What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4941833 about?

The tribunal order states: Meena Meena and Amrik Singh must pay [The landlord/s] $985.57 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4941833?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $3,398.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4941833?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4941833?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10717006-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4941833 about?

The tribunal order states: Meena Meena and Amrik Singh must pay [The landlord/s] $985.57 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4941833?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $3,398.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4941833?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4941833?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10717006-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4941833 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4941833 — net $985.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 6 August 2024	$3,398.57	Rent to 6 August 2024
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$985.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$985.57

Order

Meena Meena and Amrik Singh must pay [The landlord/s] $985.57 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 14 August 2024.
On 16 July 2024 the tenant applied to the Tribunal for refund of the bond and release from the fixed term tenancy.
On 7 August 2024 the landlord applied to the Tribunal for rent arrears to 6 August 2024 totalling $3,398.57 and for payment from the bond. Background
The parties agreed a fixed term residential tenancy from 10 February 2024 to 10 February 2025. The weekly rent was $610.00.
On 15 May 2024 the tenant requested to be released from the tenancy. The tenant said she was pregnant, and it was difficult travelling each day. The tenant had recommended the premises to friends and family and told them the rent was $620.00 per week. She said their last day would be 23 June 2024. The tenant vacated on 26 June 2024 with the last payment of rent made on 24 June 2024.
The landlord started marketing the property at $610.00 per week. On 29 May and 11 June 2024, the first two approved prospective tenants decided not to proceed with their applications. A further approved applicant pulled out on 2 July 2024. The property was advertised on social media. Overall, there were 31 enquiries, 21 bookings, 10 “no shows” and 7 property viewings. The landlord reduced the advertised rent from $610.00 to $580.00 and allowed people with cats to boost interest. A viewing on Saturday 27 July resulted in an application from the new tenant on 31 July 2024, who moved in on 7 August 2024.
Separately, the tenant was advertising the property on Facebook. The tenant provided some text messages between herself and family friends, and with the owner of the property in May 2024. One of the texts was between the owner and a Filipino family. The owner appears to be asking for a rental above $620.00. In another text the owner said the agent was asking for $660.00 per week. A text exchange with a family friend showed the tenant asking the friend to contact the landlord. The friend said they were waiting for a response. Another individual texted that they didn’t get any response and had found another location.
In emails on 18 May and 28 May 2024 the tenant urged the landlord to assess and approve people completing application forms. The landlord had emailed a link on 14 May 2024 which enabled the tenant’s friends and family members to fill out an application for the tenancy. Relevant Law
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy pursuant to section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) 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.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss.
Section 49 of the Act provides that, where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or the Act, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach. Analysis
The tenant’s request to be released from the fixed term early required the landlord’s agreement. A unilateral decision to end the tenancy would constitute a breach of contract. The implication from all the circumstances is that the landlord agreed to release the tenant once a new tenant was found. In the meantime, the tenancy agreement remained in effect and the tenant remained liable for the rent.
There is authority that a landlord has no duty to mitigate loss if there is no breach, for example, where a tenant merely requests early release from a fixed term tenancy (Keenan v Ohlson (DC Nelson, TT328/00, 9 February 2001). I consider that this approach is arguably inconsistent with the common law concept of “anticipatory breach”. In this case it is likely the facts go further as the tenant requested to be released on 15 May 2024, stopped paying rent after 24 June 2024, and vacated on 26 June 2024.
In my view, the landlord had a duty to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s actual or anticipatory breach of contract. The landlord took reasonable steps by advertising the property on several social media sites and then reducing the asking price when there was insufficient initial interest. There is no indication that the landlord delayed marketing or that there was anything more they could reasonably have done to enhance the marketing effort. Nor is there evidence that the landlord unreasonably rejected suitable applicants.
The tenant was also attempting to market the property, however, the communications between the owner and a prospective tenant suggest that, if anything, this hindered the marketing effort by misrepresenting the weekly rent. The tenant also admitted advertising the rent at $620.00 per week as requested by the owner. Any prospective tenants referred to the landlord by the tenant would have been assessed along with all other applicants, and the Tribunal has no evidence to show this was not done fairly. In all the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to mitigate their loss.
The “unforeseen” change of circumstances relied on by the tenant to support reducing the fixed term was that her pregnancy made travel more difficult. While accepting there had been a change of circumstances, the tenant’s pregnancy and associated difficulties was not “unforeseen”.
After filing the application, the tenant also relied on the behaviour of neighbours next door and in an apartment complex a few doors down the same street. The neighbours were said to be fighting all the time with frequent Police visits. The tenant said someone broke into their car but there was nothing inside to steal.
I would accept harassment from neighbours, i.e., deliberate conduct directed against the tenant and intended to have an adverse effect on the tenant and her family, as an “unforeseen change” in circumstances that might justify reduction of the fixed term. But that is not what the tenant described. Some level of anti- social behaviour from neighbours or others living nearby, while a distressing experience, is not uncommon in suburban neighbourhoods, and unfortunately neither is criminal activity.
I note that anti-social behaviour was not the reason the tenant gave when she asked to be released from the tenancy, so it seems to have been a secondary factor. I would not rule out the possibility that anti-social behaviour from neighbours could meet the unforeseen change in circumstances requirement if it were sufficiently adverse and sustained. But there is insufficient evidence to make such a finding here.
Finally, the tenant said that an order requiring her to pay the rent arrears would cause her “severe hardship”. The tenant said her husband is working and she is also working part-time currently. After deduction of the bond, the tenant owes
57 including the filing fee. While this is not an insignificant amount of money, I do not view such a debt, which could be paid off in instalments, as likely to cause the tenant severe hardship. Filing Fee and Suppression
The landlord has succeeded in recovering rent arrears. I award the filing fee.
The landlord is granted name suppression as requested. The tenant did not request suppression in her application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4941833 — net $985.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 6 August 2024	$3,398.57	Rent to 6 August 2024
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$985.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$985.57

Order

Meena Meena and Amrik Singh must pay [The landlord/s] $985.57 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 14 August 2024.
On 16 July 2024 the tenant applied to the Tribunal for refund of the bond and release from the fixed term tenancy.
On 7 August 2024 the landlord applied to the Tribunal for rent arrears to 6 August 2024 totalling $3,398.57 and for payment from the bond. Background
The parties agreed a fixed term residential tenancy from 10 February 2024 to 10 February 2025. The weekly rent was $610.00.
On 15 May 2024 the tenant requested to be released from the tenancy. The tenant said she was pregnant, and it was difficult travelling each day. The tenant had recommended the premises to friends and family and told them the rent was $620.00 per week. She said their last day would be 23 June 2024. The tenant vacated on 26 June 2024 with the last payment of rent made on 24 June 2024.
The landlord started marketing the property at $610.00 per week. On 29 May and 11 June 2024, the first two approved prospective tenants decided not to proceed with their applications. A further approved applicant pulled out on 2 July 2024. The property was advertised on social media. Overall, there were 31 enquiries, 21 bookings, 10 “no shows” and 7 property viewings. The landlord reduced the advertised rent from $610.00 to $580.00 and allowed people with cats to boost interest. A viewing on Saturday 27 July resulted in an application from the new tenant on 31 July 2024, who moved in on 7 August 2024.
Separately, the tenant was advertising the property on Facebook. The tenant provided some text messages between herself and family friends, and with the owner of the property in May 2024. One of the texts was between the owner and a Filipino family. The owner appears to be asking for a rental above $620.00. In another text the owner said the agent was asking for $660.00 per week. A text exchange with a family friend showed the tenant asking the friend to contact the landlord. The friend said they were waiting for a response. Another individual texted that they didn’t get any response and had found another location.
In emails on 18 May and 28 May 2024 the tenant urged the landlord to assess and approve people completing application forms. The landlord had emailed a link on 14 May 2024 which enabled the tenant’s friends and family members to fill out an application for the tenancy. Relevant Law
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy pursuant to section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) 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.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss.
Section 49 of the Act provides that, where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or the Act, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach. Analysis
The tenant’s request to be released from the fixed term early required the landlord’s agreement. A unilateral decision to end the tenancy would constitute a breach of contract. The implication from all the circumstances is that the landlord agreed to release the tenant once a new tenant was found. In the meantime, the tenancy agreement remained in effect and the tenant remained liable for the rent.
There is authority that a landlord has no duty to mitigate loss if there is no breach, for example, where a tenant merely requests early release from a fixed term tenancy (Keenan v Ohlson (DC Nelson, TT328/00, 9 February 2001). I consider that this approach is arguably inconsistent with the common law concept of “anticipatory breach”. In this case it is likely the facts go further as the tenant requested to be released on 15 May 2024, stopped paying rent after 24 June 2024, and vacated on 26 June 2024.
In my view, the landlord had a duty to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s actual or anticipatory breach of contract. The landlord took reasonable steps by advertising the property on several social media sites and then reducing the asking price when there was insufficient initial interest. There is no indication that the landlord delayed marketing or that there was anything more they could reasonably have done to enhance the marketing effort. Nor is there evidence that the landlord unreasonably rejected suitable applicants.
The tenant was also attempting to market the property, however, the communications between the owner and a prospective tenant suggest that, if anything, this hindered the marketing effort by misrepresenting the weekly rent. The tenant also admitted advertising the rent at $620.00 per week as requested by the owner. Any prospective tenants referred to the landlord by the tenant would have been assessed along with all other applicants, and the Tribunal has no evidence to show this was not done fairly. In all the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to mitigate their loss.
The “unforeseen” change of circumstances relied on by the tenant to support reducing the fixed term was that her pregnancy made travel more difficult. While accepting there had been a change of circumstances, the tenant’s pregnancy and associated difficulties was not “unforeseen”.
After filing the application, the tenant also relied on the behaviour of neighbours next door and in an apartment complex a few doors down the same street. The neighbours were said to be fighting all the time with frequent Police visits. The tenant said someone broke into their car but there was nothing inside to steal.
I would accept harassment from neighbours, i.e., deliberate conduct directed against the tenant and intended to have an adverse effect on the tenant and her family, as an “unforeseen change” in circumstances that might justify reduction of the fixed term. But that is not what the tenant described. Some level of anti- social behaviour from neighbours or others living nearby, while a distressing experience, is not uncommon in suburban neighbourhoods, and unfortunately neither is criminal activity.
I note that anti-social behaviour was not the reason the tenant gave when she asked to be released from the tenancy, so it seems to have been a secondary factor. I would not rule out the possibility that anti-social behaviour from neighbours could meet the unforeseen change in circumstances requirement if it were sufficiently adverse and sustained. But there is insufficient evidence to make such a finding here.
Finally, the tenant said that an order requiring her to pay the rent arrears would cause her “severe hardship”. The tenant said her husband is working and she is also working part-time currently. After deduction of the bond, the tenant owes
57 including the filing fee. While this is not an insignificant amount of money, I do not view such a debt, which could be paid off in instalments, as likely to cause the tenant severe hardship. Filing Fee and Suppression
The landlord has succeeded in recovering rent arrears. I award the filing fee.
The landlord is granted name suppression as requested. The tenant did not request suppression in her application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4941833 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4941833 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions