What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5075768 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 5075768?

Break Fee: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Rent: $314.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5075768?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5075768?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11163621-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5075768 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 5075768?

Break Fee: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Rent: $314.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5075768?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5075768?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11163621-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5075768 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5075768 — net $423.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 12 December 2024	$314.29	Rent to 12 December 2024
Break fee	$109.25	Break fee
Net award	$423.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$423.54

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and now ends at 12 December 2024.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $423.54 as calculated below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 31 January 2025.
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.
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances because the tenant’s contract in Auckland was unexpectedly not renewed, but they have secured a contract in Wellington. The tenants therefore vacated the premises on 24 November 2024.
On Friday 4 October the tenants notified the property manager that they wanted to break the lease because they were relocating. They said the earliest they could vacate would be 3 November.
On Tuesday 8 October, the landlord asked if they could take some photos of the property with the tenant’s furniture in it rather than use stock photos of the premises as they thought this would be more appealing. No break lease documentation was signed.
The property was advertised on Monday 14 October 2024 for $550 per week. The tenants paid the advertising fee of $175.00.
On 1 November 2024 the property managers advised that they had secured some tenants, but on 5 November they advised that the prospective tenants had cancelled the contract. They explained at the hearing that the new tenancy agreement had not actually be signed.
On 5 November 2024 the tenants asked if they could be released from the tenancy as from 22 November.
It was not until 27 November that the landlord secured a new tenant, who would be taking over the property on 13 December 2024. The landlord asked for a further $109.25 for credit checks and viewings.
The tenants are unhappy about paying the rent until 12 December and paying a further fee that they did not know about. They have responsibly continued to the pay the rent and have had to borrow money in order to do that.
Because the tenants have now moved out and the landlord has found new tenants, the question of whether the fixed term should be reduced as been decided. I can indicate that had that not happened, I would likely have found that the tenants would have suffered severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced, by having to pay rent in two places until the end of the tenancy on 31 January 2025.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord seeks rent up to 12 December and the further cost of $109.25.
The tenants say that the landlord delayed in advertising the premises and also reduced the chance of retenanting by first advertising the flat at $550 and then at $570 and putting it back to $550. They say that another flat in the building was on the market for $570.00 with a carpark.
The landlord said that the reason rent was put up to $570 was because they had someone looking at another flat for $570 who was prepared to pay $570 for this one. They did not agree that interest reduced when they did that.
Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act says: Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
The tenants have not shown that the landlord did not take reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss. On 4 Friday October they were advised that the tenants wanted to break the fixed-term tenancy. The property was advertised 10 days later on Monday 14 October. The landlord did not have to advertise the property immediately on being told that the tenants wanted to break the lease. I find that any delay was minimal. Even if the property had been advertised the same day that the tenants notified them, there is no guarantee that the property would have been rented out any sooner.
The tenants have not established that the increase in rent from $550 to $570 meant that the property was not tenanted.
Overall, from the time that the tenants said they wanted to break the lease to the date property was retenanted was 10 weeks. It was only on 5 November that the tenants said that they wanted to be released from 22 November.
The tenants have not shown that the landlord has not taken all reasonable steps to limit the loss. The landlord believed that they had a fully tenanted property until 31 January 2025. I order that they should be compensated by paying the rent until 12 December and paying the administration fee of $109.25. That is the loss they would experience by the break of the lease.
It is understandable that the tenants are stressed about having to pay rent in two places for a further 2½ weeks after they have vacated. Unfortunately, that is what sometimes happens even with a periodic tenancy.
The tenants have behaved reasonably in trying to resolve the matter and have responsibly continued to pay the rent since they vacated. At the date of the hearing today, they have paid until the 8 th .
The landlord agreed that they had been excellent tenants. The landlords agreed to them having name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5075768 — net $423.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 12 December 2024	$314.29	Rent to 12 December 2024
Break fee	$109.25	Break fee
Net award	$423.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$423.54

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and now ends at 12 December 2024.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $423.54 as calculated below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 31 January 2025.
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.
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances because the tenant’s contract in Auckland was unexpectedly not renewed, but they have secured a contract in Wellington. The tenants therefore vacated the premises on 24 November 2024.
On Friday 4 October the tenants notified the property manager that they wanted to break the lease because they were relocating. They said the earliest they could vacate would be 3 November.
On Tuesday 8 October, the landlord asked if they could take some photos of the property with the tenant’s furniture in it rather than use stock photos of the premises as they thought this would be more appealing. No break lease documentation was signed.
The property was advertised on Monday 14 October 2024 for $550 per week. The tenants paid the advertising fee of $175.00.
On 1 November 2024 the property managers advised that they had secured some tenants, but on 5 November they advised that the prospective tenants had cancelled the contract. They explained at the hearing that the new tenancy agreement had not actually be signed.
On 5 November 2024 the tenants asked if they could be released from the tenancy as from 22 November.
It was not until 27 November that the landlord secured a new tenant, who would be taking over the property on 13 December 2024. The landlord asked for a further $109.25 for credit checks and viewings.
The tenants are unhappy about paying the rent until 12 December and paying a further fee that they did not know about. They have responsibly continued to the pay the rent and have had to borrow money in order to do that.
Because the tenants have now moved out and the landlord has found new tenants, the question of whether the fixed term should be reduced as been decided. I can indicate that had that not happened, I would likely have found that the tenants would have suffered severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced, by having to pay rent in two places until the end of the tenancy on 31 January 2025.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord seeks rent up to 12 December and the further cost of $109.25.
The tenants say that the landlord delayed in advertising the premises and also reduced the chance of retenanting by first advertising the flat at $550 and then at $570 and putting it back to $550. They say that another flat in the building was on the market for $570.00 with a carpark.
The landlord said that the reason rent was put up to $570 was because they had someone looking at another flat for $570 who was prepared to pay $570 for this one. They did not agree that interest reduced when they did that.
Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act says: Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
The tenants have not shown that the landlord did not take reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss. On 4 Friday October they were advised that the tenants wanted to break the fixed-term tenancy. The property was advertised 10 days later on Monday 14 October. The landlord did not have to advertise the property immediately on being told that the tenants wanted to break the lease. I find that any delay was minimal. Even if the property had been advertised the same day that the tenants notified them, there is no guarantee that the property would have been rented out any sooner.
The tenants have not established that the increase in rent from $550 to $570 meant that the property was not tenanted.
Overall, from the time that the tenants said they wanted to break the lease to the date property was retenanted was 10 weeks. It was only on 5 November that the tenants said that they wanted to be released from 22 November.
The tenants have not shown that the landlord has not taken all reasonable steps to limit the loss. The landlord believed that they had a fully tenanted property until 31 January 2025. I order that they should be compensated by paying the rent until 12 December and paying the administration fee of $109.25. That is the loss they would experience by the break of the lease.
It is understandable that the tenants are stressed about having to pay rent in two places for a further 2½ weeks after they have vacated. Unfortunately, that is what sometimes happens even with a periodic tenancy.
The tenants have behaved reasonably in trying to resolve the matter and have responsibly continued to pay the rent since they vacated. At the date of the hearing today, they have paid until the 8 th .
The landlord agreed that they had been excellent tenants. The landlords agreed to them having name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5075768 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5075768 — 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