What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4945877 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4945877?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4945877?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4945877?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11095085-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4945877 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4945877?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4945877?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4945877?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11095085-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4945877 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.

Reasons

[ Redacted landlord] and [ Redacted tenant] attended the hearing.
On 08 October 2024, the Tribunal declared that the tenancy was periodic, commencing 21 January 2024. The Tribunal found that a 63 day notice to terminate the tenancy on 18 July 2024 was invalid and of no effect. The landlord’s application was subsequently amended to include a claim for termination of the tenancy on the basis that it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy. See section 55B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).
The hearing was adjourned to allow the landlord to provide documentary evidence supporting their application.
Today, the Tribunal has been advised that the tenant vacated the property by agreement on 14 November 2024.
Under a periodic tenancy, a tenant must give at least 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy, or the landlord may agree to end it with less notice. However, after hearing from both parties, it remains unclear whether there was a conclusive agreement to end the tenancy on terms acceptable to both parties. There is insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to declare that the tenancy ended on 14 November 2024 by mutual agreement.
The Tribunal has therefore proceeded with the amended application for termination, made on the basis that it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue the tenancy.
The landlord’s application is relying on financial hardship. Law
Section 55B of the Act states: 55B Termination where it would be unreasonable to require landlord to continue with tenancy. (1) A landlord under a periodic tenancy may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the ground of hardship. (2) The Tribunal may make the order only if satisfied that— (a) without the order the landlord would suffer greater hardship than the tenant; and (b) because of that hardship, it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy. (3) In deciding whether it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy, the Tribunal must take into account the impact that terminating the tenancy would have on the tenant. (4) Any order under this section must specify a date for the termination.
Hardship is not defined in the Act. However, the New Zealand Law Dictionary, (10th edition, P Spiller, Lexis Nexis February 2022) defines hardship as, “adverse repercussions whether mental or physical ranging from temporary discomfort or inconvenience to some permanent and unalterable misfortune”.
Unlike section 66 of the Act, which allows a party to a fixed term tenancy, either the tenant or landlord, to make an application for termination due to an unforeseen change of circumstances resulting in hardship, section 55B does not require the landlord’s hardship to have been unforeseen.
The onus is on the landlord to establish that without an order for termination the hardship suffered by themselves would be greater than that suffered by the tenant, and because of that hardship it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue.
Having established sufficient hardship, the Tribunal must then conduct a balancing exercise determining the party’s degree of hardship relative to one another. Each case will be determined on its facts. Hardship
The property is owned by a limited liability company of whom [Redacted] are the sole directors. The property has four-bedrooms and is rented room by room. [ Redacted] is a nurse, working part time, [ Redacted] works in IT. They also run a beauty treatment business which they operate out of the lounge at the property about once a fortnight. The room-by-room tenancy model operated by the landlord has been unsustainable, and there has been conflict between the tenant’s and the landlord. One by one the tenancies have ended, leaving the tenant as the sole occupant of a four-bedroom property, paying rent of $220.00 for their room and a share of the bathroom and kitchen.
Based on the documentary evidence produced by the landlord, concerning their tenancy agreements, and the notices they have relied on, it is clear that they have a limited working knowledge of the Residential Tenancies Act.
The Tribunal has heard oral evidence from both parties concerning hardship, and in the tenant’s case the impact that termination may have on them.
On or about 09 September 2024, [ Redacted] was made redundant. He was not eligible for a redundancy payment. Due to the present economic climate, he has been unable to secure further employment. The landlord states that this has resulted in extreme financial and personal strain. The landlord resides in Auckland where they own a home. That property has a mortgage. The rental property also has a significant mortgage. The combined mortgage obligation for the landlord is approximately $3,000.00 a fortnight. The landlord has a young child. They have been granted a mortgage repayment break, made a successful KiwiSaver hardship application, and have asked the MSD for financial assistance. The landlord states they can no longer afford to keep the property and intend offering it for sale as soon as possible.
In addition to their oral evidence., the landlord has also produced their application to MSD for financial relief, KiwiSaver hardship application, a business profit and loss analysis, mortgage details, bank statements, IRD records, rates notices, payslips, and the redundancy letter. Tenant’s circumstances
The tenant is an employed, single young woman with no debts. The tenant vacated the property on 14 November 2024. Decision
After hearing from the parties and considering the documentary evidence produced, I am satisfied that: i. The tenancy model adopted by the landlord is unsustainable. ii. The landlord’s redundancy and overall inability to meet their financial obligations constitute significant hardship. iii. Without a termination order, the landlord would suffer greater hardship than the tenant; and iv. It would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy.
The tenancy is terminated, and possession granted to the landlord immediately.
The Tribunal has drawn the landlord’s attention to section 60AA of the Act, which states a landlord commits an unlawful act if they apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to make the application. Costs
There is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression.
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
In this case the tenant was wholly successful defending the landlord’s initial claim for termination. The landlord has then been successful with their amended application. Assessed globally I am of the opinion that both parties have been sufficiently successful in these proceedings, and both are granted name suppression.

Reasons

[ Redacted landlord] and [ Redacted tenant] attended the hearing.

On 08 October 2024, the Tribunal declared that the tenancy was periodic, commencing 21 January 2024. The Tribunal found that a 63 day notice to terminate the tenancy on 18 July 2024 was invalid and of no effect. The landlord’s application was subsequently amended to include a claim for termination of the tenancy on the basis that it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy. See section 55B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

The hearing was adjourned to allow the landlord to provide documentary evidence supporting their application.

Today, the Tribunal has been advised that the tenant vacated the property by agreement on 14 November 2024.

Under a periodic tenancy, a tenant must give at least 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy, or the landlord may agree to end it with less notice. However, after hearing from both parties, it remains unclear whether there was a conclusive agreement to end the tenancy on terms acceptable to both parties. There is insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to declare that the tenancy ended on 14 November 2024 by mutual agreement.

The Tribunal has therefore proceeded with the amended application for termination, made on the basis that it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue the tenancy.

The landlord’s application is relying on financial hardship. Law

Section 55B of the Act states: 55B Termination where it would be unreasonable to require landlord to continue with tenancy. (1) A landlord under a periodic tenancy may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the ground of hardship. (2) The Tribunal may make the order only if satisfied that— (a) without the order the landlord would suffer greater hardship than the tenant; and (b) because of that hardship, it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy. (3) In deciding whether it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy, the Tribunal must take into account the impact that terminating the tenancy would have on the tenant. (4) Any order under this section must specify a date for the termination.

Hardship is not defined in the Act. However, the New Zealand Law Dictionary, (10th edition, P Spiller, Lexis Nexis February 2022) defines hardship as, “adverse repercussions whether mental or physical ranging from temporary discomfort or inconvenience to some permanent and unalterable misfortune”.

Unlike section 66 of the Act, which allows a party to a fixed term tenancy, either the tenant or landlord, to make an application for termination due to an unforeseen change of circumstances resulting in hardship, section 55B does not require the landlord’s hardship to have been unforeseen.

The onus is on the landlord to establish that without an order for termination the hardship suffered by themselves would be greater than that suffered by the tenant, and because of that hardship it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue.

Having established sufficient hardship, the Tribunal must then conduct a balancing exercise determining the party’s degree of hardship relative to one another. Each case will be determined on its facts. Hardship

The property is owned by a limited liability company of whom [Redacted] are the sole directors. The property has four-bedrooms and is rented room by room. [ Redacted] is a nurse, working part time, [ Redacted] works in IT. They also run a beauty treatment business which they operate out of the lounge at the property about once a fortnight. The room-by-room tenancy model operated by the landlord has been unsustainable, and there has been conflict between the tenant’s and the landlord. One by one the tenancies have ended, leaving the tenant as the sole occupant of a four-bedroom property, paying rent of $220.00 for their room and a share of the bathroom and kitchen.

Based on the documentary evidence produced by the landlord, concerning their tenancy agreements, and the notices they have relied on, it is clear that they have a limited working knowledge of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Tribunal has heard oral evidence from both parties concerning hardship, and in the tenant’s case the impact that termination may have on them.

On or about 09 September 2024, [ Redacted] was made redundant. He was not eligible for a redundancy payment. Due to the present economic climate, he has been unable to secure further employment. The landlord states that this has resulted in extreme financial and personal strain. The landlord resides in Auckland where they own a home. That property has a mortgage. The rental property also has a significant mortgage. The combined mortgage obligation for the landlord is approximately $3,000.00 a fortnight. The landlord has a young child. They have been granted a mortgage repayment break, made a successful KiwiSaver hardship application, and have asked the MSD for financial assistance. The landlord states they can no longer afford to keep the property and intend offering it for sale as soon as possible.

In addition to their oral evidence., the landlord has also produced their application to MSD for financial relief, KiwiSaver hardship application, a business profit and loss analysis, mortgage details, bank statements, IRD records, rates notices, payslips, and the redundancy letter. Tenant’s circumstances

The tenant is an employed, single young woman with no debts. The tenant vacated the property on 14 November 2024. Decision

After hearing from the parties and considering the documentary evidence produced, I am satisfied that: i. The tenancy model adopted by the landlord is unsustainable. ii. The landlord’s redundancy and overall inability to meet their financial obligations constitute significant hardship. iii. Without a termination order, the landlord would suffer greater hardship than the tenant; and iv. It would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy.

The tenancy is terminated, and possession granted to the landlord immediately.

The Tribunal has drawn the landlord’s attention to section 60AA of the Act, which states a landlord commits an unlawful act if they apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to make the application. Costs

There is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression.

Both parties seek name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

In this case the tenant was wholly successful defending the landlord’s initial claim for termination. The landlord has then been successful with their amended application. Assessed globally I am of the opinion that both parties have been sufficiently successful in these proceedings, and both are granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4945877 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4945877 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions