What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4676649 about?

The tribunal order states: The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 26, 67 Princes

How much money was awarded in case 4676649?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4676649?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4676649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9568017-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4676649 about?

The tribunal order states: The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 26, 67 Princes

How much money was awarded in case 4676649?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4676649?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4676649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9568017-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 26, 67 Princes Street, Northcote Point, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4676649 — Unit Titles

Order

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 26, 67 Princes Street, Northcote Point, Auckland 0627 is reduced and now ends at 5pm, Friday 27 October 2023.
No other orders are made.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Natalee Butcher represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 9 February 2024. The tenancy commenced on 12 August 2023. Other claims in the tenant application were withdrawn at the hearing. Some compensation via rent reduction has already been provided.
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 premises are a unit in a large body corporate complex. The body corporate had previously determined to fill in the swimming pool at the complex. This change in circumstances had seen the previous fixed-term tenancy break by mutual agreement (as the pool was a key feature of that tenancy).
The property manager removed any reference to the pool in the advertising prior to this tenancy and advised prospective tenants of the pending work. Based on the information she had, this was expected to be for a period of two weeks. The premises is a unit closest to the work site, some two meters away.
For reasons beyond the control of the parties, the work was of a greater impact and longer duration than anticipated. The tenant provided photos of the work site and impact. The tenant lodged his application to break this fixed-term tenancy on 5 September 2023. The landlord started advertising the premises some three days later. A new tenancy will commence soon.
The work site and related activities have continued since the tenancy commenced. While nearing completion, it is not yet finished. The tenant photos provided evidence of what has been a significant project.
A new tenancy has now formed, to commence 1 November 2023. A short-term reduction in rent for the new tenancy is in place with the expectation the work will finish in a matter of weeks.
The tenant wants the tenancy to end this Friday, 27 October 2023. He has made arrangements to exit that day.
I am satisfied there was an unforeseen change in the circumstances due to the extent and duration of site works at the property. I remain uncertain how the planned work and extent, was communicated to the owner and/or the property manager. I would have expected the owner to be able to anticipate the extent and likely impact via prior body corporate communications and/or discussion regarding the planned work and costs. Some consideration of the merits or otherwise of a period tenancy rather than the fixed-term tenancy sought, given any uncertainty of the works, may have been appropriate in this instance. If the extended duration of the work was due to other factors, and unexpected, consequential owner costs have been incurred, recourse or compensation may more appropriately come from other parties rather than the tenant. I have no view on that and any such determination is beyond this application.
While the difference between the desired end date and the new tenancy is now established and it is short (four days), I have considered the question of severe hardship and any reduction in the term of the tenancy should be considered from the lodgement date of the application.
Having considered all factors, I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The issue of break costs was discussed at the hearing. The landlord is yet to finalise all related costs but it submitted that reasonable break-related costs incurred should be compensated by the tenant. While no final costs breakdown was yet available, I said I considered it expedient to also make a determination on whether costs per s 66(2) should be made at this time.
I have some sympathy with the owner regarding costs incurred due to this tenancy ending early. I have further considered the respective submissions and evidence. I am also mindful of the overall merits and justice in how and why such costs were incurred, as well as the issues and compensations to date (see s 85(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The activity to fill in the swimming pool was presumably a majority decision of the owners with some intended benefit to them. The biggest adverse impact of the work falls on the tenant here.
Given the above, I do not consider any order for costs to compensate the landlord for any resulting loss should be made and I leave the tenant to carry his application filing fee. Effectively, each party is to carry its costs. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant requested suppression of his details. Given his success in these proceedings this is considered appropriate. Suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered.

Order

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 26, 67 Princes Street, Northcote Point, Auckland 0627 is reduced and now ends at 5pm, Friday 27 October 2023.
No other orders are made.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Natalee Butcher represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 9 February 2024. The tenancy commenced on 12 August 2023. Other claims in the tenant application were withdrawn at the hearing. Some compensation via rent reduction has already been provided.
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 premises are a unit in a large body corporate complex. The body corporate had previously determined to fill in the swimming pool at the complex. This change in circumstances had seen the previous fixed-term tenancy break by mutual agreement (as the pool was a key feature of that tenancy).
The property manager removed any reference to the pool in the advertising prior to this tenancy and advised prospective tenants of the pending work. Based on the information she had, this was expected to be for a period of two weeks. The premises is a unit closest to the work site, some two meters away.
For reasons beyond the control of the parties, the work was of a greater impact and longer duration than anticipated. The tenant provided photos of the work site and impact. The tenant lodged his application to break this fixed-term tenancy on 5 September 2023. The landlord started advertising the premises some three days later. A new tenancy will commence soon.
The work site and related activities have continued since the tenancy commenced. While nearing completion, it is not yet finished. The tenant photos provided evidence of what has been a significant project.
A new tenancy has now formed, to commence 1 November 2023. A short-term reduction in rent for the new tenancy is in place with the expectation the work will finish in a matter of weeks.
The tenant wants the tenancy to end this Friday, 27 October 2023. He has made arrangements to exit that day.
I am satisfied there was an unforeseen change in the circumstances due to the extent and duration of site works at the property. I remain uncertain how the planned work and extent, was communicated to the owner and/or the property manager. I would have expected the owner to be able to anticipate the extent and likely impact via prior body corporate communications and/or discussion regarding the planned work and costs. Some consideration of the merits or otherwise of a period tenancy rather than the fixed-term tenancy sought, given any uncertainty of the works, may have been appropriate in this instance. If the extended duration of the work was due to other factors, and unexpected, consequential owner costs have been incurred, recourse or compensation may more appropriately come from other parties rather than the tenant. I have no view on that and any such determination is beyond this application.
While the difference between the desired end date and the new tenancy is now established and it is short (four days), I have considered the question of severe hardship and any reduction in the term of the tenancy should be considered from the lodgement date of the application.
Having considered all factors, I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The issue of break costs was discussed at the hearing. The landlord is yet to finalise all related costs but it submitted that reasonable break-related costs incurred should be compensated by the tenant. While no final costs breakdown was yet available, I said I considered it expedient to also make a determination on whether costs per s 66(2) should be made at this time.
I have some sympathy with the owner regarding costs incurred due to this tenancy ending early. I have further considered the respective submissions and evidence. I am also mindful of the overall merits and justice in how and why such costs were incurred, as well as the issues and compensations to date (see s 85(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The activity to fill in the swimming pool was presumably a majority decision of the owners with some intended benefit to them. The biggest adverse impact of the work falls on the tenant here.
Given the above, I do not consider any order for costs to compensate the landlord for any resulting loss should be made and I leave the tenant to carry his application filing fee. Effectively, each party is to carry its costs. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant requested suppression of his details. Given his success in these proceedings this is considered appropriate. Suppression of the tenant’s name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4676649 — Unit Titles at Unit/Flat 26, 67 Princes Street, Northcote Point, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4676649 — Unit Titles at Unit/Flat 26, 67 Princes Street, Northcote Point, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions