What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5019751 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5019751?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5019751?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5019751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11051342-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5019751 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5019751?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5019751?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5019751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11051342-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 16, 35 Convoy Lane, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5019751 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.
The tenancy will end on the 13 January 2025, or sooner by agreement between the parties.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held today.
The Tribunal was assisted by a Punjabi Interpreter.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on the 13 January 2025. 1
The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in s 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements. 1 The exact end date of the tenancy was disputed. The date in the tenancy agreement is 15 December 2025, the tenants understood they only had a year tenancy. The landlord’s agent who negotiated the tenancy agreement confirmed that the tenancy agreement was only ever intended to be a one-year fixed term tenancy. The date of 15 December 2025 is a mistake.
There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular, the applicant will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in their circumstances b. the change was unforeseen c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
The questions for determination by the tribunal are: a. Did the landlord agree to reduce the fixed term tenancy on the basis that the tenants would pay a lease break fee and give 28 days notice? b. Was the purchase of the house by the tenants an unforeseen circumstance? c. If so, has the purchase of the house resulted in severe hardship to the tenant? d. If so, is the severe hardships suffered by the tenants greater than the hardship that the landlord would suffer? e. If the term is reduced what compensation should be paid? Did the landlord agree to reduce the fixed term tenancy on the basis that the tenants would pay a lease break fee and give 28 days’ notice?
Both parties agreed that on the 8 July 2024 the tenant and [The property manager] spoke to one another; the tenant said he wanted to purchase a home. [The property manager] understood that he was saying that he had purchased a home and wanted to be released from his fixed term tenancy. [The property manager] says that she said that she would need to ask her owner, but if the owner said yes that the tenant would have to pay a break lease fee and be liable for rent until new tenants were found.
On or about the 1 August [The property manager] enquired with the tenants as to what their situation was, and it was then that she learned that the tenants had not yet purchased. [The property manager] says that she never told the tenants or made any representations that they would be released by giving 28 days or any specific timeframe notice.
On the 22 August the tenants notified the landlord by email that they had found a house and sought to be released from the tenancy from the 5 October 2024. On the 23 August [The property manager] replied in writing confirming her verbal advice that the tenants could be released provided that they paid a break fee and paid rent until the day before the new tenants were secured.
I am satisfied that the tenants were never told by [The property manager] that they would only be liable for 28 days or any other time period. [The property manager]’s email of the 23 August 2024 sets out the landlord’s position clearly. The tenants would be released on the payment of the break fee and would remain liable for rent until new tenants were found.

Was the purchase of the house by the tenants an unforeseen circumstance?

“Unforeseen” means unexpected, without warning, or the reverse of “foreseen”; not liable to result, unlikely, not a real danger, not a serious possibility, not a real risk. 2
The Tribunal has previously terminated tenancies for unforeseen circumstances including the death of one of the tenants or their immediate family, having to relocate for cancer treatment, a tenant’s parent becoming terminally unwell requiring the tenant to move to look after the family member. It is clear from the pattern of these cases that they arise from circumstances beyond the control of the tenants. They are unfortunate life circumstances that have happened to the tenants not of their own making.
The purchase of a home by the tenants is not an unforeseen circumstance. It was a choice made the tenants. The circumstances are entirely within the control and making of the tenants. They are not unexpected, they were planned.
Whilst the tenant may have preferred to purchase a house whilst the prices are low and they had a preferential interest rate, that was their choice. That choice does not absolve them of their obligations of a signed tenancy contract. They are still required to perform their obligations in the tenancy agreement.
As the tenant has failed to make out the first element of the s66 RTA then their application to reduce the fixed term tenancy fails.
I record that the tenancy will end on the 13 January 2025 or earlier by agreement. The tenants are not required to give notice of the end of the fixed term, as it is clear that they wish for the tenancy to end. The landlord is to continue to market the property for rent. Name suppression.
I have suppressed both parties’ names as requested. I do not see any public interest in having the parties’ names released. The decision will still be published with the parties’ names redacted and I consider that this satisfies the need for open justice.

Order

The application is dismissed.
The tenancy will end on the 13 January 2025, or sooner by agreement between the parties.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held today.
The Tribunal was assisted by a Punjabi Interpreter.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on the 13 January 2025. 1
The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in s 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements. 1 The exact end date of the tenancy was disputed. The date in the tenancy agreement is 15 December 2025, the tenants understood they only had a year tenancy. The landlord’s agent who negotiated the tenancy agreement confirmed that the tenancy agreement was only ever intended to be a one-year fixed term tenancy. The date of 15 December 2025 is a mistake.
There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular, the applicant will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in their circumstances b. the change was unforeseen c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
The questions for determination by the tribunal are: a. Did the landlord agree to reduce the fixed term tenancy on the basis that the tenants would pay a lease break fee and give 28 days notice? b. Was the purchase of the house by the tenants an unforeseen circumstance? c. If so, has the purchase of the house resulted in severe hardship to the tenant? d. If so, is the severe hardships suffered by the tenants greater than the hardship that the landlord would suffer? e. If the term is reduced what compensation should be paid? Did the landlord agree to reduce the fixed term tenancy on the basis that the tenants would pay a lease break fee and give 28 days’ notice?
Both parties agreed that on the 8 July 2024 the tenant and [The property manager] spoke to one another; the tenant said he wanted to purchase a home. [The property manager] understood that he was saying that he had purchased a home and wanted to be released from his fixed term tenancy. [The property manager] says that she said that she would need to ask her owner, but if the owner said yes that the tenant would have to pay a break lease fee and be liable for rent until new tenants were found.
On or about the 1 August [The property manager] enquired with the tenants as to what their situation was, and it was then that she learned that the tenants had not yet purchased. [The property manager] says that she never told the tenants or made any representations that they would be released by giving 28 days or any specific timeframe notice.
On the 22 August the tenants notified the landlord by email that they had found a house and sought to be released from the tenancy from the 5 October 2024. On the 23 August [The property manager] replied in writing confirming her verbal advice that the tenants could be released provided that they paid a break fee and paid rent until the day before the new tenants were secured.
I am satisfied that the tenants were never told by [The property manager] that they would only be liable for 28 days or any other time period. [The property manager]’s email of the 23 August 2024 sets out the landlord’s position clearly. The tenants would be released on the payment of the break fee and would remain liable for rent until new tenants were found.

Was the purchase of the house by the tenants an unforeseen circumstance?

“Unforeseen” means unexpected, without warning, or the reverse of “foreseen”; not liable to result, unlikely, not a real danger, not a serious possibility, not a real risk. 2
The Tribunal has previously terminated tenancies for unforeseen circumstances including the death of one of the tenants or their immediate family, having to relocate for cancer treatment, a tenant’s parent becoming terminally unwell requiring the tenant to move to look after the family member. It is clear from the pattern of these cases that they arise from circumstances beyond the control of the tenants. They are unfortunate life circumstances that have happened to the tenants not of their own making.
The purchase of a home by the tenants is not an unforeseen circumstance. It was a choice made the tenants. The circumstances are entirely within the control and making of the tenants. They are not unexpected, they were planned.
Whilst the tenant may have preferred to purchase a house whilst the prices are low and they had a preferential interest rate, that was their choice. That choice does not absolve them of their obligations of a signed tenancy contract. They are still required to perform their obligations in the tenancy agreement.
As the tenant has failed to make out the first element of the s66 RTA then their application to reduce the fixed term tenancy fails.
I record that the tenancy will end on the 13 January 2025 or earlier by agreement. The tenants are not required to give notice of the end of the fixed term, as it is clear that they wish for the tenancy to end. The landlord is to continue to market the property for rent. Name suppression.
I have suppressed both parties’ names as requested. I do not see any public interest in having the parties’ names released. The decision will still be published with the parties’ names redacted and I consider that this satisfies the need for open justice.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5019751 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 16, 35 Convoy Lane, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5019751 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 16, 35 Convoy Lane, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the purchase of the house by the tenants an unforeseen circumstance?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Was the purchase of the house by the tenants an unforeseen circumstance?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions