What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4809841 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $400.00 immediately, being refund of

How much money was awarded in case 4809841?

The reconciled net award was $400.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4809841?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4809841?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10258173-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4809841 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $400.00 immediately, being refund of

How much money was awarded in case 4809841?

The reconciled net award was $400.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4809841?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4809841?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10258173-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4809841 — Tenancy dispute

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $400.00 immediately, being refund of rent overpaid.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and ended on 14 March 2024.
No other orders are made.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This was a continuation as it was hoped the absent property manager directly involved in this matter would be available (he was overseas). That did not eventuate and the landlord at the hearing had limited direct knowledge on the background. The trigger for this tenant application was a prior release of two other tenants under the provision of section 56B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Given that pertained to claims of family violence, suppression of all parties details is made.
The tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 29 September 2024, available to them per section 56D RTA.
The landlord has filed a counterclaim for rent arrears as the tenancy ended before the continuation. If rent was liable until the new tenancy the tenants would be liable for rent arrears. Given the circumstances, the landlord has not sought compensation for their reasonable costs incurred due to the break in fixed term.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

Should 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 56D RTA, which allows for the reduction of a fixed term tenancy agreement by remaining tenants from which another tenant withdraws under section 56B. They may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the ground of hardship.
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) as a result of the withdrawal, the tenant who made the application is suffering, or will suffer, hardship; and (b) that hardship is or will be greater than the hardship that the landlord would suffer if the tenancy were terminated; and (c) because of the hardship, it would be unreasonable to require the tenant to continue with the tenancy.
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). Given this, the release of two of the four tenants on 7 February 2024 meant the application by the two remaining tenants is valid after 7 February 2024. The application was submitted on 14 February 2024.
In support of the hardship, the tenants provided pay slips and medical evidence of a loss of income.
The weighing of relative hardship is a question of fact to be assessed objectively in each case.
I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship. The full rent was intended to be shared between two couples. After the first couple exited and the initial two-week reduction by 50%, the remaining tenants struggled to meet the full rent. To their credit, they paid above their 50% share until their actual vacate date, albeit not the full amount.
I award compensation of $400.00 to the tenants, based on rent overpayment payment, based on the final date of rent liability being set at 14 March 2024 anf there subsequent rent payments.
The hearing continuation, and hence the delay in confirming an end date, was intended to allow the property manager from that time to attend for the benefit of the landlord (a request for adjournment by the agent prior to the first hearing had been declined). This delay meant the tenants remained at the premises after the now retrospectively set 14 March 2024 termination. Any benefit to the tenants has been considered in the setting of the final date and rent. The premises was being advertised for a new tenancy during this period and there is no indication the continued occupancy of the tenants delayed any new tenancy commencement.
I am satisfied that consideration of s56D(2) RTA requirements makes the termination of the fixed-term appropriate. 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.
Section 95A(1A) RTA requires the Tribunal must, in any proceedings that relate to withdrawal from a tenancy under section 56B, order that the name and any identifying particulars of the parties not be published. That being the case here, all details are ordered suppressed.

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $400.00 immediately, being refund of rent overpaid.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and ended on 14 March 2024.
No other orders are made.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This was a continuation as it was hoped the absent property manager directly involved in this matter would be available (he was overseas). That did not eventuate and the landlord at the hearing had limited direct knowledge on the background. The trigger for this tenant application was a prior release of two other tenants under the provision of section 56B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Given that pertained to claims of family violence, suppression of all parties details is made.
The tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 29 September 2024, available to them per section 56D RTA.
The landlord has filed a counterclaim for rent arrears as the tenancy ended before the continuation. If rent was liable until the new tenancy the tenants would be liable for rent arrears. Given the circumstances, the landlord has not sought compensation for their reasonable costs incurred due to the break in fixed term.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

Should 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 56D RTA, which allows for the reduction of a fixed term tenancy agreement by remaining tenants from which another tenant withdraws under section 56B. They may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the ground of hardship.
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) as a result of the withdrawal, the tenant who made the application is suffering, or will suffer, hardship; and (b) that hardship is or will be greater than the hardship that the landlord would suffer if the tenancy were terminated; and (c) because of the hardship, it would be unreasonable to require the tenant to continue with the tenancy.
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). Given this, the release of two of the four tenants on 7 February 2024 meant the application by the two remaining tenants is valid after 7 February 2024. The application was submitted on 14 February 2024.
In support of the hardship, the tenants provided pay slips and medical evidence of a loss of income.
The weighing of relative hardship is a question of fact to be assessed objectively in each case.
I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship. The full rent was intended to be shared between two couples. After the first couple exited and the initial two-week reduction by 50%, the remaining tenants struggled to meet the full rent. To their credit, they paid above their 50% share until their actual vacate date, albeit not the full amount.
I award compensation of $400.00 to the tenants, based on rent overpayment payment, based on the final date of rent liability being set at 14 March 2024 anf there subsequent rent payments.
The hearing continuation, and hence the delay in confirming an end date, was intended to allow the property manager from that time to attend for the benefit of the landlord (a request for adjournment by the agent prior to the first hearing had been declined). This delay meant the tenants remained at the premises after the now retrospectively set 14 March 2024 termination. Any benefit to the tenants has been considered in the setting of the final date and rent. The premises was being advertised for a new tenancy during this period and there is no indication the continued occupancy of the tenants delayed any new tenancy commencement.
I am satisfied that consideration of s56D(2) RTA requirements makes the termination of the fixed-term appropriate. 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.
Section 95A(1A) RTA requires the Tribunal must, in any proceedings that relate to withdrawal from a tenancy under section 56B, order that the name and any identifying particulars of the parties not be published. That being the case here, all details are ordered suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4809841 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4809841 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed-term tenancy be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed-term tenancy be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions