What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4909094 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4909094?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4909094?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4909094?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10533882-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4909094 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4909094?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4909094?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4909094?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10533882-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4C, 97 Shortland Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4909094 — Unit Titles

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Khmg Investment Management Limited As Agent For Jian Ping Tang immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Flat 4C, 97 Shortland Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is reduced and now ends at
59 am on Friday 12 July 2024 or such earlier date as may be agreed to by both parties.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 3 July 2024.
The tenant has applied to have her bond released and for the fixed term tenancy to be reduced in term.
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 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
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. there has been a change in their circumstances. b. the change was unforeseen. c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced. d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
Section 66(2) provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage which results from the reduction of the term.
The weighing of relative hardship is a question of fact to be assessed objectively in each case.
The tenancy commenced on 9 December 2023 and is a fixed term tenancy through until 9 December 2024.
The premises are on the 4 th floor of a 13 storey building in the Auckland CBD. The tenant lives alone.
The tenant said that for the first few months of the tenancy she enjoyed living at the premises.
On 28 February 2024, the tenant said that there was a knock at her door. She opened the door, but left it secured by the security latch. A large man told her to open the door as this was his house. The tenant told the man that this was her house and closed the door. The man attempted to force entry and in doing so damaged the security latch. The man waited outside in the hallway for 10 minutes.
The tenant called the building manager. The manager told the tenant not to open the door and to call the police. The police were called and they attended at the premises.
The building manager explained that the man was an intoxicated resident of the building who had become disorientated.
The tenant ordered a package online to be delivered to her. The cost of the item was approximately $300.00. The package was left at the tenants letter box in the building. On 13 March 2024, the tenant went to collect the package. She discovered that it had gone. An investigation by the building manager using CCTV footage showed that the package had been stolen by a person who was not a resident of the building.
On 1 June 2024 the tenant was at home. The building intercom sounded in her unit. A person unknown to the tenant asked her to allow them entry to the building. The tenant did not allow them entry as she did not know who the person was. The tenant checked her CCTV which shows the entrance to the building. She could see a person trying to break into the building.
The tenant called the building manager. The manager said that she should call the police.
The person returned later that afternoon and called the tenant on her intercom asking to be let in. The tenant called the Police. The person managed to gain access to the building and went to the tenant’s door and knocked.
Evidence provided by the building manager was that on 1 June 2024 an unauthorised person gained access to the building and activated the fire hydrants causing substantial damage.
Recently, a tenant of the building allowed an unknown person to enter the building. Bicycles belonging to other tenants were stolen.
The landlord is the owner of this single unit at the building. The owner said they had responded to the tenant’s concerns by replacing the lock on her door. The landlord is unable to change the security to the building as it is owned by a body corporate.
The tenant indicated to the landlord that she wished to break the fixed term tenancy. The landlord provided the tenant with their proposed break lease costs ($940.19) and said that the tenant would remain liable for rental on the premises until such time as a replacement tenant could be found. Unforeseen change in circumstances
To be successful, the applicant must first establish that their circumstances have changed during the tenancy. Section 66 RTA does not apply where the circumstances existed at the outset of the tenancy but were not discovered until after the tenancy commenced. Thus for example, it may not apply where the rent, from the outset, was too high or where the tenant entered into the tenancy in the mistaken belief that it could be terminated as if it were a periodic tenancy despite it being a fixed term tenancy.
Section 66 RTA requires that the change in circumstances was unforeseen. What is meant by “unforeseen” in the context of s. 66 RTA was discussed by the Tribunal in Bond v Tang Invercargill TT 09/583/IN, 25 August 2009 at [18] where the Tribunal concluded that: “The term ‘unforeseen’ is a legal term defined by reference to the reverse (‘foreseeability’) in cases relating to negligence (in determining whether a duty of case is owed and what damages are reasonably foreseeable) and in cases assessing damages for breach of contract (also in assessing the remoteness of damage). In both contexts there is a body of case law which has established that: “a)foreseeability must be assessed objectively through the eyes of a reasonable person who has taken all reasonable steps to inform himself of the circumstances; “b)an outcome is foreseeable in legal terms if it is ‘liable to result’, ‘not unlikely’, ‘quite likely’, a ‘real danger’, a ‘serious possibility’, or a ‘real risk’; “c)the term ‘unforeseen’ has few if any direct dictionary definitions, but by thesaurus is aligned with such concepts as ‘unexpected’ and ‘without warning’. In a legal context, it must also be taken as a reverse of what is ‘foreseen’, thus being ‘not liable to result’, ‘unlikely’, ‘not a real danger’, ‘not a serious possibility’, or ‘not a real risk’.”
The tenant said that prior to making the decision to move into these premises she made enquiries about the safety of both the area and the particular building.
The Tribunal has previously found that a number of burglaries at the premises would amount to an unforeseen change in circumstances ( see Abbott v Layton Holdings Ltd TT Christchurch TT09.2803 4 August 2009 and Astute Property Group Ltd v Lopez (2017) NZTT 4069320 where a single burglary was sufficient).
I consider that the range of incidents complained of by the tenant are sufficient to amount to an unforeseen change in circumstances.
Will the unforeseen change result in a severe hardship to the tenant if the tenancy is not ended?
The tenant said that for the first few months of her tenancy she greatly enjoyed living at the premises. The incidents complained of have been such that she struggles to sleep, her work is detrimentally effected and she is scared. A tenant should be entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises and to live in a secure environment. That she is not able to do so, is in my view a severe hardship.
Will the severe hardship which will be suffered by the tenant if the Tribunal does not reduce the fixed term, exceed the hardship that the landlord will suffer if the Tribunal does reduce the fixed term?
The central issue is the balance to be struck between the interest of the tenant caught in a situation beyond her control or expectations and the interests of the landlord with an expectation of continued cash flow for the term of the tenancy. The landlord explained that reletting the premises would be difficult as it did not come with car parking. It had taken at least two months to find the tenant. In Lether v Protheroe DC Tauranga CIV -2009-070-65, 19 October 2009 the Court considered that the time taken to find a new tenant was an important consideration.
Weighing up the circumstances as set out above, I consider that the severe hardship that might be suffered by the tenant if the tenancy is not ended and in particular to her mental health, outweighs the financial hardship that will be suffered by the landlord. The fixed term tenancy will end on Friday 12 July 2024 or such earlier date as agreed upon by the parties.
Section 66 (2) RTA provides that where a fixed term is reduced, the Tribunal may order the applicant to pay an amount to the other party determined to be reasonable compensation for any loss or damage suffered as a result of the early termination.
The reduction in this fixed term will result in a loss of cash flow until such time as the landlord is able to find replacement tenants and the break lease costs. The break lease costs would have been an inevitable costs to the landlord once this fixed term tenancy ended. Section 66(2) RTA refers to “reasonable compensation”.
Whilst the landlord indicated that it may take some time to let the premises again, they may also be fortunate and find a replacement tenant promptly. Deciding an amount for reasonable compensation is not a scientific exercise and requires some guess work. Taking into account the loss of potential cash flow and the break lease costs, the Tribunal orders the tenant to pay compensation to the landlord equivalent to four weeks rent ($2,200.00). The Bond Centre will be ordered to pay the bond held to the landlord.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. The tenant has been successful in this matter and suppression of the tenant name is ordered. I make no order for suppression of the address.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the landlord application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4909094 — Unit Titles at Unit/Flat Flat 4C, 97 Shortland Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4909094 — Unit Titles at Unit/Flat Flat 4C, 97 Shortland Street, Auckland Central,

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