Advise please, thank you. New Tenancy Agreement signed Friday last week and Bond and first week paid. Was to commence tomorrow after key collection from the letting agencies office today but this was unable to occur due to lockdown at level four. The agent wants to arrange for none contact transfer of the key tomorrow morning, is this legal at level four? The tenant cannot move anyway until the lockdown level is reduced and believes they need to pay at their current place until then. What are everyone’s liabilities in this situation?

ronash - 2021-08-20 22:51:00

They can't get into your house so do not pay you rent. The current place is unable to kick them out so collects there rent. i have no idea.

Edited by ash4561 at 12:33 am, Sat 21 Aug

ash4561 - 2021-08-21 00:32:00

The tenant cannot move so needs to negotiate with their current landlord to stay - current landlord can’t do anything else with the property anyway. However new tenancy is still valid, regardless of whether the agent hands over the keys or not. So potentially the tenant could be liable for rent at both ends.

Was some else due to move in to the old place? I’m sure the sympathetic landlord won’t want to double dip and collect two rents.

sparkychap - 2021-08-21 07:39:00

Thanks Sparky. No other rent coming in for current landlord re ‘double dipping’. It seems to be an unfortunate situation that all parties have been put into through no fault of their own and that the tenant carries the most liability. Perhaps both landlords could be ‘sympathetic’ and agree to each receiving a half share of their rent until level four is lifted and the move can proceed. This would have the least financial impact on the tenant and the landlords would each share in the loss ….. just my thoughts! So legally it is the tenant and the current landlord that need to figure it out as the new tenancy and key transfer is unaffected by the level four lockdown.

ronash - 2021-08-21 10:08:00

No probs, ronash.

They key exchange is largely a red herring.

Even though it could be done contactless just like Countdown dropping off my shopping, handing over the keys is not a prerequisite to the tenancy starting because the tenant can't move in anyway.

Yes, you're right, this is a situation not of their making, but it would be nice to think that as good old fellow Kiwis, landlords and tenants could come to an agreement that meets halfway.

sparkychap - 2021-08-21 10:15:00

Well last lockdown there were people moving houses. It was actually on TV,If it was just down the road then I would get the key and move by yourself, if in Auckland you will probably have 4 weeks anyway, if you have to involve others then no don't do it. But hey each to their own.

msigg - 2021-08-21 11:02:00

Non contact key exchanges would be illegal anyway.

tygertung - 2021-08-21 11:31:00

ronash wrote:

..... the tenant carries the most liability. Perhaps both landlords could be ‘sympathetic’ and agree to each receiving a half share of their rent until level four is lifted and the move can proceed. This would have the least financial impact on the tenant and the landlords would each share in the loss …. just my thoughts! ....

So just to be clear, your thoughts are that both landlords should experience a financial loss, whilst the tenant (who you feel carries the liability), should incur no financial loss?

Edited by desi1969 at 5:56 pm, Sat 21 Aug

desi1969 - 2021-08-21 17:53:00

Desi, it is my understanding that the tenant could possibly be legally liable for the two concurrent rents and that perhaps the landlords would be in a better position to carry this loss and if it is shared by them, neither landlord would lose out completely. Ideally, no landlord ‘should experience a financial loss’ and neither should the tenant but it seems someone is going to.

Edited by ronash at 6:49 pm, Sat 21 Aug

ronash - 2021-08-21 18:46:00

The tenant is liable from start of contract if no agreement can be reached such as delayed start of tenancy.

https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/about-tenancy-services/news/coro
navirus-covid-19-what-landlords-and-tenants-need-to-know/

ian1990 - 2021-08-21 18:56:00

Thank you Ian.

ronash - 2021-08-21 19:25:00

tygertung wrote:

Non contact key exchanges would be illegal anyway.

Yes, and road rules require pedestrians to use a crossing if they are within 20 metres of one.

committed - 2021-08-22 08:23:00

https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/about-tenancy-services/news/coro
navirus-covid-19-what-landlords-and-tenants-need-to-know/#AL
4

committed - 2021-08-22 08:27:00

ronash wrote:

Desi, it is my understanding that the tenant could possibly be legally liable for the two concurrent rents and that perhaps the landlords would be in a better position to carry this loss and if it is shared by them, neither landlord would lose out completely. Ideally, no landlord ‘should experience a financial loss’ and neither should the tenant but it seems someone is going to.

So you don't think the tenant should occur any financial loss or incur any costs other than what they would have had to pay if it wasn't a lockdown (ie
their normal rent)? That if people are going to be out of pocket then those people should only be landlords?

Whilst what we all 'think' isn't necessarily relevant, I'm just interested.
As Judge Judy likes to say 'just figuring out who we are dealing with' ;)

desi1969 - 2021-08-22 14:20:00

You actually watch Judge Judy?

sparkychap - 2021-08-22 14:23:00

sparkychap wrote:

You actually watch Judge Judy?

I LOVE Judy.

desi1969 - 2021-08-22 14:25:00

“If you ate the steak you must pay for the steak” ????????⚖️

lovelurking - 2021-08-22 14:28:00

Beauty fades; dumb is forever.

seaqueen - 2021-08-22 17:57:00

Don't pee on my leg and then tell me it's raining.

cinderellagowns - 2021-08-22 18:10:00

You should always go to other people’s funerals, otherwise, they won’t come to yours.

sparkychap - 2021-08-22 18:21:00

Sparky ... that is not a Judy quote, you heathen.
Lovelurking, Seaqueen and Cinders ... sending you back the love <3

desi1969 - 2021-08-23 11:33:00

Judge Jeannine is far more entertaining. Except when she's sober.

sparkychap - 2021-08-23 11:54:00

Do not RTA have a "force majeure" or similar clause?

onl_148 - 2021-08-23 11:55:00

desi1969 wrote:

So you don't think the tenant should occur any financial loss or incur any costs other than what they would have had to pay if it wasn't a lockdown (ie
their normal rent)? That if people are going to be out of pocket then those people should only be landlords?

Whilst what we all 'think' isn't necessarily relevant, I'm just interested.
As Judge Judy likes to say 'just figuring out who we are dealing with' ;)

Agree, not relevant but for your interest I’m the current landlord and a Judge Judy fan!

ronash - 2021-08-23 15:48:00

ronash wrote:

Agree, not relevant but for your interest I’m the current landlord and a Judge Judy fan!

Cool - so do you think the tenant should be out of pocket at all?

And it's an interesting dilemma now that you say you are the current landlord ...
Given you say above that there was no issue of 'double dipping' do you have another tenant signed up and when are they due to move in?

And yah to a Judy Fan <3 ;)

desi1969 - 2021-08-23 17:27:00

Desi, there is no prospective tenant in our instance.

ronash - 2021-08-23 17:56:00

ronash wrote:

Desi, there is no prospective tenant in our instance.

OK, so with that in mind then, there is also this line of thinking ...
You're not really out of pocket by letting the tenant stay there until they can move and pay their full rent to the new landlord from the date they were meant to move; as there was no expected rental income to the original landlord. As Judy would say "You're still whole" ;) (Provided they pay the extra water costs).

Perhaps it's more 'sympathetic' for the old landlord to carry the "cost" (of which there is no financial value) and both the tenant and the new landlord experience no additional loss/expenses ????

Edited by desi1969 at 6:27 pm, Mon 23 Aug

desi1969 - 2021-08-23 18:25:00

Yes Desi, ‘perhaps’ in our situation that will be the case :-)

ronash - 2021-08-23 19:20:00

Wouldn't the Tenancy Tribunal see paying double rent as causing undue hardship to the tenant given the circumstances are beyond their control?

kestrel43 - 2021-08-23 20:15:00

kestrel43 wrote:

Wouldn't the Tenancy Tribunal see paying double rent as causing undue hardship to the tenant given the circumstances are beyond their control?

yes whilst section 60 (I think) allows for the tenants liability for rent and charges to continue if they fail to leave a property, I doubt the TT would enforce it, especially as the exemplary damages clause has a “without reasonable excuse” clause.

sparkychap - 2021-08-23 20:31:00

ronash wrote:

Yes Desi, ‘perhaps’ in our situation that will be the case :-)

If you do make this offer I think it's very admirable and may good Karma come your way.

desi1969 - 2021-08-23 20:52:00

I would have thought that tenant pay rent to old landlord while trapped there and new contract with rent paid starts when they can occupy new rental. Domino effect unless rental is for new landlord who would miss out.

sher5 - 2021-08-24 14:55:00