What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4615511?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4615511?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615511?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9272211-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4615511?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4615511?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615511?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9272211-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

159 Unsworth Drive, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4615511 — Tenancy dispute

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 15 March 2023.

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

The tenant has applied for reduction of her fixed-term tenancy.
The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in s 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular, the applicant will need to establish firstly that there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances. If that is established the Tribunal then must consider: a. if there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and b. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.
The weighing of relative hardship is a question of fact to be assessed objectively in each case.
In Bond v Tang Invercargill TT09/583IN the Tribunal discussed that section 66 was used to seek a balance between the competing interests of applicant tenants, for whom significant obligations under fixed-term agreements can create hardship when circumstances unexpectedly turn against them and landlords who have financial expectations arising from the same bargain. Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances?
The tenant found the premises and signed the tenancy agreement just prior to moving to New Zealand from South Africa. She was entering on a working visa.
She had been looking from South Africa at accommodation options, seeing both the good and the bad options. This tenancy was considered a good option. Another factor regarding timing was a need or desire to show Immigration NZ on arrival a confirmed address. Her partner had also moved to New Zealand some months earlier.
The tenant claims a number of unforeseen changes that justify a break in this fixed-term tenancy.
The first is that she has found the cost of living higher here than expected and she is struggling to make rent. To her credit, she had front-footed this already with the landlord and has sought to find a replacement tenant or assignment.
Secondly, she said her work does not always result in a full 40 hour working week. This employment was also arranged prior to entry to New Zealand. There is some variation in available hours subject to client demand. Concerns regarding how a change in ownership might impact her right to work were raised but at this stage these are speculative and not considered. If the concerns are realised that may form in another application.
The tenant she did not realise the cost of living here before committing to the fixed-term agreement. This is a bit surprising given her partner being on the ground already and her prior obtaining of employment and broad scan of accommodation options from afar via internet searching. It would not take much effort to find online many recounted experiences of other South Africans who have made the move prior. I do note the rent is inclusive of outgoings.
The landlord stated the tenant request in her application a long-term, over two years. I do not consider this request was a desire for a fixed-term but rather an expression of intent. If the former, the one year fixed-term suited neither party.
The landlord also made submissions on the vacancy rate experienced within the building this premises is in. It is struggling to fill the building (new), with at least a 20% vacancy rate one year in. The owner is having financial challenges due to this. The vacancy rate means the chances of assignment or reletting of this premises are challenging. The tenant might consider some incentive or different approach given the competing units available.
Having considered the history prior to this tenancy forming, and the time and events since, I do not find there has been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances such that it is appropriate for this Tribunal to interfere with the fixed-term tenancy.
In making this determination I acknowledge the challenges the tenant is facing and commend her on her proactivity to date. It is hoped that bears fruit.
The application for an order to release the tenant from this fixed-term tenancy is declined.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 15 March 2023.

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

The tenant has applied for reduction of her fixed-term tenancy.
The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in s 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular, the applicant will need to establish firstly that there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances. If that is established the Tribunal then must consider: a. if there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and b. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.
The weighing of relative hardship is a question of fact to be assessed objectively in each case.
In Bond v Tang Invercargill TT09/583IN the Tribunal discussed that section 66 was used to seek a balance between the competing interests of applicant tenants, for whom significant obligations under fixed-term agreements can create hardship when circumstances unexpectedly turn against them and landlords who have financial expectations arising from the same bargain. Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances?
The tenant found the premises and signed the tenancy agreement just prior to moving to New Zealand from South Africa. She was entering on a working visa.
She had been looking from South Africa at accommodation options, seeing both the good and the bad options. This tenancy was considered a good option. Another factor regarding timing was a need or desire to show Immigration NZ on arrival a confirmed address. Her partner had also moved to New Zealand some months earlier.
The tenant claims a number of unforeseen changes that justify a break in this fixed-term tenancy.
The first is that she has found the cost of living higher here than expected and she is struggling to make rent. To her credit, she had front-footed this already with the landlord and has sought to find a replacement tenant or assignment.
Secondly, she said her work does not always result in a full 40 hour working week. This employment was also arranged prior to entry to New Zealand. There is some variation in available hours subject to client demand. Concerns regarding how a change in ownership might impact her right to work were raised but at this stage these are speculative and not considered. If the concerns are realised that may form in another application.
The tenant she did not realise the cost of living here before committing to the fixed-term agreement. This is a bit surprising given her partner being on the ground already and her prior obtaining of employment and broad scan of accommodation options from afar via internet searching. It would not take much effort to find online many recounted experiences of other South Africans who have made the move prior. I do note the rent is inclusive of outgoings.
The landlord stated the tenant request in her application a long-term, over two years. I do not consider this request was a desire for a fixed-term but rather an expression of intent. If the former, the one year fixed-term suited neither party.
The landlord also made submissions on the vacancy rate experienced within the building this premises is in. It is struggling to fill the building (new), with at least a 20% vacancy rate one year in. The owner is having financial challenges due to this. The vacancy rate means the chances of assignment or reletting of this premises are challenging. The tenant might consider some incentive or different approach given the competing units available.
Having considered the history prior to this tenancy forming, and the time and events since, I do not find there has been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances such that it is appropriate for this Tribunal to interfere with the fixed-term tenancy.
In making this determination I acknowledge the challenges the tenant is facing and commend her on her proactivity to date. It is hoped that bears fruit.
The application for an order to release the tenant from this fixed-term tenancy is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615511 — Tenancy dispute at 159 Unsworth Drive, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615511 — Tenancy dispute at 159 Unsworth Drive, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions