What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5043568 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and the landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5043568?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5043568?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5043568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11350675-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5043568 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and the landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5043568?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5043568?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5043568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11350675-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5043568 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy of the premises commencing on 23 March 2024 and ending on 23 November 2025.
The landlord applied for an order ending the fixed term tenancy on the basis that he wished to move back into the premises.

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

A fixed term tenancy cannot be ended by notice. However, under section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) the Tribunal may, on the application of either the tenant or the landlord, reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy where the applicant (here the landlord) establishes that: (i) there has been an unforeseen change in his circumstances during the tenancy; (ii) that unforeseen change will result in severe hardship if the tenancy is not ended; and (iii) the severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term were not reduced exceeds the hardship the tenants would suffer if the term was reduced.
Where the Tribunal does reduce the term of the tenancy, the Tribunal may, pursuant to section 66(2), order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for their loss. Was there an unforeseen change in the landlord’s circumstances during the tenancy?
The term “unforeseen” in the context of section 66 can be aligned with such concepts as ‘unexpected’, ‘without warning’. In a legal context, it can also be taken as the reverse of what is ‘foreseen’, thus being ‘not liable to result’, ‘unlikely’, ‘not a real danger’, ‘not a serious possibility’ or ‘not a real risk’.” In my view the test is both a subjective and objective. Thus, whether the applicant foresaw the change in circumstances which occurred during the tenancy (the subjective test) must be considered in the context of whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances for the applicant to have that state of mind. In other words, would a reasonable person, fully acquainted with the circumstances, consider the change foreseeable.
The premises consist of a five bedroomed home in [W] and was the landlord’s home until March 2023, when he moved to [C]. He said that he made the move to be near his daughter who was attending university and to make it easier for his son to find work.
The unforeseen change that the landlord relies on to reduce the term of the tenancy is essentially that he is suffering financial hardship. He said that it took some time to find work in [C] and the income from the job he currently has was not enough to pay the mortgage on the tenancy premises plus rent for his [C] tenancy and other expenses. He therefore made the decision to move back to [W] and, on 12 August 2024, he purported to give the tenants’ notice to end the tenancy on 27 September 2024.
He said that since making the decision to move back to [W], his financial hardship has increased by the substantial increase in the interest rate payable on his mortgage from a fixed rate of approximately 3% to a rate of somewhere between 7 and 8%. The increase took effect when the fixed rate term expired in September 2024.
The landlord also said that he had an accident in October 2024 and he is only receiving 80% of his normal wages from ACC. He said that medical specialists have told him that it is unlikely that he will be able to go back to work full time until March or April 2025. He said that his employer indicated that he could not hold his job open for him until then, so he decided to resign rather than wait for his employer to fire him.
While I accept that the shift to [C] has not worked out for the landlord as he had hoped, I am not satisfied that the matters relied on by him are an unforeseen change in his circumstances for the purposes of section 66 of the Act. I find that it was not unforeseen (as that term is defined above) that it may take some time for him to find suitable work in [C] and not unforeseen that the income from the work he obtained may not be at the same level as he had while working in [W] or be sufficient to cover his expenses while living in [C].
I also do not accept that the substantial increase in the interest rate payable was unforeseeable before the landlord agreed to the tenancy. The landlord would or ought to have known before he agreed to the tenancy that the low fixed interest rate he was paying would expire during the tenancy and there was ample publicity surrounding the substantial increase in interest rates at and before this tenancy commenced.
While the landlord accepts that his accident in October, the resulting reduction in his income, and his resigning from his job are not factors that influenced his decision to want to move back into the tenancy premises (as is clear from him purporting to give the tenants notice to end the tenancy), I also do not consider that these factors would constitute an unforeseen change that would justify ending the tenancy early. The landlord’s evidence is that he is likely to be able to go back to work fulltime in March/April and therefore the ‘change’ is temporary. Moreover, while he is only receiving 80% of his normal income, there are also costs involved in working (transport and the like) which he is not having to pay while on ACC. As mentioned, the landlord said that he has resigned from his job rather than wait for his employer to fire him. However, this was a choice he made and there was insufficient evidence provided to support that his employer had made the decision to terminate his employment.
This means that the landlord has not establish the first ground (unforeseen change) in section 66 of the Act to have the term of the tenancy reduced and there is no need for me to consider the remaining criteria (hardship). The application is therefore dismissed. Suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The landlord has been unsuccessful in his application. However, the Tribunal made an order dated 19 November 2024 (under this application) suppressing both the landlord’s and the tenants’ names and identifying details. The landlord’s and the tenants’ names and identifying details are suppressed under this order so as not to undermine the suppression order made on 19 November.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy of the premises commencing on 23 March 2024 and ending on 23 November 2025.

The landlord applied for an order ending the fixed term tenancy on the basis that he wished to move back into the premises.

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

A fixed term tenancy cannot be ended by notice. However, under section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) the Tribunal may, on the application of either the tenant or the landlord, reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy where the applicant (here the landlord) establishes that: (i) there has been an unforeseen change in his circumstances during the tenancy; (ii) that unforeseen change will result in severe hardship if the tenancy is not ended; and (iii) the severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term were not reduced exceeds the hardship the tenants would suffer if the term was reduced.

Where the Tribunal does reduce the term of the tenancy, the Tribunal may, pursuant to section 66(2), order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for their loss. Was there an unforeseen change in the landlord’s circumstances during the tenancy?

The term “unforeseen” in the context of section 66 can be aligned with such concepts as ‘unexpected’, ‘without warning’. In a legal context, it can also be taken as the reverse of what is ‘foreseen’, thus being ‘not liable to result’, ‘unlikely’, ‘not a real danger’, ‘not a serious possibility’ or ‘not a real risk’.” In my view the test is both a subjective and objective. Thus, whether the applicant foresaw the change in circumstances which occurred during the tenancy (the subjective test) must be considered in the context of whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances for the applicant to have that state of mind. In other words, would a reasonable person, fully acquainted with the circumstances, consider the change foreseeable.

The premises consist of a five bedroomed home in [W] and was the landlord’s home until March 2023, when he moved to [C]. He said that he made the move to be near his daughter who was attending university and to make it easier for his son to find work.

The unforeseen change that the landlord relies on to reduce the term of the tenancy is essentially that he is suffering financial hardship. He said that it took some time to find work in [C] and the income from the job he currently has was not enough to pay the mortgage on the tenancy premises plus rent for his [C] tenancy and other expenses. He therefore made the decision to move back to [W] and, on 12 August 2024, he purported to give the tenants’ notice to end the tenancy on 27 September 2024.

He said that since making the decision to move back to [W], his financial hardship has increased by the substantial increase in the interest rate payable on his mortgage from a fixed rate of approximately 3% to a rate of somewhere between 7 and 8%. The increase took effect when the fixed rate term expired in September 2024.

The landlord also said that he had an accident in October 2024 and he is only receiving 80% of his normal wages from ACC. He said that medical specialists have told him that it is unlikely that he will be able to go back to work full time until March or April 2025. He said that his employer indicated that he could not hold his job open for him until then, so he decided to resign rather than wait for his employer to fire him.

While I accept that the shift to [C] has not worked out for the landlord as he had hoped, I am not satisfied that the matters relied on by him are an unforeseen change in his circumstances for the purposes of section 66 of the Act. I find that it was not unforeseen (as that term is defined above) that it may take some time for him to find suitable work in [C] and not unforeseen that the income from the work he obtained may not be at the same level as he had while working in [W] or be sufficient to cover his expenses while living in [C].

I also do not accept that the substantial increase in the interest rate payable was unforeseeable before the landlord agreed to the tenancy. The landlord would or ought to have known before he agreed to the tenancy that the low fixed interest rate he was paying would expire during the tenancy and there was ample publicity surrounding the substantial increase in interest rates at and before this tenancy commenced.

While the landlord accepts that his accident in October, the resulting reduction in his income, and his resigning from his job are not factors that influenced his decision to want to move back into the tenancy premises (as is clear from him purporting to give the tenants notice to end the tenancy), I also do not consider that these factors would constitute an unforeseen change that would justify ending the tenancy early. The landlord’s evidence is that he is likely to be able to go back to work fulltime in March/April and therefore the ‘change’ is temporary. Moreover, while he is only receiving 80% of his normal income, there are also costs involved in working (transport and the like) which he is not having to pay while on ACC. As mentioned, the landlord said that he has resigned from his job rather than wait for his employer to fire him. However, this was a choice he made and there was insufficient evidence provided to support that his employer had made the decision to terminate his employment.

This means that the landlord has not establish the first ground (unforeseen change) in section 66 of the Act to have the term of the tenancy reduced and there is no need for me to consider the remaining criteria (hardship). The application is therefore dismissed. Suppression

Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

The landlord has been unsuccessful in his application. However, the Tribunal made an order dated 19 November 2024 (under this application) suppressing both the landlord’s and the tenants’ names and identifying details. The landlord’s and the tenants’ names and identifying details are suppressed under this order so as not to undermine the suppression order made on 19 November.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5043568 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5043568 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the term of the tenancy be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions