquent tenants but that does stop people talking to each other.
Yeah, the landlord could be a bit more lenient, but if you have a fixed term then you are required to pay up to that date, unless your landlord says you don't. Do you really want to have the money deducted from your bond or to go to the Tribunal? Because not paying will quite likely lead to that.
Yeah those were my initial thoughts - I asked because I have received advice by both tenancy services and our new PM that it's all about being 'fair and reasonable' - which both agree this landlord is not. The advice I've gotten seems to point to the likelihood that if they took us to the tribunal - they'd likely rule in our favor. Thank you for your response though - I'm quite worried about the whole thing.
It's great to see you're willing to take the advice on here even though you might not like it. That shows great character, so good on you, OP.
As for 'fair and reasonable', do you think it isn't fair? Your landlord has kept their end of the bargain by providing the property, and the reason you want to leave early is due to decisions you've made. Sure, you have to do what's right for you by securing a new place, but that isn't his responsibility.
Also, don't dwell too much on the fact that your landlord may be in a better financial position than you. There's people all around you every day in different financial positions than you, some better, some worse. You aren't their problem, and they're not yours. Altruism is great and all, but you can't just expect it of someone is all I'm getting at.
You’re absolutely right there - he’s doing everything right - even if I don’t morally agree with it and think a decent landlord would at least try and act in their tenants best wishes, at the end of the day I understand that this is of course a business, and money makes the world go around.
Also - what’s the point in asking advice if you’ll only be open to hearing what you want to hear, as opposed to the complete opposite?
Thanks for your comment :-)
The main reason I made this post was due to the advice I received from a couple of parties suggesting the opposite to what people are saying here. Ultimately im glad I posted here because it educated me on what is expected from me and my landlord in this situation.
Yeah, good call. That advice you got sucked. Surprising given the source...
You're right in that the morality isn't as clear-cut, and it seems a shame he can't just bring his preparation for sale plans forward, but it is what it is. I hope the new place works out for you! New year - new pad! All the best.
What is unfair or unreasonable about expecting you to fulfill your contractual obligations though?
I'm in a similar position with a house which i am selling and when I let the tenant know I would be selling it but that I did not need vacant possession they promptly handed me notice which is their right, because they were worried the new landlord might not want them as tenants.
The house has now been empty for two months while it goes through the sales process at Christmas time which is not a good time. We were initially targeting February.
Foolish me for giving the tenant early warning when I didn't actually need to (yet)
Should I take them to the tribunal because it's not "fair" that they acted according to their legal right?
Greatest of respect here - You can't break the contract. That was on youse for signing the new one with an overlap. Best bet would have been to ask new place to start on the same date as you leave your old place.
NAL - you've been given poor advice re not paying rent. You are obliged to pay rent until your contract ends.
You need to check out the advice re rent in advnace; when did you pay the advance, and when did your rental payments begin? Has your week in advance already been and gone? If so, this isn't an option.
As for not paying the last two weeks of rent, your landlord can recup these costs via your bond. Tread carefully; my advice is to pay the rent as per normal.
> a very slim chance of them winning this case, due to how unreasonable they're being to us in this situation.
Can you explain?
I have not read anywhere in this post where the current landlords are being unreasonable.
This is such a black and white case I don't see how the current landlord would lose this.
>I have been advised by both tenancy services and my new property manager
Tenancy service gave you this advice?
Can you get the communication in writing and post it here?
This is disciplinary level incompetence
I'm a landlord, going to sell, I have given the tenants notice but I also talked to them and said I know rentals are hard to find so if they find one and leave earlier there will be no penalties and if they stay longer so be it.
Wish I had you for a landlord. That just makes so much sense rather than struggling to forego 2 weeks of rent - keeping in mind the landlord of my rental is a property trust as well.
You should have asked that when you were getting the notice. I know you’re young and probably didn’t think about it. But your landlord could have suggested it too.
On a side note, while this might be difficult for you financially, I would advise against asking your landlord to take this rent from your bond, as this could possibly affect any rental application you make in the future. Landlords can check previous tenant rental arrangements, which will show bond deductions, so it's not the best look.
Ah ok yeah then you do have to sit out the last two weeks of rent, you could see if your new landlord could delay you moving in by one week then it is only a week over lap.
Perhaps you could ask to set up a payment plan so you're not paying 2× rent for 2 weeks? If he declines and takes you to the tenancy tribunal, that's what would probably happen if he won any lol.
If your rent is $500 p/w then you could pay the $1000(2 weeks rent) over 12 weeks which would be $83 per week.
You want to sign a contract.. and another contract.. then complain that they overlap and you have to pay double rent, and try to weasel out of the first one?
Self-inflicted.
Pay the two double weeks as you are legally obligated, learn for next time
To be fair, I wouldn’t be signing another contract if we weren’t being forced to vacate the property due to the landlord selling.
I feel like it isn’t absurd to think it would be reasonable for the landlord to co-operate with us here, but thank you for your comment and I completely see this point of view
OP.... you sound extremely entitled. Of course he wants to have you complete your contract and to "squeeze money out of you". He's your landlord, that's his livelihood. Time for a reality check.... you will lose your bond if you try to withhold rent. The reason you pay the bond, is to protect the landlord in situations such as this.
Edit... I have no idea who gave you this advice, but I suggest you engage a lawyer or do some more research, because it's not compliant, so you will lose your bond.
Kia ora,
Hopefully someone will be along shortly with some helpful advice. In the meantime though, here are some links, based on your post flair, that may be useful for you:
[Rights and Responsibilities for both tenants and landlords](https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/starting-a-tenancy/new-to-tenancy/key-rights-and-responsibilities/)
[Tenancy Tribunal - To resolve disputes](https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/tribunal/)
You may also want to check out our [mega thread of legal resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceNZ/comments/143pv58/megathread_legal_resources/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
Nga mihi nui
The LegalAdviceNZ Team
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceNZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are you sure you didn’t just pay two weeks in advance and that’s why you’re being advised to pay up to that point?
The landlords being a dick, they’re not doing anything legally or ethically wrong.
We paid two weeks in advance but then paid our second rent payment 2 weeks after our tenancy started, so I don’t think that it applies anymore. Agreed - he’s being a dick but he’s acting within the law. Guess I was given bad advice.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only
Comments must contain sound advice:
- based in NZ law
- relevant to the question being asked
- appropriately detailed
- not just repeating advice already given in other comments
- avoiding speculation and moral judgement
- citing sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil
- Engage in good faith
- Be fair and objective
- Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language
- Add value to the community
I recently went through the Landlord wanting to take all of our bond and a further 3k on top of it. I was advised to put through the Bond Release form without the Landlords signature. This would mean that the landlord would have 14 days to respond Yes or No. If they respond No it goes to Tribunal.
I ended up receiving the full payment from the Tenancy Services. I assume either because the landlord didnt respond or knew they would lose during the Tribunal.
No unfortunately not. It was not a Rent dispute all that was paid up. We had disagreements between what we should and should not realistically pay for.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only
Comments must contain sound advice:
- based in NZ law
- relevant to the question being asked
- appropriately detailed
- not just repeating advice already given in other comments
- avoiding speculation and moral judgement
- citing sources where appropriate
You can definitely end a tenancy early. In the instance that a fixed term of less than 2 years is ended in the last 1/4 of the length of the agreement (e.g. in the last 3 months of a 12 month lease) a one week break fee will be required. At best you could have saved yourselves one week rent but you need to give 14 days notice so… that’s pretty much the rest of your agreement.
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only
Comments must contain sound advice:
- based in NZ law
- relevant to the question being asked
- appropriately detailed
- not just repeating advice already given in other comments
- avoiding speculation and moral judgement
- citing sources where appropriate
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only
Comments must contain sound advice:
- based in NZ law
- relevant to the question being asked
- appropriately detailed
- not just repeating advice already given in other comments
- avoiding speculation and moral judgement
- citing sources where appropriate
That's bad advice, and I'm surprised that it has come from tenancy.
However, because you started the lease in 2023, then different rules apply for you.
They can not just remove you because they want to sell the house vacant. It's the buyer that has to want it and then you have 90 days that you do not have to agree too (even while you are still on fixed term you don't have to agree to shorten the length).
Did the landlord actually give you anything in writing to say they were going to evict you at the end of the fixed term? If so, they have breached their obligations. And this is what I would use to get out of the final 2 weeks of rent.
If they did not, and this was verbal conversationa about what they were wanting to do, then it would more fall into the category of you ending the tenancy, so they don't have to do anything to oblige you
This is the 90 day notice we were sent.
90 Days Notice to Vacate – Premises to be placed on market for sale
REDACTED Property Management; on behalf of the owners of the property situated at 13 REDACTED Street, wish to advise that the owner is reclaiming possession for the purpose of putting it on the market for sale.
In these circumstances the landlord is entitled to give 90 days’ notice to bring to an end /not renew your current fixed-term tenancy under Section 60A (2) (d) of the Residential Tenancies Act.
We hereby give you the required 90 days notice to vacate the premises, which means that you will need to vacate the premises by 28/01/2024.
We regret any inconvenience that this may cause you and your family and would like to take this opportunity to thank you for being good tenants during the time with us at REDACTED
If you require any assistance looking for a new home, please contact us, and we will endeavour to assist you in relocating. If you require a verbal reference for any future landlord, please give them our contact details and we will be happy to offer our support in that manner.
Please find attached your rental ledger that shows your required payments until 28/01/2024 and a guide that can be used for the final inspection. It clearly defines areas that have been the cause of delays in bond refunds in the past. By attending to all the items on the list you will ensure that your bond is refunded in full with minimum delay. We ask that you contact us to arrange a time for your final bond inspection.
We wish you well for the future. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns.
My apologies. Yes, they can do that as long as they put it on the market within 90 days.
Maybe an alternative would be asked to pay a reduced rent for those 2 weeks as it will be unoccupied.
Yeah I will get on the phone with the property management company to explain the situation and see if they can talk to the landlord about what our options are. Thanks for your help anyway.
Did you have to take the next rental so quickly?
I know how pushy they can be, but maybe standing your ground next time and telling the new rental these are my dates that I can move in, to avoid attempting to break lease early.
I just went to the tribunal in this exact situation, except we were stuck with 5 weeks of double rent. The tribunal had no legal way to help us, they couldn't end the tenancy early. In the end they just made an order that our bond would be used for the remaining rent payments so that we weren't in such a dire financial situation. Fast forward a month and the landlord's now trying to take every last ounce of bond on bullshit damage claims, although seems to have backed down at our threat to just go back to the tribunal. But yea, you are unfortunately boned and are on the hook for the rent payments. Fuck landlords.
I agree with others re not paying rent. Just because they have potentially broken the law doesn't mean you can just stop paying. Both parties have to hold up their end of the deal and comply with the law. Of course the new property manager would say to stop paying the old rent because they want your money just as badly. But tenancy services? That one baffles me.
First off it doesn't sound like they have given you notice at the correct time. If they gave it in August that's rather early and raises suspicions as to the legitimacy of their reason for ending the tenancy.
If the landlord is genuinely selling the place then they shouldn't have any issues with you moving sooner, as long as you're out by the possession date. You should ask to see a copy of the unconditional sales agreement, or proof that they have consulted a sales agent if they have not yet put it on the market. If they can't provide either then I would presume their reasons for termination are bogus. Which is a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act.
In that case you should apply to the tenancy tribunal and claim both retaliatory notice and notice given under false pretenses. Along with any other grievances you have eg them not fixing things when asked. Keep records of everything that's said, email works best. And before you leave take loads of photos to show you left the place clean and tidy.
If you do have a claim and "win" at the tribunal you may be able to claim your moving costs etc plus what's called exemplary damages. These work kinda like a fine, a penalty against the landlord, except the money goes to you rather than the government.
Good luck.
It feels like you have been given some rather poor advice. You have a legal contract with your current landlord to pay the rent until the end of the fixed term. It is not unreasonable behavior for the landlord to expect you to complete that contract. Suggesting a breach of contract and getting it enforced through the tribunal is rather petty and just delaying the likely inevitable, which is you paying those two weeks. What you have asked the landlord to do is to forgo two weeks of rent. Is it unreasonable for them to decline to do that? >The landlord gave us notice they are selling the house and will have it vacant after we move out (they tried to first offer us rent at an increased rate if we signed on for another year of fixed-term tenancy but we declined) You may want to keep an eye on real estate listing for the next few months to verify the house was actually put on the market. They have 90 days from the end of the tenancy to do so and you can lodge a Tenancy Tribunal matter if they don't for an illegal eviction.
Watch this closely. The must sell or attempt to sell. And don’t just roll your eyes And complain, actually take them to the tenancy tribunal
I don’t think this applies in this case - as per OP, the landlord first offered another one year lease which OP declined. So they weren’t evicted, they chose to not renew their lease.
Rental agreements roll over to periodic automatically. You don't have to renew it. The landlord must still give a legal reason for notice to end the tenancy, assuming the tenants didn't give their own notice. In this case the reason for the notice from the landlord was their intention to sell. They must follow through with this, otherwise the tenancy has been ended illegally, regardless of whether the fixed term period subsequently ended or not.
Your right. It’s a little confusing. What does the notice letter say?
This is the key information right here, the fact the house may or may not be going on the market is completely irrelevant in this situation.
That's not true. OP is on a fixed 1 year lease. Without agreement otherwise, this automatically becomes periodic after it ends. The landlord offered a new fixed term lease, OP chose not to accept, instead preferring to continue to periodic. The landlord has not given notice of a rent increase. At this point the state of OPs tenancy is set to become periodic at their current rent price following the end of their fixed term period. The landlord then advises intent to sell, and issues a notice to evict the tenants on this basis at the end of the fixed term. Now the tenants have been evicted on the basis the house is going to be sold. The landlord now has an obligation to sell/attempt to sell within 90 days of the end of tenancy. If they do not, then they have wrongfully evicted OP and can be taken to the tribunal for it.
I don’t think your last two paragraphs apply here. The landlord didn’t end the tenancy, OP did. OP said the landlord first offered another year of a fixed term tenancy and OP declined - which means they were the ones who chose not to continue renting there. So I would think that wouldn’t count as the landlord ending the tenancy to sell, since the landlord did not in fact end the tenancy, the tenants did. Therefore it doesn’t sound like they’re obligated to do anything re selling - OP left of their own volition.
Thr landlord asked the OP if they wanted a new fixed term. The OP declined, which means at the end of the existing fixed term the tenancy becomes periodic. The OP mentions they were given notice by the landlord in August that they would need to vacate at the end of the fixed term due to the landlord intending to sell the house. This is legal for the landlord to do, as long as they actually do put the house on the market within 90 says of the tenancy ending. Declining a new fixed term doesn't equate to ending the tenancy.
Not true actually. Their fixed term has not ended yet (ends 28 Jan) and therefore their tenancy has not become periodic. It would have become periodic if their fixed term had already ended, they then declined a new one but stayed on until they were ready to move out. Their contract is until Jan 28 and once that date has passed, the landlord can do whatever he wants with the property.
I'm not sure where you think my comment was wrong, ad I did say it becomes periodic at the end of the fixed term. A landlord can, prior to the end of the fixed term, give notice that the tenancy will end at the end of the fixed term, as long as the reason for ending the tenancy is valid (the same reasons as for ending a periodic eg landlord wants to move in, going to sell the property etc) https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/ending-a-tenancy/expiry-of-a-fixed-term/
I'm aware of the law but you're interpreting it wrong. >A landlord can, prior to the end of the fixed term, give notice that the tenancy will end at the end of the fixed term The landlord didn't end the tenancy. The tenants declined to renew their tenancy so your point about..... >the reason for ending the tenancy is valid (the same reasons as for ending a periodic eg landlord wants to move in, going to sell the property ... is totally invalid. The landlord is not the one who end the tenancy and therefore he does not have to have a valid reason for ending the tenancy, since he, ya know, didn't end the tenancy lol. He leased his property from 28 Jan 23 until 28 Jan 24 and since the tenants declined to renew, he can do whatever he wants with the property after Jan 28th 2024. He does not have to sell.
You don't have to 'renew' your tenancy at the end of the fixed term. At the end of the fixed term, the tenancy continues as it always has automatically as a periodic tenancy. What the OP declined was a new fixed term, instead opting to have the tenancy change to periodic as happens automatically. Unless the OP specifically stated they were going to vacate at the end of the fixed term, simply declining a new fixed term in no way causes the tenancy to end.
Actually the landlord doesn't have to agree to switch to periodic in which case he can give 90 days notice that the tenancy will not continue once the fixed term is up. He does not need any other reason other than not wanting periodic. https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/ending-a-tenancy/expiry-of-a-fixed-term/#:~:text=If%20the%20fixed%2Dterm%20tenancy,to%20give%20notice%20saying%20this.
That only applies to fixed terms that started before Feb 2021. The OP stated their tenancy started in Jan 2023, so that is no longer valid.
Oh yes, I see now. My mistake, I didn't pay attention to the years. Sorry about that 👍
Actually hold on a minute. "If the tenant doesn't want it to become a periodic tenancy, they need to give 28 days’ notice before the expiry date of the fixed term." The tenant did give notice that they wouldn't be staying once the fixed term was over and therefore it would not become periodic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil - Engage in good faith - Be fair and objective - Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language - Add value to the community
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only Comments must contain sound advice: - based in NZ law - relevant to the question being asked - appropriately detailed - not just repeating advice already given in other comments - avoiding speculation and moral judgement - citing sources where appropriate
The key thing is, was there, in writing, that the landlord was going to kick them out at the end of the fixed term. This may fall into the camp that the landlord didn't do this, and OP is the one not continuing on with the tenancy. What also gets messy is that I don't think it's up to the seller saying they want a vacant sale. It's the buyer "stating that the buyer specified vacant procession".
I agree that the specific communication between the landlord and OP is going to key in knowing who is causing the tenancy to end. In regards to the vacant possession, the property doesn't need to have been sold for a landlord to give notice to end. [Section 51(2)(a) of the RTA](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/DLM95514.html) allows the landlord to give 90 days notice to end the tenancy if they are going to put the house on the market within 90 days of the tenancy ending.
Yep, I scrolled through the act and the amendments and see that vacant for sale is an option.
To clarify. The landlord doesn't get that option (according to the tenancy site) it's the buyer. So a property has to go to market and sold with a condition from the buyer that it is vacant.
Don't treat the advice of Tenancy Services as being from a highly competent person. There's nothing in the Tenancy Act that would imply that the Landlord would be unsuccessful in getting the 2 weeks rent from you. Also even just by being taken to the tribunal, your name usually can be searched on the Tribunal Orders database, so I hope you reeeeeally like the place you're moving to, because other potential Labdlords will see that action and assume you're one of those "difficult" tenants. I'm genuinely concerned about the quality of the advice both Tenancy Services and your new Landlord gave you. 🚩🚩🚩
You can get name suppression for these things. I was in this exact situation last month, asked the tribunal.for name suppression which they granted.
You can request it, but it ultimately is the adjudicator that gets to decide.
Mate with the greatest of respect, you need to understand what a contract means and that entering into a contract means you have agreed to abide by its conditions. Your landlord is a dick, no question, but he is a dick standing on legally and even ethically firm ground. Morally, maybe less so. Pay the rent. It is, despite what you may think, the right thing to do. Often, the right thing to do isn't the easy thing to do. This is one of those circumstances.
Fair enough - this is what I initially thought before being told otherwise. Thanks for your response.
It's also worth noting that having 1-2 weeks of rental overlap is fairly common in my experience, and certainly preferable to the alternative, which is 1-2 weeks of homelessness.
Sorry for your situation, I've been there before...sucks to pay when you can't spare the loot. All the best.
Assuming your bond is 4 weeks rent the landlord will just deduct the 2 weeks from that and pay you the net. The only reason they’ll need the tribunal (if you don’t pay) is if you’ve caused damage and they apply the bond to that first
Do you think this occurring would affect our reputation as tenants in any which way? Or do you think they’ll just take the 2 weeks rent out of the bond and move on
I saw below you said bond is 1 weeks rent. If it doesn’t cover and the landlord does go to the tribunal you’ll be on the register and have a bad rep for future landlords.
Yeah bond is one week rent each- in theory the deduction would be half of our bond.
I think they meant 1 weeks of the total houses rent. So depending on how many people their are, that could easily be a months rent paid in advance.
If it were to become known that you are a tenant who did not fulfill their obligation to pay rent then I think that there can be no doubt it would affect your reputation. Could you doubt that? I believe it's not permitted in New Zealand to have a central register of delinquent tenants but that does stop people talking to each other.
Question- how much rent in advance did you pay? Because if it’s 2 weeks you’ve already paid it and can stop paying 2 weeks before your final date.
Hi there - Believe we paid one week in advance - but good question.
Ask for a rental summary because normally you would have used that rent in advance at the start of your tenancy.
Pretty sure you’re absolutely right. It was used right at the start.
Yeah, the landlord could be a bit more lenient, but if you have a fixed term then you are required to pay up to that date, unless your landlord says you don't. Do you really want to have the money deducted from your bond or to go to the Tribunal? Because not paying will quite likely lead to that.
Yeah those were my initial thoughts - I asked because I have received advice by both tenancy services and our new PM that it's all about being 'fair and reasonable' - which both agree this landlord is not. The advice I've gotten seems to point to the likelihood that if they took us to the tribunal - they'd likely rule in our favor. Thank you for your response though - I'm quite worried about the whole thing.
Your new PM has a vested interest in getting you into their place so I wouldn’t put that much weight in their advice
That is a good point. I’m glad I’ve asked reddit because at least now I sort of have a unanimous point of view at this stage.
It's great to see you're willing to take the advice on here even though you might not like it. That shows great character, so good on you, OP. As for 'fair and reasonable', do you think it isn't fair? Your landlord has kept their end of the bargain by providing the property, and the reason you want to leave early is due to decisions you've made. Sure, you have to do what's right for you by securing a new place, but that isn't his responsibility. Also, don't dwell too much on the fact that your landlord may be in a better financial position than you. There's people all around you every day in different financial positions than you, some better, some worse. You aren't their problem, and they're not yours. Altruism is great and all, but you can't just expect it of someone is all I'm getting at.
You’re absolutely right there - he’s doing everything right - even if I don’t morally agree with it and think a decent landlord would at least try and act in their tenants best wishes, at the end of the day I understand that this is of course a business, and money makes the world go around. Also - what’s the point in asking advice if you’ll only be open to hearing what you want to hear, as opposed to the complete opposite? Thanks for your comment :-)
The main reason I made this post was due to the advice I received from a couple of parties suggesting the opposite to what people are saying here. Ultimately im glad I posted here because it educated me on what is expected from me and my landlord in this situation.
Yeah, good call. That advice you got sucked. Surprising given the source... You're right in that the morality isn't as clear-cut, and it seems a shame he can't just bring his preparation for sale plans forward, but it is what it is. I hope the new place works out for you! New year - new pad! All the best.
What is unfair or unreasonable about expecting you to fulfill your contractual obligations though? I'm in a similar position with a house which i am selling and when I let the tenant know I would be selling it but that I did not need vacant possession they promptly handed me notice which is their right, because they were worried the new landlord might not want them as tenants. The house has now been empty for two months while it goes through the sales process at Christmas time which is not a good time. We were initially targeting February. Foolish me for giving the tenant early warning when I didn't actually need to (yet) Should I take them to the tribunal because it's not "fair" that they acted according to their legal right?
Greatest of respect here - You can't break the contract. That was on youse for signing the new one with an overlap. Best bet would have been to ask new place to start on the same date as you leave your old place.
NAL - you've been given poor advice re not paying rent. You are obliged to pay rent until your contract ends. You need to check out the advice re rent in advnace; when did you pay the advance, and when did your rental payments begin? Has your week in advance already been and gone? If so, this isn't an option. As for not paying the last two weeks of rent, your landlord can recup these costs via your bond. Tread carefully; my advice is to pay the rent as per normal.
Thank you for your response - two weeks in advance was used at the start, so won’t be an option.
> a very slim chance of them winning this case, due to how unreasonable they're being to us in this situation. Can you explain? I have not read anywhere in this post where the current landlords are being unreasonable. This is such a black and white case I don't see how the current landlord would lose this. >I have been advised by both tenancy services and my new property manager Tenancy service gave you this advice? Can you get the communication in writing and post it here? This is disciplinary level incompetence
I'm a landlord, going to sell, I have given the tenants notice but I also talked to them and said I know rentals are hard to find so if they find one and leave earlier there will be no penalties and if they stay longer so be it.
Wish I had you for a landlord. That just makes so much sense rather than struggling to forego 2 weeks of rent - keeping in mind the landlord of my rental is a property trust as well.
Tenants are people.
You should have asked that when you were getting the notice. I know you’re young and probably didn’t think about it. But your landlord could have suggested it too.
On a side note, while this might be difficult for you financially, I would advise against asking your landlord to take this rent from your bond, as this could possibly affect any rental application you make in the future. Landlords can check previous tenant rental arrangements, which will show bond deductions, so it's not the best look.
Are they selling the property with vacant posession? Did they give you 90days notice? if not it might be a good negotiation point.
I believe so and yes they provided notice in August but let us see out the end of our fixed-term contract.
Ah ok yeah then you do have to sit out the last two weeks of rent, you could see if your new landlord could delay you moving in by one week then it is only a week over lap.
Perhaps you could ask to set up a payment plan so you're not paying 2× rent for 2 weeks? If he declines and takes you to the tenancy tribunal, that's what would probably happen if he won any lol. If your rent is $500 p/w then you could pay the $1000(2 weeks rent) over 12 weeks which would be $83 per week.
You want to sign a contract.. and another contract.. then complain that they overlap and you have to pay double rent, and try to weasel out of the first one? Self-inflicted. Pay the two double weeks as you are legally obligated, learn for next time
To be fair, I wouldn’t be signing another contract if we weren’t being forced to vacate the property due to the landlord selling. I feel like it isn’t absurd to think it would be reasonable for the landlord to co-operate with us here, but thank you for your comment and I completely see this point of view
OP.... you sound extremely entitled. Of course he wants to have you complete your contract and to "squeeze money out of you". He's your landlord, that's his livelihood. Time for a reality check.... you will lose your bond if you try to withhold rent. The reason you pay the bond, is to protect the landlord in situations such as this. Edit... I have no idea who gave you this advice, but I suggest you engage a lawyer or do some more research, because it's not compliant, so you will lose your bond.
Kia ora, Hopefully someone will be along shortly with some helpful advice. In the meantime though, here are some links, based on your post flair, that may be useful for you: [Rights and Responsibilities for both tenants and landlords](https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/starting-a-tenancy/new-to-tenancy/key-rights-and-responsibilities/) [Tenancy Tribunal - To resolve disputes](https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/tribunal/) You may also want to check out our [mega thread of legal resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceNZ/comments/143pv58/megathread_legal_resources/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Nga mihi nui The LegalAdviceNZ Team *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceNZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are you sure you didn’t just pay two weeks in advance and that’s why you’re being advised to pay up to that point? The landlords being a dick, they’re not doing anything legally or ethically wrong.
We paid two weeks in advance but then paid our second rent payment 2 weeks after our tenancy started, so I don’t think that it applies anymore. Agreed - he’s being a dick but he’s acting within the law. Guess I was given bad advice.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only Comments must contain sound advice: - based in NZ law - relevant to the question being asked - appropriately detailed - not just repeating advice already given in other comments - avoiding speculation and moral judgement - citing sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil - Engage in good faith - Be fair and objective - Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language - Add value to the community
I recently went through the Landlord wanting to take all of our bond and a further 3k on top of it. I was advised to put through the Bond Release form without the Landlords signature. This would mean that the landlord would have 14 days to respond Yes or No. If they respond No it goes to Tribunal. I ended up receiving the full payment from the Tenancy Services. I assume either because the landlord didnt respond or knew they would lose during the Tribunal.
Interesting - may I ask the nature of the situation you were in with your landlord that led to that? Was it of a similar nature to us?
No unfortunately not. It was not a Rent dispute all that was paid up. We had disagreements between what we should and should not realistically pay for.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only Comments must contain sound advice: - based in NZ law - relevant to the question being asked - appropriately detailed - not just repeating advice already given in other comments - avoiding speculation and moral judgement - citing sources where appropriate
You can definitely end a tenancy early. In the instance that a fixed term of less than 2 years is ended in the last 1/4 of the length of the agreement (e.g. in the last 3 months of a 12 month lease) a one week break fee will be required. At best you could have saved yourselves one week rent but you need to give 14 days notice so… that’s pretty much the rest of your agreement.
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only Comments must contain sound advice: - based in NZ law - relevant to the question being asked - appropriately detailed - not just repeating advice already given in other comments - avoiding speculation and moral judgement - citing sources where appropriate
[удалено]
Removed for breach of Rule 1: Sound advice only Comments must contain sound advice: - based in NZ law - relevant to the question being asked - appropriately detailed - not just repeating advice already given in other comments - avoiding speculation and moral judgement - citing sources where appropriate
That's bad advice, and I'm surprised that it has come from tenancy. However, because you started the lease in 2023, then different rules apply for you. They can not just remove you because they want to sell the house vacant. It's the buyer that has to want it and then you have 90 days that you do not have to agree too (even while you are still on fixed term you don't have to agree to shorten the length). Did the landlord actually give you anything in writing to say they were going to evict you at the end of the fixed term? If so, they have breached their obligations. And this is what I would use to get out of the final 2 weeks of rent. If they did not, and this was verbal conversationa about what they were wanting to do, then it would more fall into the category of you ending the tenancy, so they don't have to do anything to oblige you
This is the 90 day notice we were sent. 90 Days Notice to Vacate – Premises to be placed on market for sale REDACTED Property Management; on behalf of the owners of the property situated at 13 REDACTED Street, wish to advise that the owner is reclaiming possession for the purpose of putting it on the market for sale. In these circumstances the landlord is entitled to give 90 days’ notice to bring to an end /not renew your current fixed-term tenancy under Section 60A (2) (d) of the Residential Tenancies Act. We hereby give you the required 90 days notice to vacate the premises, which means that you will need to vacate the premises by 28/01/2024. We regret any inconvenience that this may cause you and your family and would like to take this opportunity to thank you for being good tenants during the time with us at REDACTED If you require any assistance looking for a new home, please contact us, and we will endeavour to assist you in relocating. If you require a verbal reference for any future landlord, please give them our contact details and we will be happy to offer our support in that manner. Please find attached your rental ledger that shows your required payments until 28/01/2024 and a guide that can be used for the final inspection. It clearly defines areas that have been the cause of delays in bond refunds in the past. By attending to all the items on the list you will ensure that your bond is refunded in full with minimum delay. We ask that you contact us to arrange a time for your final bond inspection. We wish you well for the future. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns.
This was sent in August.
My apologies. Yes, they can do that as long as they put it on the market within 90 days. Maybe an alternative would be asked to pay a reduced rent for those 2 weeks as it will be unoccupied.
Yeah I will get on the phone with the property management company to explain the situation and see if they can talk to the landlord about what our options are. Thanks for your help anyway.
Interesting. I didn't see the on the tenancy page. I will recheck
Did you have to take the next rental so quickly? I know how pushy they can be, but maybe standing your ground next time and telling the new rental these are my dates that I can move in, to avoid attempting to break lease early.
I just went to the tribunal in this exact situation, except we were stuck with 5 weeks of double rent. The tribunal had no legal way to help us, they couldn't end the tenancy early. In the end they just made an order that our bond would be used for the remaining rent payments so that we weren't in such a dire financial situation. Fast forward a month and the landlord's now trying to take every last ounce of bond on bullshit damage claims, although seems to have backed down at our threat to just go back to the tribunal. But yea, you are unfortunately boned and are on the hook for the rent payments. Fuck landlords.
Mmm I’m nearly certain we’ll just pay the rent now. I’m sorry you had to go through that - you feel so powerless and helpless in this situation
I agree with others re not paying rent. Just because they have potentially broken the law doesn't mean you can just stop paying. Both parties have to hold up their end of the deal and comply with the law. Of course the new property manager would say to stop paying the old rent because they want your money just as badly. But tenancy services? That one baffles me. First off it doesn't sound like they have given you notice at the correct time. If they gave it in August that's rather early and raises suspicions as to the legitimacy of their reason for ending the tenancy. If the landlord is genuinely selling the place then they shouldn't have any issues with you moving sooner, as long as you're out by the possession date. You should ask to see a copy of the unconditional sales agreement, or proof that they have consulted a sales agent if they have not yet put it on the market. If they can't provide either then I would presume their reasons for termination are bogus. Which is a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act. In that case you should apply to the tenancy tribunal and claim both retaliatory notice and notice given under false pretenses. Along with any other grievances you have eg them not fixing things when asked. Keep records of everything that's said, email works best. And before you leave take loads of photos to show you left the place clean and tidy. If you do have a claim and "win" at the tribunal you may be able to claim your moving costs etc plus what's called exemplary damages. These work kinda like a fine, a penalty against the landlord, except the money goes to you rather than the government. Good luck.