What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4700871 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ application for the reduction of a fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4700871?

Rent Arrears: $18,057.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700871?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9933329-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4700871 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ application for the reduction of a fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4700871?

Rent Arrears: $18,057.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700871?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9933329-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4700871 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4700871 — net $16,806.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears from 30 October 2023 - 16 January 2024	$18,057.00	Rent arrears from 30 October 2023 - 16 January 2024
Net award	$16,806.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$16,806.44

Order

The tenants’ application for the reduction of a fixed term tenancy is dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for the floorboards is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $16,806.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,250.56 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants had a representative which was allowed because the amount claimed is more than $6,000. See section 93(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
This is the second hearing of this matter. On 26 October 2023 I made an order dismissing the tenant’s application for the reduction of a fixed term tenancy. I subsequently allowed a rehearing of the tenant’s application. This was heard today.
My order dated 26 October 2023 also records orders made in the landlord’s favour for rent to 29 October in the amount of $1,600, the cost of advertising in the total amount of $329, and the filing fee in the amount of $20.44. This amount was refunded to the landlord from the bond.
The claim for rent owed from 30 October 2023 to the date of settlement - which was on 17 January 2024 - was adjourned. The claims for cleaning and for damage to the floorboards were also adjourned.
As to the claim for cleaning, section 40(1)(ca) RTA states that tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. This is usually a different, lesser standard from one where the house is being cleaned in order to be ready for a sale process. The landlord withdrew the claim for cleaning after this was explained.
The tenants and their three children moved to New Zealand because of an employment opportunity with a company in New Zealand. The parties signed a fixed term tenancy agreement due to end on 4 February 2024. In September 2023, out of the blue, the position was made redundant. The tenants immediately contacted the landlord and explained they would not be able to see out their tenancy. The decision about redundancy was made quickly, and the company paid out $47,200 in final settlement of a redundancy package. The tenants left New Zealand and stopped paying rent.
Before they left the tenants filed an application with the Tribunal for an order that the term of the fixed term tenancy be reduced. The landlord filed a cross application for rent arears, compensation for damage, and refund of the bond. The questions I have to decide are: • Should I end the fixed term tenancy sooner than 4 February 2024? • How much is owed in rent? • Should the tenants pay for damage?

Should I end the fixed term tenancy sooner than 4 February 2024?

The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where there has been: • an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances leading to severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced, AND • the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) RTA.
It is agreed evidence that the redundancy was an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. I note that the emails and the information provided by the tenants support this.
Much of the hearing was taken up with the tenants providing proof of the redundancy pay out, and proof in the form of invoices for the costs of returning a household to another country. I was provided with quotes – not invoices - for the air tickets but it seems most likely to me the flights cost close to the quoted amount. I was also provided with screen shots showing the current costs of renting, buying a car and childcare. I find this is not sufficient information to prove these are actual costs for the tenants. The tenants submitted that they are not currently working and they are living with family.
The tenants also submitted that the landlord has a successful business and made a $200,000 profit from the sale of the house. They submitted there would be no financial hardship if the Tribunal found in the tenants’ favour.
As well as financial hardship they submitted there was mental anguish and distress when dealing with the landlord in the weeks before they left New Zealand.
The landlord submitted that as well as the redundancy package the tenants sold a car for $30,000 before they left New Zealand. The landlord said this showed there was money available to pay the $18,000 owed in rent. The landlord also suffered from stress and hardship over the tenants leaving early, and they were fortunate the house sold quickly, meaning the tenants owe less money for rent arrears. The landlord agreed they have a successful business and said there was no profit from the $1.8 million dollar sale because they spent more than that on a new family home. Further, the landlord had to pay a mortgage, and rates for the tenancy premises even though no rent was coming in. I was provided with proof about mortgage payments and the rates bills at the first hearing.
I have carefully considered the documentary evidence and the submissions. Neither party gave me financial information about savings, and I acknowledge the financial picture I have is not complete. It seems most likely to me that the redundancy package was spent as indicated, but there was no accounting for the $30,000 coming from the sale of the car. I find that I have to take the $30,000 into account. I find the tenants had more than enough money to pay their rent when they left New Zealand. This means there would be a greater hardship to the landlord if the tenants were not required to pay their rent.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

How much is owed for rent?

I have been provided with a settlement statement from the lawyers acting for the landlord on the sale of the tenancy premises. This is the best evidence I have about the date of the sale. I find the tenancy ended on 16 January 2024. I have calculated the amount of rent owed to the end of the tenancy. This claim is proved and allowed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There was a claim for damage to the floorboards. A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
It is agreed evidence the damage occurred during the tenancy. Because of the sale of the tenancy premises the landlord was required to prove the repairs were done before settlement. This is because there is no loss to the landlord if the house was sold with the damaged floorboards. Compensation cannot be awarded where there is no loss. The landlord was required to provide information from the insurer by 2pm today. No information has been received by the Tenancy Tribunal. Accordingly the claim for the floorboards is not proved and it is dismissed. Other orders
The balance of the bond is refunded to the landlord.
Both parties made an application for suppression. 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. See section 95A RTA.
The landlord’s application is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party.
I have used my discretion and allowed name suppression for the tenants as well. This is because of the financial information about both parties which is in this order, and I am concerned the landlord could be identified by the publication of the tenants’ names. I also note there is limited public interest in the tenants being named because they no longer live in New Zealand.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4700871 — net $16,806.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears from 30 October 2023 - 16 January 2024	$18,057.00	Rent arrears from 30 October 2023 - 16 January 2024
Net award	$16,806.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$16,806.44

Order

The tenants’ application for the reduction of a fixed term tenancy is dismissed.
The landlord’s claim for the floorboards is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $16,806.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,250.56 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants had a representative which was allowed because the amount claimed is more than $6,000. See section 93(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
This is the second hearing of this matter. On 26 October 2023 I made an order dismissing the tenant’s application for the reduction of a fixed term tenancy. I subsequently allowed a rehearing of the tenant’s application. This was heard today.
My order dated 26 October 2023 also records orders made in the landlord’s favour for rent to 29 October in the amount of $1,600, the cost of advertising in the total amount of $329, and the filing fee in the amount of $20.44. This amount was refunded to the landlord from the bond.
The claim for rent owed from 30 October 2023 to the date of settlement - which was on 17 January 2024 - was adjourned. The claims for cleaning and for damage to the floorboards were also adjourned.
As to the claim for cleaning, section 40(1)(ca) RTA states that tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. This is usually a different, lesser standard from one where the house is being cleaned in order to be ready for a sale process. The landlord withdrew the claim for cleaning after this was explained.
The tenants and their three children moved to New Zealand because of an employment opportunity with a company in New Zealand. The parties signed a fixed term tenancy agreement due to end on 4 February 2024. In September 2023, out of the blue, the position was made redundant. The tenants immediately contacted the landlord and explained they would not be able to see out their tenancy. The decision about redundancy was made quickly, and the company paid out $47,200 in final settlement of a redundancy package. The tenants left New Zealand and stopped paying rent.
Before they left the tenants filed an application with the Tribunal for an order that the term of the fixed term tenancy be reduced. The landlord filed a cross application for rent arears, compensation for damage, and refund of the bond. The questions I have to decide are: • Should I end the fixed term tenancy sooner than 4 February 2024? • How much is owed in rent? • Should the tenants pay for damage?

Should I end the fixed term tenancy sooner than 4 February 2024?

The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where there has been: • an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances leading to severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced, AND • the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) RTA.
It is agreed evidence that the redundancy was an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. I note that the emails and the information provided by the tenants support this.
Much of the hearing was taken up with the tenants providing proof of the redundancy pay out, and proof in the form of invoices for the costs of returning a household to another country. I was provided with quotes – not invoices - for the air tickets but it seems most likely to me the flights cost close to the quoted amount. I was also provided with screen shots showing the current costs of renting, buying a car and childcare. I find this is not sufficient information to prove these are actual costs for the tenants. The tenants submitted that they are not currently working and they are living with family.
The tenants also submitted that the landlord has a successful business and made a $200,000 profit from the sale of the house. They submitted there would be no financial hardship if the Tribunal found in the tenants’ favour.
As well as financial hardship they submitted there was mental anguish and distress when dealing with the landlord in the weeks before they left New Zealand.
The landlord submitted that as well as the redundancy package the tenants sold a car for $30,000 before they left New Zealand. The landlord said this showed there was money available to pay the $18,000 owed in rent. The landlord also suffered from stress and hardship over the tenants leaving early, and they were fortunate the house sold quickly, meaning the tenants owe less money for rent arrears. The landlord agreed they have a successful business and said there was no profit from the $1.8 million dollar sale because they spent more than that on a new family home. Further, the landlord had to pay a mortgage, and rates for the tenancy premises even though no rent was coming in. I was provided with proof about mortgage payments and the rates bills at the first hearing.
I have carefully considered the documentary evidence and the submissions. Neither party gave me financial information about savings, and I acknowledge the financial picture I have is not complete. It seems most likely to me that the redundancy package was spent as indicated, but there was no accounting for the $30,000 coming from the sale of the car. I find that I have to take the $30,000 into account. I find the tenants had more than enough money to pay their rent when they left New Zealand. This means there would be a greater hardship to the landlord if the tenants were not required to pay their rent.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.

How much is owed for rent?

I have been provided with a settlement statement from the lawyers acting for the landlord on the sale of the tenancy premises. This is the best evidence I have about the date of the sale. I find the tenancy ended on 16 January 2024. I have calculated the amount of rent owed to the end of the tenancy. This claim is proved and allowed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There was a claim for damage to the floorboards. A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
It is agreed evidence the damage occurred during the tenancy. Because of the sale of the tenancy premises the landlord was required to prove the repairs were done before settlement. This is because there is no loss to the landlord if the house was sold with the damaged floorboards. Compensation cannot be awarded where there is no loss. The landlord was required to provide information from the insurer by 2pm today. No information has been received by the Tenancy Tribunal. Accordingly the claim for the floorboards is not proved and it is dismissed. Other orders
The balance of the bond is refunded to the landlord.
Both parties made an application for suppression. 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. See section 95A RTA.
The landlord’s application is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party.
I have used my discretion and allowed name suppression for the tenants as well. This is because of the financial information about both parties which is in this order, and I am concerned the landlord could be identified by the publication of the tenants’ names. I also note there is limited public interest in the tenants being named because they no longer live in New Zealand.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4700871 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4700871 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should I end the fixed term tenancy sooner than 4 February 2024?

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should I end the fixed term tenancy sooner than 4 February 2024?

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions