What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4648190 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4648190?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,696.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648190?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648190?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9385033-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4648190 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4648190?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,696.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648190?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648190?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9385033-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

29 Malvern Street, Woodhaugh, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4648190 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4648190 — net $2,717.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 6/9/2023	$2,696.57	Rent arrears to 6/9/2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,717.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,717.01

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Erika Espinosa Maravilla, Rose Mari Claire Lim, Viktoria Valerio, Ploypylin Silpsai, Joyce Paguia and Rattana Rattana must pay [The landlord/s] $2,717.01 immediately from the bond, calculated as per the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay $2,717.01 from the bond of $$3,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the bond of $1,122.99 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
The application for the term of the fixed-term tenancy of Erika Espinosa Maravilla, Rose Mari Claire Lim, Viktoria Valerio, Ploypylin Silpsai, Joyce Paguia and Rattana Rattana at 29 Malvern Street, Woodhaugh, Dunedin 9010 to be reduced is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord and four of the tenants attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The tenants have cross applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 31/12/2023.

Do the tenants owe rent arrears?

The landlord sought rent arrears of $2,696.57 and provided rent records and 14 day notices to support the arrears.
The tenants did not dispute that there were arrears owing.
An award has been made from the bond for the arrears claimed.

Should the term of the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

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 that: a. there has been a change in their circumstances b. the change was unforeseen c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
Section 66(2) provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage which results from the reduction of the term.
The Tribunal has held that it cannot reduce the term of a fixed-term tenancy on the application of one of several co-tenants (Derbyshire v Mark & Maggies Property Company Ltd Wellington [2013] NZTT 1477WN).
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 tenant’s circumstances?
Unfortunate as it may be for the tenants, I find the evidence does not establish there has been an unforeseen change in their circumstances.
In their submissions the tenants relied on the fact that two of their flatmates had left the premises and were no longer paying rent.
As a result, the tenants submitted that they could not afford the rent of $960.00 a week.
Further, except for one month, the tenants had been unable to find replacement flatmates because of the rent arrears.
By itself flatmates leaving premises before the end of the term and failing to continue to pay rent is not an unforeseen change in circumstances.
This is not a situation where circumstances have unexpectedly turned against the tenants.
Rather it is a tenant/tenant dispute, which the tenants can pursue in the Disputes Tribunal.
All tenants in a joint and several tenancy agreement continue to be liable for rent and other obligations, irrespective of whether they are still living in the premises.
Such obligations continue until their tenancies are validly assigned.
The landlord did not want the fixed term reduced.
As I have determined there has been no unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances, I do not need to consider the second part of the test; that is whether the severe hardship the tenant would suffer if the term of the tenancy is not reduced would be greater than the hardship the landlord would suffer if the term were reduced.
However, the landlord has attempted to mitigate loss by allowing the rent arrears to be awarded from the bond before the end of the tenancy. This may make it easier for the tenants to find replacement flatmates until the end of their tenancy.
The claim by the tenants fails.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord under section 95A because they have succeeded with their claim.
No suppression is available to the tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4648190 — net $2,717.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 6/9/2023	$2,696.57	Rent arrears to 6/9/2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,717.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,717.01

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Erika Espinosa Maravilla, Rose Mari Claire Lim, Viktoria Valerio, Ploypylin Silpsai, Joyce Paguia and Rattana Rattana must pay [The landlord/s] $2,717.01 immediately from the bond, calculated as per the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay $2,717.01 from the bond of $$3,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the bond of $1,122.99 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
The application for the term of the fixed-term tenancy of Erika Espinosa Maravilla, Rose Mari Claire Lim, Viktoria Valerio, Ploypylin Silpsai, Joyce Paguia and Rattana Rattana at 29 Malvern Street, Woodhaugh, Dunedin 9010 to be reduced is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord and four of the tenants attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The tenants have cross applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 31/12/2023.

Do the tenants owe rent arrears?

The landlord sought rent arrears of $2,696.57 and provided rent records and 14 day notices to support the arrears.
The tenants did not dispute that there were arrears owing.
An award has been made from the bond for the arrears claimed.

Should the term of the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

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 that: a. there has been a change in their circumstances b. the change was unforeseen c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
Section 66(2) provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage which results from the reduction of the term.
The Tribunal has held that it cannot reduce the term of a fixed-term tenancy on the application of one of several co-tenants (Derbyshire v Mark & Maggies Property Company Ltd Wellington [2013] NZTT 1477WN).
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 tenant’s circumstances?
Unfortunate as it may be for the tenants, I find the evidence does not establish there has been an unforeseen change in their circumstances.
In their submissions the tenants relied on the fact that two of their flatmates had left the premises and were no longer paying rent.
As a result, the tenants submitted that they could not afford the rent of $960.00 a week.
Further, except for one month, the tenants had been unable to find replacement flatmates because of the rent arrears.
By itself flatmates leaving premises before the end of the term and failing to continue to pay rent is not an unforeseen change in circumstances.
This is not a situation where circumstances have unexpectedly turned against the tenants.
Rather it is a tenant/tenant dispute, which the tenants can pursue in the Disputes Tribunal.
All tenants in a joint and several tenancy agreement continue to be liable for rent and other obligations, irrespective of whether they are still living in the premises.
Such obligations continue until their tenancies are validly assigned.
The landlord did not want the fixed term reduced.
As I have determined there has been no unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances, I do not need to consider the second part of the test; that is whether the severe hardship the tenant would suffer if the term of the tenancy is not reduced would be greater than the hardship the landlord would suffer if the term were reduced.
However, the landlord has attempted to mitigate loss by allowing the rent arrears to be awarded from the bond before the end of the tenancy. This may make it easier for the tenants to find replacement flatmates until the end of their tenancy.
The claim by the tenants fails.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord under section 95A because they have succeeded with their claim.
No suppression is available to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4648190 — Rent arrears at 29 Malvern Street, Woodhaugh, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4648190 — Rent arrears at 29 Malvern Street, Woodhaugh, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Do the tenants owe rent arrears?

Should the term of the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Do the tenants owe rent arrears?

Should the term of the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions