What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4897601 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Auckland Property Management Limited and Catherine

How much money was awarded in case 4897601?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,940.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4897601?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4897601?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10741772-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4897601 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Auckland Property Management Limited and Catherine

How much money was awarded in case 4897601?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,940.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4897601?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4897601?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10741772-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4897601 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4897601 — net $1,920.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 July 2024	$4,940.00	Rent arrears to 7 July 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,920.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,920.44

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Auckland Property Management Limited and Catherine Scoular And Richard Scoular As Trustees Of The Catherine Massie Trust $1,920.44 immediately, as calculated below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Auckland Property Management Limited and Catherine Scoular And Richard Scoular As Trustees Of The Catherine Massie Trust immediately.
The applications from Svetlana Summers and [Tenant 1] are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Kilburn attended the hearing for the landlord. [Tenant 1] attended the hearing in person. Ms Summers attended the hearing by teleconference. An interpreter of the Russian language was present.
The tenants entered a joint tenancy agreement for a fixed term tenancy commencing on 18 December 2023 and ending on 18 December 2024. The rent was $760.00 per week and the bond was $3,040.00.
There are 3 applications before the Tribunal.
The landlord applied for termination of the fixed term tenancy due to rent arrears being at least 21 days in arrears when it filed the application, outstanding rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Ms Summers has applied retrospectively for an order releasing her from the fixed term tenancy and liability for rent arrears from 6 May 2024. She also seeks refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
[Tenant 1] did not accept Ms Summers had the right to withdraw from the tenancy early but, in the circumstances sought to end the tenancy early due to financial hardship as she cannot afford to pay the full amount of weekly rent. She also sought to be released from liability for rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. She claims she has kept up payments of her share of the rent, but the other tenant had abandoned/broken the tenancy and took two of her payments which were not forwarded to the landlord.
The landlord has since agreed to end the tenancy and confirmed the end date of the tenancy being 9 July 2024.

How can a fixed term tenancy be ended?

A fixed term tenancy is a legally binding contract, set for a period of time and not intended to be broken. If it is to be broken that must be by agreement or by Tribunal order.
Neither party has the right to terminate the tenancy by notice. See section 50(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances and, there would be 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the fixed term tenancy has a number of tenants, they are all jointly and severally liable for the tenancy which means that they must all be of the same mind in wishing to terminate the tenancy early.
This issue has been extensively considered in another Tribunal Decision, Derbyshire & Others v Mark & Maggies Property Company Limited, TT 13/01477/WN. After considering the applicable law, the Adjudicator concluded that a term can be implied into a tenancy agreement that the landlord covenants with all the tenants jointly and severally. This means that some promises can be enforced by the tenants jointly and some can be enforced severally (by one tenant alone). However, the Adjudicator held that not all remedies that would be available to tenants if acting jointly, will necessarily be available to a co-tenant acting alone, and termination of a fixed term tenancy is an obvious example.
There would be serious implications for the other tenants if one tenant under a fixed term tenancy was released from the tenancy. In particular, the tenancy remains in place for the other tenants and this includes the obligations under the tenancy agreement such as the payment of rent. The obligation to pay rent is joint and several, not several (i.e., each tenant is liable for all the rent, not just a proportion) and, consequently, the obligation to pay the departing tenant's proportion of rent would fall back on the other tenants. It is therefore nonsensical that an order in favour of one tenant ending the tenancy when the others object, is just.
On or about 15 April 2024, Ms Summers requested early release from the tenancy due to harassment and aggressive behaviour from the other tenant, making the living situation untenable. She believes she has done everything to resolve this situation ie. she sent emails and she contacted the police. She indicates she also gave the other tenant an opportunity to improve by withdrawing her tenancy tribunal application. She considers she sent the appropriate forms to sign herself out of the tenancy but believes the property manager has been less than willing to assist.
[Tenant 1] refutes Ms Summers claims and did not believe she had the right to withdraw from the tenancy but in the circumstances sought to end the tenancy early due to financial hardship as she is unable to afford payment of the full weekly rent on her own.
The landlord submits that it had tried to work with the parties to resolve this but at the time of filing its application there was no resolution.
Having regard to all the relevant matters, in terms of section 66 of the RTA, I am not satisfied that there has been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. Relationship breakdowns and joint tenants falling out amongst themselves is not out of the ordinary and therefore would not constitute an unforeseen change. A distressing financial situation is of itself also insufficient grounds for reducing the fixed term. These are realities of life.
Even if the events described and as mentioned in their applications can be said to amount to an unforeseen change of circumstances, the Tribunal would not be justified in reducing the fixed term tenancy. That is because section 66 requires a further condition to be fulfilled, and that is that because of the unforeseen change of circumstances, the severe hardship which the tenant would suffer if the tenancy were not terminated would be greater than the hardship which the landlord would suffer if the tenancy were terminated. In this case, there is insufficient evidence to satisfy me that that this test would also be met.
In conclusion: i. The Tribunal is not able to reduce or end a fixed term tenancy early when not all of the tenants seek such an outcome. ii. The tenants failed to make out grounds for a reduction of the fixed term tenancy under section 66 of the RTA. iii. The landlord has since agreed to end the fixed term tenancy with an end date of 7 July 2024. The Tribunal accepts the end date of the tenancy being 7 July 2024.
So where does this leave the parties? Neither Ms Summers or [Tenant 1] could be released or withdraw from the tenancy earlier, they remained joint tenants until 7 July 2024 (which is the date the landlord agreed to end the fixed term tenancy) and they are therefore jointly and severally liable for the rent until then.

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The landlord agreed to end the fixed term tenancy on 7 July 2024. The landlord provided a rent summary and I find the amount of rent owing up until 7 July 2024 is established.
Ms Summers and [Tenant 1] were joint tenants, being jointly and severally liable under the terms of their tenancy agreement. Joint liability means that each party under a joint obligation is liable (though without personal fault) for breaches of the obligation by the other parties. The bond is released accordingly to go towards the debt, irrespective of who paid it or who was at fault.
The landlord noted that [Tenant 1] continued to pay her share of the rent up until 7 July 2024. This was supported by bank statements produced by [Tenant 1]. In light of this, the landlord requested that the order for the balance of the debt be made against Ms Summers. I considered the request justified in the circumstances.
If the tenants have a dispute between themselves regarding the bond or as to who actually owes the debt then this is a matter they can pursue in the Disputes Tribunal. The Tenancy Tribunal only has jurisdiction in disputes between landlords and tenants, not tenant and tenants. Other matters
I note Ms Summers believes the property manager/landlord made little effort to resolve this situation when she requested to be released from the tenancy, However, the landlord is not bound to mitigate their loss in an abandoned tenancy (Ms Summers had abandoned the fixed term tenancy) under section 61(4) of the RTA.
At the hearing I also noted that a tenant could apply to withdraw from the tenancy on the grounds that they are a victim of family violence (section 56B(1) of the RTA). However, I did not consider this provision relevant or that Ms Summers was entitled to withdraw from the tenancy on those grounds. There was no evidence before the Tribunal that Ms Summers had provided notice in the approved form and with the prescribed information to the landlord as per section 56B(1) of the RTA. Filing fee
As the landlord wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee. Suppression order
Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings. The Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published (section 95A(4) RTA).
The landlord has been wholly successful with the claim but does not seek name suppression.
Neither tenants have been wholly successful with their claims.
I consider it would be in the public interest to be aware of the tenants’ rent history arrears. It is a legitimate interest for any of the tenants’ potential future landlords. In this case, I find the public interest outweighs the interests of Ms Summers. I decline suppression of Ms Summers’ details.
On the other hand, [Tenant 1] has paid all her share of the rent to the end of the tenancy. In this instance, I am satisfied that publication of [Tenant 1]'s name would be unjustly detrimental to her interests. I am satisfied that it would not be contrary to the public interest to grant name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4897601 — net $1,920.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 July 2024	$4,940.00	Rent arrears to 7 July 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,920.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,920.44

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Auckland Property Management Limited and Catherine Scoular And Richard Scoular As Trustees Of The Catherine Massie Trust $1,920.44 immediately, as calculated below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Auckland Property Management Limited and Catherine Scoular And Richard Scoular As Trustees Of The Catherine Massie Trust immediately.
The applications from Svetlana Summers and [Tenant 1] are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Kilburn attended the hearing for the landlord. [Tenant 1] attended the hearing in person. Ms Summers attended the hearing by teleconference. An interpreter of the Russian language was present.
The tenants entered a joint tenancy agreement for a fixed term tenancy commencing on 18 December 2023 and ending on 18 December 2024. The rent was $760.00 per week and the bond was $3,040.00.
There are 3 applications before the Tribunal.
The landlord applied for termination of the fixed term tenancy due to rent arrears being at least 21 days in arrears when it filed the application, outstanding rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Ms Summers has applied retrospectively for an order releasing her from the fixed term tenancy and liability for rent arrears from 6 May 2024. She also seeks refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
[Tenant 1] did not accept Ms Summers had the right to withdraw from the tenancy early but, in the circumstances sought to end the tenancy early due to financial hardship as she cannot afford to pay the full amount of weekly rent. She also sought to be released from liability for rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. She claims she has kept up payments of her share of the rent, but the other tenant had abandoned/broken the tenancy and took two of her payments which were not forwarded to the landlord.
The landlord has since agreed to end the tenancy and confirmed the end date of the tenancy being 9 July 2024.

How can a fixed term tenancy be ended?

A fixed term tenancy is a legally binding contract, set for a period of time and not intended to be broken. If it is to be broken that must be by agreement or by Tribunal order.
Neither party has the right to terminate the tenancy by notice. See section 50(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances and, there would be 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the fixed term tenancy has a number of tenants, they are all jointly and severally liable for the tenancy which means that they must all be of the same mind in wishing to terminate the tenancy early.
This issue has been extensively considered in another Tribunal Decision, Derbyshire & Others v Mark & Maggies Property Company Limited, TT 13/01477/WN. After considering the applicable law, the Adjudicator concluded that a term can be implied into a tenancy agreement that the landlord covenants with all the tenants jointly and severally. This means that some promises can be enforced by the tenants jointly and some can be enforced severally (by one tenant alone). However, the Adjudicator held that not all remedies that would be available to tenants if acting jointly, will necessarily be available to a co-tenant acting alone, and termination of a fixed term tenancy is an obvious example.
There would be serious implications for the other tenants if one tenant under a fixed term tenancy was released from the tenancy. In particular, the tenancy remains in place for the other tenants and this includes the obligations under the tenancy agreement such as the payment of rent. The obligation to pay rent is joint and several, not several (i.e., each tenant is liable for all the rent, not just a proportion) and, consequently, the obligation to pay the departing tenant's proportion of rent would fall back on the other tenants. It is therefore nonsensical that an order in favour of one tenant ending the tenancy when the others object, is just.
On or about 15 April 2024, Ms Summers requested early release from the tenancy due to harassment and aggressive behaviour from the other tenant, making the living situation untenable. She believes she has done everything to resolve this situation ie. she sent emails and she contacted the police. She indicates she also gave the other tenant an opportunity to improve by withdrawing her tenancy tribunal application. She considers she sent the appropriate forms to sign herself out of the tenancy but believes the property manager has been less than willing to assist.
[Tenant 1] refutes Ms Summers claims and did not believe she had the right to withdraw from the tenancy but in the circumstances sought to end the tenancy early due to financial hardship as she is unable to afford payment of the full weekly rent on her own.
The landlord submits that it had tried to work with the parties to resolve this but at the time of filing its application there was no resolution.
Having regard to all the relevant matters, in terms of section 66 of the RTA, I am not satisfied that there has been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. Relationship breakdowns and joint tenants falling out amongst themselves is not out of the ordinary and therefore would not constitute an unforeseen change. A distressing financial situation is of itself also insufficient grounds for reducing the fixed term. These are realities of life.
Even if the events described and as mentioned in their applications can be said to amount to an unforeseen change of circumstances, the Tribunal would not be justified in reducing the fixed term tenancy. That is because section 66 requires a further condition to be fulfilled, and that is that because of the unforeseen change of circumstances, the severe hardship which the tenant would suffer if the tenancy were not terminated would be greater than the hardship which the landlord would suffer if the tenancy were terminated. In this case, there is insufficient evidence to satisfy me that that this test would also be met.
In conclusion: i. The Tribunal is not able to reduce or end a fixed term tenancy early when not all of the tenants seek such an outcome. ii. The tenants failed to make out grounds for a reduction of the fixed term tenancy under section 66 of the RTA. iii. The landlord has since agreed to end the fixed term tenancy with an end date of 7 July 2024. The Tribunal accepts the end date of the tenancy being 7 July 2024.
So where does this leave the parties? Neither Ms Summers or [Tenant 1] could be released or withdraw from the tenancy earlier, they remained joint tenants until 7 July 2024 (which is the date the landlord agreed to end the fixed term tenancy) and they are therefore jointly and severally liable for the rent until then.

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The landlord agreed to end the fixed term tenancy on 7 July 2024. The landlord provided a rent summary and I find the amount of rent owing up until 7 July 2024 is established.
Ms Summers and [Tenant 1] were joint tenants, being jointly and severally liable under the terms of their tenancy agreement. Joint liability means that each party under a joint obligation is liable (though without personal fault) for breaches of the obligation by the other parties. The bond is released accordingly to go towards the debt, irrespective of who paid it or who was at fault.
The landlord noted that [Tenant 1] continued to pay her share of the rent up until 7 July 2024. This was supported by bank statements produced by [Tenant 1]. In light of this, the landlord requested that the order for the balance of the debt be made against Ms Summers. I considered the request justified in the circumstances.
If the tenants have a dispute between themselves regarding the bond or as to who actually owes the debt then this is a matter they can pursue in the Disputes Tribunal. The Tenancy Tribunal only has jurisdiction in disputes between landlords and tenants, not tenant and tenants. Other matters
I note Ms Summers believes the property manager/landlord made little effort to resolve this situation when she requested to be released from the tenancy, However, the landlord is not bound to mitigate their loss in an abandoned tenancy (Ms Summers had abandoned the fixed term tenancy) under section 61(4) of the RTA.
At the hearing I also noted that a tenant could apply to withdraw from the tenancy on the grounds that they are a victim of family violence (section 56B(1) of the RTA). However, I did not consider this provision relevant or that Ms Summers was entitled to withdraw from the tenancy on those grounds. There was no evidence before the Tribunal that Ms Summers had provided notice in the approved form and with the prescribed information to the landlord as per section 56B(1) of the RTA. Filing fee
As the landlord wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee. Suppression order
Section 95A of the RTA provides that the Tribunal must order suppression if the party applying for it has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings. The Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published (section 95A(4) RTA).
The landlord has been wholly successful with the claim but does not seek name suppression.
Neither tenants have been wholly successful with their claims.
I consider it would be in the public interest to be aware of the tenants’ rent history arrears. It is a legitimate interest for any of the tenants’ potential future landlords. In this case, I find the public interest outweighs the interests of Ms Summers. I decline suppression of Ms Summers’ details.
On the other hand, [Tenant 1] has paid all her share of the rent to the end of the tenancy. In this instance, I am satisfied that publication of [Tenant 1]'s name would be unjustly detrimental to her interests. I am satisfied that it would not be contrary to the public interest to grant name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4897601 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4897601 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How can a fixed term tenancy be ended?

How much is owed for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How can a fixed term tenancy be ended?

How much is owed for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions