What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4949815 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 4949815?

Costs Incurred With Breaking Fixed T…: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,285.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4949815?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4949815?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10673896-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4949815 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 4949815?

Costs Incurred With Breaking Fixed T…: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,285.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4949815?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4949815?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10673896-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16 Puaka Street, Pegasus, Pegasus 7612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4949815 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4949815 — net $62.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 July 2024	$2,285.71	Rent arrears to 9 July 2024
Costs incurred with breaking fixed term tenancy	$230.00	Costs incurred with breaking fixed term tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$62.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$62.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord/s name and identifying details.
Teri Lee Aroha Kennedy must pay [The landlord/s] $62.71 immediately, as calculated below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The tenant’s application for a reduction of the term of the fixed term tenancy and a rent refund is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended by phone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and for costs connected with the breaking of the fixed term tenancy.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy which ended on 9 July 2024. She also seeks a rent refund to 6 May 2024 when she considers that a new tenancy could have started. Reduction of the term of a fixed term tenancy / assignment
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. 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 (RTA).
The tenant gave evidence that she vacated the tenancy early because she needed to travel to Thailand for surgery. She asked the landlord if she could assign the tenancy and the landlord agreed to start the ‘break lease’ process.
The tenant said she located other tenants to whom the tenancy could be assigned, but the landlord did not accept those tenants.
The landlord’s representative said that the tenant completed the break lease forms but did not authorise the landlord to advertise for new tenants.
The landlord’s representative said the 3 applicants the tenant suggested were not accepted by the owner of the premises. The first was an application by 2 couples; the owner wanted a family because the premises were not best suited to single, young tenants. The second and third applicants did not pass reference and credit checks and were not progressed.
Eventually, the premises were tenanted on 27 July 2024, 18 days after this tenancy ended.

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

First, I must consider whether there was an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The decision to travel to Thailand when she did was not an unforeseen change in circumstances. The tenant produced no evidence that the surgery (corrective surgery following an earlier cosmetic procedure) was urgent and had to be done when it was.
The landlord’s representative gave evidence that between 13 and 27 May 2024 (the tenant left the tenancy on 3 May) the tenant’s social media posts showed that she was at a resort in Thailand.
An application under section 66 RTA is an application that involves a test of high threshold. A tenancy agreement is a contract. The Tribunal does not lightly set aside a contract.
The tenant referred to an assignment of the tenancy. A landlord must not unreasonably decline to assign a tenancy. But here, the tenancy had only about 2 months to run when the tenant vacated, so that was a factor the landlord properly considered.
Also, that a tenant considers a replacement tenant suitable does not bind the landlord to accept them. Here, the landlord’s representative said that the first proposed tenants were not suitable as they were 2 young couples; the owner preferred a family given the location of the premises with limited parking. The other proposed tenants did not pass credit and other checks.
The landlord did not simply refuse to consider other tenants. It processed each application but did not find them acceptable.
The tenant has not established that the landlord unreasonably withheld consent for an assignment of the tenancy.
Nor has she established that there was an unforeseen change in her circumstances. There is no evidence that the corrective cosmetic procedure had to proceed at the time it did.
As the tenant’s application does not clear the first hurdle of the statutory test, I need not assess the competing hardships of the parties.
The tenant remains liable for rent to the end of the tenancy, and for the fee charged by the landlord for processing the applications to see whether new tenants were acceptable (a modest fee compared with some the Tribunal has seen in other cases). The tenant must also pay the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee. Result
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The tenant must pay rent arrears of $2,285.71, costs of $230.00 for the landlord’s time and effort processing the applications by other tenants, and the filing fee of $27.00.
The bond will be paid to the landlord. After the deduction of the bond, the tenant must pay the landlord $62.71. Name suppression
The landlord sought, and is entitled to, name suppression on the successful application.
The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4949815 — net $62.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 July 2024	$2,285.71	Rent arrears to 9 July 2024
Costs incurred with breaking fixed term tenancy	$230.00	Costs incurred with breaking fixed term tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$62.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$62.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord/s name and identifying details.
Teri Lee Aroha Kennedy must pay [The landlord/s] $62.71 immediately, as calculated below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The tenant’s application for a reduction of the term of the fixed term tenancy and a rent refund is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended by phone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and for costs connected with the breaking of the fixed term tenancy.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy which ended on 9 July 2024. She also seeks a rent refund to 6 May 2024 when she considers that a new tenancy could have started. Reduction of the term of a fixed term tenancy / assignment
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. 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 (RTA).
The tenant gave evidence that she vacated the tenancy early because she needed to travel to Thailand for surgery. She asked the landlord if she could assign the tenancy and the landlord agreed to start the ‘break lease’ process.
The tenant said she located other tenants to whom the tenancy could be assigned, but the landlord did not accept those tenants.
The landlord’s representative said that the tenant completed the break lease forms but did not authorise the landlord to advertise for new tenants.
The landlord’s representative said the 3 applicants the tenant suggested were not accepted by the owner of the premises. The first was an application by 2 couples; the owner wanted a family because the premises were not best suited to single, young tenants. The second and third applicants did not pass reference and credit checks and were not progressed.
Eventually, the premises were tenanted on 27 July 2024, 18 days after this tenancy ended.

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

First, I must consider whether there was an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The decision to travel to Thailand when she did was not an unforeseen change in circumstances. The tenant produced no evidence that the surgery (corrective surgery following an earlier cosmetic procedure) was urgent and had to be done when it was.
The landlord’s representative gave evidence that between 13 and 27 May 2024 (the tenant left the tenancy on 3 May) the tenant’s social media posts showed that she was at a resort in Thailand.
An application under section 66 RTA is an application that involves a test of high threshold. A tenancy agreement is a contract. The Tribunal does not lightly set aside a contract.
The tenant referred to an assignment of the tenancy. A landlord must not unreasonably decline to assign a tenancy. But here, the tenancy had only about 2 months to run when the tenant vacated, so that was a factor the landlord properly considered.
Also, that a tenant considers a replacement tenant suitable does not bind the landlord to accept them. Here, the landlord’s representative said that the first proposed tenants were not suitable as they were 2 young couples; the owner preferred a family given the location of the premises with limited parking. The other proposed tenants did not pass credit and other checks.
The landlord did not simply refuse to consider other tenants. It processed each application but did not find them acceptable.
The tenant has not established that the landlord unreasonably withheld consent for an assignment of the tenancy.
Nor has she established that there was an unforeseen change in her circumstances. There is no evidence that the corrective cosmetic procedure had to proceed at the time it did.
As the tenant’s application does not clear the first hurdle of the statutory test, I need not assess the competing hardships of the parties.
The tenant remains liable for rent to the end of the tenancy, and for the fee charged by the landlord for processing the applications to see whether new tenants were acceptable (a modest fee compared with some the Tribunal has seen in other cases). The tenant must also pay the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee. Result
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
The tenant must pay rent arrears of $2,285.71, costs of $230.00 for the landlord’s time and effort processing the applications by other tenants, and the filing fee of $27.00.
The bond will be paid to the landlord. After the deduction of the bond, the tenant must pay the landlord $62.71. Name suppression
The landlord sought, and is entitled to, name suppression on the successful application.
The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4949815 — Rent arrears at 16 Puaka Street, Pegasus, Pegasus 7612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4949815 — Rent arrears at 16 Puaka Street, Pegasus, Pegasus 7612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions