What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4967679 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Munesh Chand Nina

How much money was awarded in case 4967679?

Break Lease Fee: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $1,657.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4967679?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4967679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10947224-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4967679 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Munesh Chand Nina

How much money was awarded in case 4967679?

Break Lease Fee: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $1,657.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4967679?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4967679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10947224-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4967679 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4967679 — net $2,232.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 18 September 2024	$1,657.14	Rent to 18 September 2024
Break lease fee	$575.00	Break lease fee
Net award	$2,232.14
Bond	$2,240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,232.14

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Munesh Chand Nina Bhatia $2,232.14 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Munesh Chand Nina Bhatia: $2,232.14 [The tenant/s]: $7.86

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 10 October 2024.
On 10 August 2024 the tenant applied to the Tribunal for refund of the bond.
On 23 September 2024, the landlord applied for termination, rent arrears and the break lease fee. Background Facts
A summary of the facts is as follows: • The parties entered into a fixed-term residential tenancy agreement from 22 August 2023 to 23 August 2024 at a weekly rent of $560.00. • On 17 June 2024 the tenant said they were planning to leave the premises and asked about contract cancellation. There were: “...off street parking issues as my husband’s company car was broken [into] and increasing rent.” • On 22 July 2024 the landlord proposed extending the fixed term from 23 August 2024 to 23 August 2025, at an increased weekly rent of $580.00. • The parties signed a tenancy extension on 23 July 2024. The agreement said the extension was on the same terms as the previous tenancy, except for the changed duration and rent. • On 26 July 2024, the tenant emailed the landlord, stating: This email is in regards to cancellation of my tenancy contract due to changes in company rules for strictly using company car, having a garage parking considering safety of company car and bank case as my husband [is] working as [redacted] in bank...Very sorry for doing the contract, due to my husband’s job requirement and I believe that I still have time to give 28 days’ notice for cancellation of the contract. • A representative of the landlord (not the property manager for that property) acknowledged the email. • The tenant said she signed a tenancy agreement for a more suitable property in the same area on 27 July 2024. • On 30 July 2024 the property manager returned from leave and emailed the tenant: As you have signed a fixed term renewal and this has been all actioned we cannot accept your 28 days notice. However, you can still vacate the property however you will be liable for rent till a new tenant is found and also you will be liable for the advertising and costs associated with this process. • The tenant returned the keys to the landlord’s reception desk on 23 August 2024. • The landlord had commenced advertising for new tenants on 8 July 2024 and restarted the advertising campaign after the tenant vacated. There seems to have been little interest, with only 7 viewings (12 were scheduled but the prospective tenants did not attend). The landlord said the property was offered to an applicant who declined the offer. • A fixed term tenancy agreement with new tenants was signed on 18 September 2024 and will commence from 25 October 2024 at a rent of $580.00. Analysis
The tenant gave notice of termination by email on 26 July 2024 before 5pm. Although not expressed in the terms required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) it was treated as a termination notice by the landlord. By itself, this notice would have been effective to end the tenancy on expiry of the fixed term, pursuant to section 60A of the Act.
The notice was, however, invalid because the tenant had already extended the fixed term for a further year. It is not possible to terminate a fixed-term tenancy by notice except as provided in section 50(1)(a) of the Act. None of the provisions listed there apply in this case.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy in certain circumstances. The tenant has not applied to reduce the fixed term, and even where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. However, I have considered whether it would be appropriate to reduce the fixed term.
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.
I have been unable to identify in the tenant’s explanation any unforeseen change in her circumstances. The tenant and her husband decided to extend the fixed term and then changed their minds. The reason given for this in the 26 July 2024 notice seems to have related to criminal damage to the husband’s company vehicle and a need for garaging. The tenant also spoke about problems caused by having only one gate access key at the premises.
In my view, these events do not constitute an unforeseen change of circumstances, although they might result in severe hardship if the tenancy were not reduced. They were, rather, motivating factors for a deliberate decision to move to more suitable premises.
The tenants indicated that they had been misled and did not understand the difference between fixed and periodic tenancies. They said they were first-time tenants and recent arrivals to New Zealand.
I cannot find in the available evidence anything that suggests the tenant’s decision to extend the fixed term was induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or any kind of duress. The terms of the extension are unremarkable, extending the term by a year with a modest increase in rent. It cannot be said that the agreement was harsh or unconscionable.
Further, the tenant could have educated herself about the difference between periodic and fixed term tenancies and would have been best advised not to sign something she did not understand. There is nothing suggesting she was misled into believing she could terminate a fixed term tenancy by giving 28-days’ notice, for example. The landlord correctly informed the tenant in a letter dated 22 July 2024 that she would need to give 28-days’ notice to terminate the tenancy at the end of the fixed term.
I find that the tenant is prima facie liable for rent on the contract she signed to extend the fixed term. The landlord claimed rent arrears to 24 October 2024.
The landlord had a duty to mitigate the loss from the tenant’s breach of contract. There is nothing in the available evidence to indicate that the marketing of the property was defective in any way. According to the Tenancy Services website, the weekly median rent for a 2-bedroom house in Mangere East is $595.00, so the premises were not obviously overpriced.
However, I consider that the landlord should bear the loss of rent after 18 September 2024, when the replacement tenant signed the tenancy agreement. It was the landlord’s decision to accept a later commencement date when an earlier one might still have been available.
This outcome also, in my view, reflects the substantial merits and justice of the case (section 85(2) of the Act). The tenant was initially intending to leave but was persuaded to sign a further fixed term by the owner, who agreed to limit the rent increase. If she had not done so, she could have relied on the notice given on 26 July 2024 to terminate the tenancy on 23 August 2024, or indeed, could have given a further 28-day notice prior to expiry ending the tenancy after its continuation as a periodic tenancy (see sections 60A and 50(1) of the Act).
The highly disadvantageous consequence of the tenant’s actions is that she is liable for rent under two tenancies, something that could easily cause severe hardship. I consider it would be harsh or unconscionable to hold the tenant liable on the contract until late October (section 78A(1)(f)).
The latest rent summary provided by the landlord shows rent arrears of $2,320.00 to 26 September 2024. The rent arrears to 18 September 2024 are $1,657.14 ($1,740.00 as of 19 September less the daily rent of $82.86). I note that this means the tenant is liable for rent for nearly 8 weeks after she gave notice on 26 July 2024. Break Lease Fee
Section 44A enables a landlord to recover expenses reasonably incurred in respect of the parting with possession. However, a landlord who seeks to recover expenses must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant.
The landlord invoiced the tenant for the break lease fee of $575.00 but the invoice was not itemised. However, the additional terms of the tenancy agreement provided that, if a fixed term tenancy was broken, the landlord would use its best endeavours to find new tenants. The clause also provided that a break lease fee of $500.00 plus GST would be payable and explained that the fee was for advertising, viewings, reviewing applications, carrying out background checks and signing up new tenants. The tenant therefore had advance notice of the break lease cost and in general terms what that cost comprised.
The tenant did not oppose the break lease fee. The available evidence indicates that the landlord incurred some costs during the abortive initial marketing from 8 July 2024. The landlord has then again incurred marketing and re-letting costs. It is in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of the case to award the break lease fee. Filing fee and suppression
Both parties have had some success. It is appropriate that they bear their own costs of the proceeding.
The tenant sought name suppression. I exercise my discretion to grant suppression pursuant to section 95A(4) of the Act. The tenant’s lack of sophistication in tenancy matters supports protection of her privacy.
The landlord did not request suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4967679 — net $2,232.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 18 September 2024	$1,657.14	Rent to 18 September 2024
Break lease fee	$575.00	Break lease fee
Net award	$2,232.14
Bond	$2,240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,232.14

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Munesh Chand Nina Bhatia $2,232.14 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Munesh Chand Nina Bhatia: $2,232.14 [The tenant/s]: $7.86

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 10 October 2024.
On 10 August 2024 the tenant applied to the Tribunal for refund of the bond.
On 23 September 2024, the landlord applied for termination, rent arrears and the break lease fee. Background Facts
A summary of the facts is as follows: • The parties entered into a fixed-term residential tenancy agreement from 22 August 2023 to 23 August 2024 at a weekly rent of $560.00. • On 17 June 2024 the tenant said they were planning to leave the premises and asked about contract cancellation. There were: “...off street parking issues as my husband’s company car was broken [into] and increasing rent.” • On 22 July 2024 the landlord proposed extending the fixed term from 23 August 2024 to 23 August 2025, at an increased weekly rent of $580.00. • The parties signed a tenancy extension on 23 July 2024. The agreement said the extension was on the same terms as the previous tenancy, except for the changed duration and rent. • On 26 July 2024, the tenant emailed the landlord, stating: This email is in regards to cancellation of my tenancy contract due to changes in company rules for strictly using company car, having a garage parking considering safety of company car and bank case as my husband [is] working as [redacted] in bank...Very sorry for doing the contract, due to my husband’s job requirement and I believe that I still have time to give 28 days’ notice for cancellation of the contract. • A representative of the landlord (not the property manager for that property) acknowledged the email. • The tenant said she signed a tenancy agreement for a more suitable property in the same area on 27 July 2024. • On 30 July 2024 the property manager returned from leave and emailed the tenant: As you have signed a fixed term renewal and this has been all actioned we cannot accept your 28 days notice. However, you can still vacate the property however you will be liable for rent till a new tenant is found and also you will be liable for the advertising and costs associated with this process. • The tenant returned the keys to the landlord’s reception desk on 23 August 2024. • The landlord had commenced advertising for new tenants on 8 July 2024 and restarted the advertising campaign after the tenant vacated. There seems to have been little interest, with only 7 viewings (12 were scheduled but the prospective tenants did not attend). The landlord said the property was offered to an applicant who declined the offer. • A fixed term tenancy agreement with new tenants was signed on 18 September 2024 and will commence from 25 October 2024 at a rent of $580.00. Analysis
The tenant gave notice of termination by email on 26 July 2024 before 5pm. Although not expressed in the terms required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) it was treated as a termination notice by the landlord. By itself, this notice would have been effective to end the tenancy on expiry of the fixed term, pursuant to section 60A of the Act.
The notice was, however, invalid because the tenant had already extended the fixed term for a further year. It is not possible to terminate a fixed-term tenancy by notice except as provided in section 50(1)(a) of the Act. None of the provisions listed there apply in this case.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy in certain circumstances. The tenant has not applied to reduce the fixed term, and even where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. However, I have considered whether it would be appropriate to reduce the fixed term.
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.
I have been unable to identify in the tenant’s explanation any unforeseen change in her circumstances. The tenant and her husband decided to extend the fixed term and then changed their minds. The reason given for this in the 26 July 2024 notice seems to have related to criminal damage to the husband’s company vehicle and a need for garaging. The tenant also spoke about problems caused by having only one gate access key at the premises.
In my view, these events do not constitute an unforeseen change of circumstances, although they might result in severe hardship if the tenancy were not reduced. They were, rather, motivating factors for a deliberate decision to move to more suitable premises.
The tenants indicated that they had been misled and did not understand the difference between fixed and periodic tenancies. They said they were first-time tenants and recent arrivals to New Zealand.
I cannot find in the available evidence anything that suggests the tenant’s decision to extend the fixed term was induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or any kind of duress. The terms of the extension are unremarkable, extending the term by a year with a modest increase in rent. It cannot be said that the agreement was harsh or unconscionable.
Further, the tenant could have educated herself about the difference between periodic and fixed term tenancies and would have been best advised not to sign something she did not understand. There is nothing suggesting she was misled into believing she could terminate a fixed term tenancy by giving 28-days’ notice, for example. The landlord correctly informed the tenant in a letter dated 22 July 2024 that she would need to give 28-days’ notice to terminate the tenancy at the end of the fixed term.
I find that the tenant is prima facie liable for rent on the contract she signed to extend the fixed term. The landlord claimed rent arrears to 24 October 2024.
The landlord had a duty to mitigate the loss from the tenant’s breach of contract. There is nothing in the available evidence to indicate that the marketing of the property was defective in any way. According to the Tenancy Services website, the weekly median rent for a 2-bedroom house in Mangere East is $595.00, so the premises were not obviously overpriced.
However, I consider that the landlord should bear the loss of rent after 18 September 2024, when the replacement tenant signed the tenancy agreement. It was the landlord’s decision to accept a later commencement date when an earlier one might still have been available.
This outcome also, in my view, reflects the substantial merits and justice of the case (section 85(2) of the Act). The tenant was initially intending to leave but was persuaded to sign a further fixed term by the owner, who agreed to limit the rent increase. If she had not done so, she could have relied on the notice given on 26 July 2024 to terminate the tenancy on 23 August 2024, or indeed, could have given a further 28-day notice prior to expiry ending the tenancy after its continuation as a periodic tenancy (see sections 60A and 50(1) of the Act).
The highly disadvantageous consequence of the tenant’s actions is that she is liable for rent under two tenancies, something that could easily cause severe hardship. I consider it would be harsh or unconscionable to hold the tenant liable on the contract until late October (section 78A(1)(f)).
The latest rent summary provided by the landlord shows rent arrears of $2,320.00 to 26 September 2024. The rent arrears to 18 September 2024 are $1,657.14 ($1,740.00 as of 19 September less the daily rent of $82.86). I note that this means the tenant is liable for rent for nearly 8 weeks after she gave notice on 26 July 2024. Break Lease Fee
Section 44A enables a landlord to recover expenses reasonably incurred in respect of the parting with possession. However, a landlord who seeks to recover expenses must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant.
The landlord invoiced the tenant for the break lease fee of $575.00 but the invoice was not itemised. However, the additional terms of the tenancy agreement provided that, if a fixed term tenancy was broken, the landlord would use its best endeavours to find new tenants. The clause also provided that a break lease fee of $500.00 plus GST would be payable and explained that the fee was for advertising, viewings, reviewing applications, carrying out background checks and signing up new tenants. The tenant therefore had advance notice of the break lease cost and in general terms what that cost comprised.
The tenant did not oppose the break lease fee. The available evidence indicates that the landlord incurred some costs during the abortive initial marketing from 8 July 2024. The landlord has then again incurred marketing and re-letting costs. It is in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of the case to award the break lease fee. Filing fee and suppression
Both parties have had some success. It is appropriate that they bear their own costs of the proceeding.
The tenant sought name suppression. I exercise my discretion to grant suppression pursuant to section 95A(4) of the Act. The tenant’s lack of sophistication in tenancy matters supports protection of her privacy.
The landlord did not request suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4967679 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4967679 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions