What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4970475 about?

The tribunal order states: Leonardo Saul is added as an applicant.

How much money was awarded in case 4970475?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970475?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970475?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10947632-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4970475 about?

The tribunal order states: Leonardo Saul is added as an applicant.

How much money was awarded in case 4970475?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970475?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970475?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10947632-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

182A Queen Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4970475 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Leonardo Saul is added as an applicant.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Hoult and Mr Saul, two of the tenants, along with [The landlord’s property managers], property managers for [The landlord/s], all attended the teleconference hearing.
Only Mr Hoult was initially named as an applicant. Mr Leonardo Saul, another tenant, wished to be joined to the claim as an applicant, as he had been involved in the application from the start. So, Mr Saul was joined as an applicant.
The two tenants have applied to reduce their fixed term tenancy based on severe hardship for personal and financial reasons.
Any party bringing a claim before the Tenancy Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim on the balance of probabilities. They must prove it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects, such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be consistent and supported by other acceptable evidence.
The landlord clarified at the hearing that there are five tenants in the tenancy currently, with Mr Hoult and Mr Saul being only two of the five current tenants, and provided change of tenancy documentation to show this. This tenancy is for a fixed term from 1 January 2024 until 31 December 2024. The two tenants making this application to reduce the fixed term of the tenancy said they moved out of the property on 10 May 2024 and 20 May 2024 respectively.
The tenants said they believed the other tenants in the tenancy were aware of this application to reduce the fixed term of the tenancy. There was no confirmation of this provided by the tenants, by way of written statement or otherwise. They confirmed they are making the application only for the two of them, as named in the application, not on behalf of any of the other tenants. The landlord said they recently had contact with the remaining tenants on an unrelated matter and understood that the other tenants were not aware of these two tenants’ application to reduce the fixed term of the tenancy. The other tenants have not been served with the application and ostensibly wish to continue with the term of the tenancy.
The two tenants said they were forced to move out of the property, due to the poor condition at the property and the landlord’s lack of response, support and advice to their concerns. They said that the other tenants have left extensive rubbish both in the interior and exterior of the property, to the extent that both these tenants were unable to mange the other tenants to get them to clean up the property, amongst other issues. The tenants said the other tenants did not wish to move out. The tenants indicated they asked the property manager for advice and support with the other tenants but did not receive adequate responses from him. They provided photographs of the condition of the property and a timeline of events.
The landlord said they are unable to interfere in matters between the tenants themselves, but had conducted regular property inspections, which did not raise concerns for them. The landlord said the property is part of a complex with 4 large properties, with a total of 22 rooms, and a parking lot and so, in relation to rubbish left outside, they have to determine who left any exterior rubbish before they are able to serve any notices about this to the appropriate tenant. The landlord said they have conducted regular property inspections, and no issues were raised at these inspections. The tenants disputed that the property manager conducted the inspections fully, which was disputed in turn by the property manager. The landlord said they are only able to act upon information and evidence they see during inspections, unless notified otherwise that there are issues with the condition of the property in between inspections, that could affect the integrity of the property.
The landlord said they had told these two tenants that, if they were to find 2 replacement tenants for their rooms, the landlord would consent to them being released from the tenancy, but this had not occurred. They said the owner expected the term of the tenancy to remain until 31 December 2024 if no other replacement tenants were procured.
These tenants said they had attempted to bring through new replacement tenants but, with the state of the property, nobody was interested in their rooms. There was an email from Mr Saul to the landlord that he had managed to find a replacement tenant, but he said the landlord did not return the forms to him fast enough, so the potential replacement tenant lost interest in the property. Both tenants said they are now required to pay this rent and rent at their new places, which they said is extremely stressful, both mentally and financially. They said this situation has had a great impact on them.
Another tenant who left on 1 July 2024, shortly after Mr Hoult and Mr Saul, managed to find a replacement tenant for her room. Mr Hoult and Mr Saul signed the change of tenant form consenting to the admission of this replacement tenant to the tenancy. The law
A fixed term tenancy is a legally binding contract, set for a period of time and not intended to be broken. If it is to be broken, that must be by agreement or by Tribunal order.
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.
Where the fixed term tenancy has a number of tenants, they are all jointly and severally liable for the tenancy, which means that they must all be of the same mind in wishing to terminate the tenancy early. Here they are not.
The issue has been considered extensively in another Tribunal decision, Derbyshire & Others v Mark & Maggies Property Company Limited, TT 13/01477/WN. After considering the applicable law, the Adjudicator concluded that a term can be implied into a tenancy agreement that the landlord covenants with all the tenants jointly and severally. This means that some promises can be enforced by the tenants jointly and some can be enforced severally (by one tenant alone). However, the Adjudicator held that not all remedies that would be available to tenants if acting jointly, will necessarily be available to a co-tenant acting alone, and termination of a fixed term tenancy is an obvious example.
There would be serious implications for the other tenants if one tenant under a fixed term tenancy was released from the tenancy and the others were not. In particular, the tenancy remains in place for the other tenants, which includes the obligations under the tenancy agreement, such as the payment of rent. The obligation to pay rent is joint and several, not several (i.e., each tenant is liable for all the rent, not just a proportion) and, consequently, the obligation to pay the departing tenant’s proportion of rent would fall back on the other tenants. It is therefore nonsensical that an order in favour of one tenant ending the tenancy when the others object to doing so, is just.
For the reasons set out above, Mr Hoult and Mr Saul cannot apply to terminate the fixed-term tenancy on their own. Therefore, the application must be dismissed. Suppression
The tenants did not request name suppression. However, the landlord did request name suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA allows the Tribunal to suppress party details having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
As the tenants’ claim has not been successful, I find it that the landlord’s interests outweigh the public interest in not publishing their name. Therefore, the landlord’s name and identifying details are not to be published.

Reasons

Mr Hoult and Mr Saul, two of the tenants, along with [The landlord’s property managers], property managers for [The landlord/s], all attended the teleconference hearing.

Only Mr Hoult was initially named as an applicant. Mr Leonardo Saul, another tenant, wished to be joined to the claim as an applicant, as he had been involved in the application from the start. So, Mr Saul was joined as an applicant.

The two tenants have applied to reduce their fixed term tenancy based on severe hardship for personal and financial reasons.

Any party bringing a claim before the Tenancy Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim on the balance of probabilities. They must prove it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects, such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be consistent and supported by other acceptable evidence.

The landlord clarified at the hearing that there are five tenants in the tenancy currently, with Mr Hoult and Mr Saul being only two of the five current tenants, and provided change of tenancy documentation to show this. This tenancy is for a fixed term from 1 January 2024 until 31 December 2024. The two tenants making this application to reduce the fixed term of the tenancy said they moved out of the property on 10 May 2024 and 20 May 2024 respectively.

The tenants said they believed the other tenants in the tenancy were aware of this application to reduce the fixed term of the tenancy. There was no confirmation of this provided by the tenants, by way of written statement or otherwise. They confirmed they are making the application only for the two of them, as named in the application, not on behalf of any of the other tenants. The landlord said they recently had contact with the remaining tenants on an unrelated matter and understood that the other tenants were not aware of these two tenants’ application to reduce the fixed term of the tenancy. The other tenants have not been served with the application and ostensibly wish to continue with the term of the tenancy.

The two tenants said they were forced to move out of the property, due to the poor condition at the property and the landlord’s lack of response, support and advice to their concerns. They said that the other tenants have left extensive rubbish both in the interior and exterior of the property, to the extent that both these tenants were unable to mange the other tenants to get them to clean up the property, amongst other issues. The tenants said the other tenants did not wish to move out. The tenants indicated they asked the property manager for advice and support with the other tenants but did not receive adequate responses from him. They provided photographs of the condition of the property and a timeline of events.

The landlord said they are unable to interfere in matters between the tenants themselves, but had conducted regular property inspections, which did not raise concerns for them. The landlord said the property is part of a complex with 4 large properties, with a total of 22 rooms, and a parking lot and so, in relation to rubbish left outside, they have to determine who left any exterior rubbish before they are able to serve any notices about this to the appropriate tenant. The landlord said they have conducted regular property inspections, and no issues were raised at these inspections. The tenants disputed that the property manager conducted the inspections fully, which was disputed in turn by the property manager. The landlord said they are only able to act upon information and evidence they see during inspections, unless notified otherwise that there are issues with the condition of the property in between inspections, that could affect the integrity of the property.

The landlord said they had told these two tenants that, if they were to find 2 replacement tenants for their rooms, the landlord would consent to them being released from the tenancy, but this had not occurred. They said the owner expected the term of the tenancy to remain until 31 December 2024 if no other replacement tenants were procured.

These tenants said they had attempted to bring through new replacement tenants but, with the state of the property, nobody was interested in their rooms. There was an email from Mr Saul to the landlord that he had managed to find a replacement tenant, but he said the landlord did not return the forms to him fast enough, so the potential replacement tenant lost interest in the property. Both tenants said they are now required to pay this rent and rent at their new places, which they said is extremely stressful, both mentally and financially. They said this situation has had a great impact on them.

Another tenant who left on 1 July 2024, shortly after Mr Hoult and Mr Saul, managed to find a replacement tenant for her room. Mr Hoult and Mr Saul signed the change of tenant form consenting to the admission of this replacement tenant to the tenancy. The law

A fixed term tenancy is a legally binding contract, set for a period of time and not intended to be broken. If it is to be broken, that must be by agreement or by Tribunal order.

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.

Where the fixed term tenancy has a number of tenants, they are all jointly and severally liable for the tenancy, which means that they must all be of the same mind in wishing to terminate the tenancy early. Here they are not.

The issue has been considered extensively in another Tribunal decision, Derbyshire & Others v Mark & Maggies Property Company Limited, TT 13/01477/WN. After considering the applicable law, the Adjudicator concluded that a term can be implied into a tenancy agreement that the landlord covenants with all the tenants jointly and severally. This means that some promises can be enforced by the tenants jointly and some can be enforced severally (by one tenant alone). However, the Adjudicator held that not all remedies that would be available to tenants if acting jointly, will necessarily be available to a co-tenant acting alone, and termination of a fixed term tenancy is an obvious example.

There would be serious implications for the other tenants if one tenant under a fixed term tenancy was released from the tenancy and the others were not. In particular, the tenancy remains in place for the other tenants, which includes the obligations under the tenancy agreement, such as the payment of rent. The obligation to pay rent is joint and several, not several (i.e., each tenant is liable for all the rent, not just a proportion) and, consequently, the obligation to pay the departing tenant’s proportion of rent would fall back on the other tenants. It is therefore nonsensical that an order in favour of one tenant ending the tenancy when the others object to doing so, is just.

For the reasons set out above, Mr Hoult and Mr Saul cannot apply to terminate the fixed-term tenancy on their own. Therefore, the application must be dismissed. Suppression

The tenants did not request name suppression. However, the landlord did request name suppression.

Section 95A(4) RTA allows the Tribunal to suppress party details having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.

As the tenants’ claim has not been successful, I find it that the landlord’s interests outweigh the public interest in not publishing their name. Therefore, the landlord’s name and identifying details are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4970475 — Tenancy dispute at 182A Queen Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4970475 — Tenancy dispute at 182A Queen Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

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