Tenantcheck Insights

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 4739849 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 21 Dec 2023 · Published 21 Dec 2023 · Application 4739849

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Zealand

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

K Koller

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 4739849 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 21 Dec 2023 · Published 21 Dec 2023 · Application 4739849

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Zealand

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

K Koller

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

The applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its property manager.
The tenant is one of four tenants with a fixed term tenancy due to end on 4 February 2023. She has moved out and she wants the Tribunal to make an order pursuant to section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) reducing her fixed term tenancy because of financial hardship.
This is not an order I can make because one tenant in a joint tenancy is not able to apply to end the fixed term tenancy unless all the tenants agree. This has been considered fully and decided in the Derbyshire v Mark and Maggies Property Company Limited [2013] NZTT 1477. I accept the reasoning in this decision. The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application is for an order the tenant comply with the usual change of tenant process. The result of my dismissing the tenant’s application is she will have no choice if she wants to find a replacement tenant.
I note my advice to the parties that landlords are no longer allowed to request an up-front fee from tenants who wish to leave a fixed term tenancy. The parties should consider section 44A RTA which allows a landlord to recover the reasonable expenses incurred in respect of an assignment (change of tenant) so long as the landlord provides an itemised account to the tenant.
I do not find there is an order I can make in the landlord’s favour so it’s application is also dismissed.
Suppression is allowed for both parties because parties are encouraged to use the Tribunal to resolve disputes.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

NO ADDRESS

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s44A, s66

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4739849 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4739849?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4739849?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4739849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9790518-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Order

The applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its property manager.
The tenant is one of four tenants with a fixed term tenancy due to end on 4 February 2023. She has moved out and she wants the Tribunal to make an order pursuant to section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) reducing her fixed term tenancy because of financial hardship.
This is not an order I can make because one tenant in a joint tenancy is not able to apply to end the fixed term tenancy unless all the tenants agree. This has been considered fully and decided in the Derbyshire v Mark and Maggies Property Company Limited [2013] NZTT 1477. I accept the reasoning in this decision. The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The landlord’s application is for an order the tenant comply with the usual change of tenant process. The result of my dismissing the tenant’s application is she will have no choice if she wants to find a replacement tenant.
I note my advice to the parties that landlords are no longer allowed to request an up-front fee from tenants who wish to leave a fixed term tenancy. The parties should consider section 44A RTA which allows a landlord to recover the reasonable expenses incurred in respect of an assignment (change of tenant) so long as the landlord provides an itemised account to the tenant.
I do not find there is an order I can make in the landlord’s favour so it’s application is also dismissed.
Suppression is allowed for both parties because parties are encouraged to use the Tribunal to resolve disputes.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

NO ADDRESS

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s44A, s66

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4739849 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4739849?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4739849?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4739849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9790518-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.