What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4934055 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Elshame Othman at [Tenancy address suppressed] is

How much money was awarded in case 4934055?

Rent Arrears: $860.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4934055?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4934055?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10704715-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4934055 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Elshame Othman at [Tenancy address suppressed] is

How much money was awarded in case 4934055?

Rent Arrears: $860.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4934055?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4934055?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10704715-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4934055 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4934055. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$860.00		Rent arrears

Order

The tenancy of Elshame Othman at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s] on 19 July 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $860.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $860.00 Elshame Othman: $860.00
The applications to reduce the fixed term tenancy and for abandonment are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for abandonment, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
The tenant has applied to have the term of his fixed term tenancy reduced and for the refund of his bond.
The issue between the parties can be summarised briefly.
This is a fixed term tenancy. The tenancy was to end on 11 November 2024.
The premises are a studio apartment.
The tenant says that on 9 June 2024 he discovered that the handle to the bathroom/toilet door was broken. This meant that the door could not be closed properly.
The tenant contacted the landlord on 9 June 2024 and left a message about the issue.
By 14 June 2024 nothing had been done and the tenant contacted the landlord again asking for the matter to be repaired.
By 19 June 2024 nothing had been done. The tenant contacted the landlord again to complain. He explained to the landlord that as a practising Muslim there were cultural and religious issues involved and he was unable to complete his prayer requirements due to the toilet being open.
The tenant was frustrated and on 22 June 2024 the tenant sent an email to the landlord giving the landlord notice of his intention to terminate the tenancy on 4 July 2024.
On 25 June 2024 a maintenance person arrived at the premises. He said that the door handle could not be repaired and would need to be replaced.
The tenant left the premises on 4 July 2024 with the intention that he would not return.
The tenant wants to have the fixed term tenancy reduced so as to end on 4 July 2024.
The landlord accepts that the issue was first brought to their attention on 9 June 2024.
The landlord’s contractors were busy and they did not go to the premises until 24 June 2024. The contractor advised the landlord that the door handle would need to be replaced. There were difficulties in obtaining the correct handle, but it was eventually installed on 4 July 2024.
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 (“RTA”), 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) RTA 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.
In this case, the tenant had a number of options available to him short of attempting to terminate his tenancy. The tenant could have filed an application under s.45 RTA. That section requires a landlord to maintain premises in a reasonable state and allows for exemplary damages to be awarded where a landlord fails to maintain the premises. The Tribunal may also issue a work order requiring the landlord to carry out work on the premises (see s.78(1)(e) RTA).
The issue with the door handle was not such as to entitle the tenant to simply breach his contractual obligations. Had this been a claim for failure to maintain, I may well have found in favour of the tenant, as I do not consider that a period of almost four weeks to be an acceptable time frame to complete the repair.
The application for reduction of the fixed term is dismissed.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate the tenancy where the premises have been abandoned and rent is in arrear at the hearing date. See section 61 RTA. A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse, not intending to return or to meet their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord.
On 4 July 2024 the landlord became aware (or ought to have been aware) that the tenant had abandoned the premises. The tenant had returned the keys and had informed the landlord of his intention to leave.
The landlord has attempted to mitigate his losses by finding a replacement tenant. The landlord says that the tenant moved in on 19 July 2024. The tenant said that he had meet the new tenant and that the tenant said that he moved in on 13 July 2024. The landlord said that this was not possible as the new tenant had only arrived in New Zealand on 18 July 2024 and that the commencement date was recorded in the tenancy agreement. On this issue, I prefer the evidence of the landlord.
The premises were abandoned on 4 July 2024. The landlord rent summary shows that the rent was not in arrears on 4 July 2024 and accordingly no order for abandonment is made.
The landlord has installed a new tenant. I consider that in the circumstances where the fixed term tenancy has not been reduced and the tenancy has not technically been abandoned, that the tenancy is terminated as of 18 July 2024. The rent arrears owing to that date are $860.00. The tenant is to pay $860.00 to the landlord.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4934055. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$860.00		Rent arrears

Order

The tenancy of Elshame Othman at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s] on 19 July 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $860.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $860.00 Elshame Othman: $860.00
The applications to reduce the fixed term tenancy and for abandonment are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for abandonment, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
The tenant has applied to have the term of his fixed term tenancy reduced and for the refund of his bond.
The issue between the parties can be summarised briefly.
This is a fixed term tenancy. The tenancy was to end on 11 November 2024.
The premises are a studio apartment.
The tenant says that on 9 June 2024 he discovered that the handle to the bathroom/toilet door was broken. This meant that the door could not be closed properly.
The tenant contacted the landlord on 9 June 2024 and left a message about the issue.
By 14 June 2024 nothing had been done and the tenant contacted the landlord again asking for the matter to be repaired.
By 19 June 2024 nothing had been done. The tenant contacted the landlord again to complain. He explained to the landlord that as a practising Muslim there were cultural and religious issues involved and he was unable to complete his prayer requirements due to the toilet being open.
The tenant was frustrated and on 22 June 2024 the tenant sent an email to the landlord giving the landlord notice of his intention to terminate the tenancy on 4 July 2024.
On 25 June 2024 a maintenance person arrived at the premises. He said that the door handle could not be repaired and would need to be replaced.
The tenant left the premises on 4 July 2024 with the intention that he would not return.
The tenant wants to have the fixed term tenancy reduced so as to end on 4 July 2024.
The landlord accepts that the issue was first brought to their attention on 9 June 2024.
The landlord’s contractors were busy and they did not go to the premises until 24 June 2024. The contractor advised the landlord that the door handle would need to be replaced. There were difficulties in obtaining the correct handle, but it was eventually installed on 4 July 2024.
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 (“RTA”), 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) RTA 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.
In this case, the tenant had a number of options available to him short of attempting to terminate his tenancy. The tenant could have filed an application under s.45 RTA. That section requires a landlord to maintain premises in a reasonable state and allows for exemplary damages to be awarded where a landlord fails to maintain the premises. The Tribunal may also issue a work order requiring the landlord to carry out work on the premises (see s.78(1)(e) RTA).
The issue with the door handle was not such as to entitle the tenant to simply breach his contractual obligations. Had this been a claim for failure to maintain, I may well have found in favour of the tenant, as I do not consider that a period of almost four weeks to be an acceptable time frame to complete the repair.
The application for reduction of the fixed term is dismissed.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate the tenancy where the premises have been abandoned and rent is in arrear at the hearing date. See section 61 RTA. A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse, not intending to return or to meet their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord.
On 4 July 2024 the landlord became aware (or ought to have been aware) that the tenant had abandoned the premises. The tenant had returned the keys and had informed the landlord of his intention to leave.
The landlord has attempted to mitigate his losses by finding a replacement tenant. The landlord says that the tenant moved in on 19 July 2024. The tenant said that he had meet the new tenant and that the tenant said that he moved in on 13 July 2024. The landlord said that this was not possible as the new tenant had only arrived in New Zealand on 18 July 2024 and that the commencement date was recorded in the tenancy agreement. On this issue, I prefer the evidence of the landlord.
The premises were abandoned on 4 July 2024. The landlord rent summary shows that the rent was not in arrears on 4 July 2024 and accordingly no order for abandonment is made.
The landlord has installed a new tenant. I consider that in the circumstances where the fixed term tenancy has not been reduced and the tenancy has not technically been abandoned, that the tenancy is terminated as of 18 July 2024. The rent arrears owing to that date are $860.00. The tenant is to pay $860.00 to the landlord.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4934055 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4934055 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions