What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5081822 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 5081822?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5081822?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5081822?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11678107-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5081822 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 5081822?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5081822?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5081822?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11678107-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Edgar Way, Rolleston, 7614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5081822 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Accommodation Centre Limited as agent for M Bloor & J Coffin immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 4 Edgar Way, Rolleston, 7614 is reduced and ended on 13 December 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. I allowed the tenants to have non-legal representation. Mr Bowden represented the landlord.
The tenants have applied for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy that was due to end on 18 May 2025. The tenancy has since ended; a new tenancy started on 10 January 2025.
The landlord seeks rent arrears to 9 January 2025; the shortfall of rent of $40.00 per week between 10 January and 18 May 2025; compensation for cleaning ($397.90); and break lease costs ($678.50). The tenants’ application
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 (RTA).
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. One of the tenants was made redundant at quite short notice from his employment resulting in an immediate loss of income.
Mr Bowden submitted that in the circumstances of this case, the redundancy was not unforeseen given the well-known financial difficulties of the employer.
Had the affected tenant only recently taken up employment with the company concerned, that submission might have had some weight. However, the tenant explained that he had worked for his employer for 5 years; he had no inkling that redundancy would affect him; and the whole process took place quickly.
Cases such as this are highly fact specific. In the circumstances of this case, I find that the tenant’s redundancy was an unforeseen change in circumstances. So, the first statutory hurdle is satisfied.
Next, the tenants must establish that they would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. They paid rent of $700.00 per week. Obviously, the loss of a full-time income would impact their ability to keep paying rent.
They moved to a situation where they have a flatmate and live with an overseas student and receive a small income from carer duties. Their rent is considerably less.
Again, this is fact specific. The affected tenant said that the payment he received following his redundancy was quite small – his statutory entitlements and a notice period only.
I queried the tenants about the enquiry they made with the landlord before the redundancy when they asked to be released from the tenancy early. I am satisfied that their reasons for the application genuinely relate to the affected tenant’s redundancy.
I find that the tenants would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced.
Mr Bowden was unable to inform the Tribunal of any hardship the landlord (owner) would suffer so I cannot weigh the landlord’s hardship against the tenants’ significant hardship.
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) RTA.
I award compensation of $1,590.00 to the landlord, which includes (but is not limited to) the ‘break lease’ fee the landlord charged and other losses resulting from the loss of the fixed term tenancy. The landlord’s application Rent
The landlord seeks rent arrears of $3,800.00 from 27 November 2024 to 9 January 2025 (the tenants paid rent to 26 November 2024); and the difference in rent between this tenancy and the new tenancy of $737.14 for the period between 10 January and 18 May 2025.
The tenant accepted there were rent arrears of $1,100.00 to the date when they returned the keys and the date they seek to have the tenancy ended. I award that amount to the landlord.
I make no further award of rent arrears. The landlord was prepared to waive the difference in rent between this and the new tenancy when trying to negotiate a settlement with the tenants.
This was a case that the parties could have settled. Though that ‘offer’ is now off the table, I see no reason not to take it into account. Cleaning costs
The landlord seeks cleaning costs of $397.90. Both parties provided photographic evidence from the start of the tenancy and the end.
Claims for cleaning are not decided on the subjective opinion of either party but on an objective assessment of the evidence. A tenant’s responsibility is to leave the premises reasonably clean, not clean to a point where a new tenancy can commence, or clean to a ‘motel standard’.
The tenants accepted that the oven required further cleaning. I agree. Beyond that, I have determined from the evidence that the tenants met their statutory responsibility to leave the premises reasonably clean. I award the landlord compensation of $150.00 only. Break lease costs
The phrase ‘break lease fee’ is not a statutory phrase. It is better described as compensation for the landlord’s time and efforts locating a new tenant.
The tenants’ advocate suggested that the landlord had discriminated against prospective tenants found by these tenants.
Discrimination for RTA purposes is specific and is referenced to the Human Rights Act 1993. A claim for discrimination under section 12 RTA would be made by the person allegedly discriminated against.
I would not conclude that the landlord erred in any way. This tenancy now ends as of 13 December 2024 when the tenants finally vacated and returned the keys. The new tenancy started on 10 January 2025, less than one month later.
When a landlord agrees to end a tenancy early and agrees to find a replacement tenant it has a duty to mitigate loss. But a landlord can reasonably conduct due diligence and is not required to just accept any tenant who applies, nor any tenant the departing tenants refers. Allowing for the intervention of Christmas and the New Year, I find that the landlord acted quickly and diligently.
In this case, the landlord has mitigated its loss by agreeing to a new tenancy at a lower rent. While it might have initially advertised the premises for a higher rent, it quickly changed that. That the tenancy has been reduced in term has resulted in a direct financial loss to the landlord, as the rental market has changed. The tenants appear not to have recognised that. Result
The term of the fixed term tenancy is reduced and will now be considered to have ended on 13 December 2024.
The bond will be paid to the landlord in full to pay rent arrears to 13 December 2024 ($1,100.00); a contribution to cleaning costs ($150.00); and compensation for the landlord’s loss of the fixed term tenancy including costs incurred locating a new tenant ($1,590). Name suppression
The tenants sought, and are entitled to, an order for name suppression as their application is successful – see section 95A RTA.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Accommodation Centre Limited as agent for M Bloor & J Coffin immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 4 Edgar Way, Rolleston, 7614 is reduced and ended on 13 December 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. I allowed the tenants to have non-legal representation. Mr Bowden represented the landlord.
The tenants have applied for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy that was due to end on 18 May 2025. The tenancy has since ended; a new tenancy started on 10 January 2025.
The landlord seeks rent arrears to 9 January 2025; the shortfall of rent of $40.00 per week between 10 January and 18 May 2025; compensation for cleaning ($397.90); and break lease costs ($678.50). The tenants’ application
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 (RTA).
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. One of the tenants was made redundant at quite short notice from his employment resulting in an immediate loss of income.
Mr Bowden submitted that in the circumstances of this case, the redundancy was not unforeseen given the well-known financial difficulties of the employer.
Had the affected tenant only recently taken up employment with the company concerned, that submission might have had some weight. However, the tenant explained that he had worked for his employer for 5 years; he had no inkling that redundancy would affect him; and the whole process took place quickly.
Cases such as this are highly fact specific. In the circumstances of this case, I find that the tenant’s redundancy was an unforeseen change in circumstances. So, the first statutory hurdle is satisfied.
Next, the tenants must establish that they would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. They paid rent of $700.00 per week. Obviously, the loss of a full-time income would impact their ability to keep paying rent.
They moved to a situation where they have a flatmate and live with an overseas student and receive a small income from carer duties. Their rent is considerably less.
Again, this is fact specific. The affected tenant said that the payment he received following his redundancy was quite small – his statutory entitlements and a notice period only.
I queried the tenants about the enquiry they made with the landlord before the redundancy when they asked to be released from the tenancy early. I am satisfied that their reasons for the application genuinely relate to the affected tenant’s redundancy.
I find that the tenants would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced.
Mr Bowden was unable to inform the Tribunal of any hardship the landlord (owner) would suffer so I cannot weigh the landlord’s hardship against the tenants’ significant hardship.
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) RTA.
I award compensation of $1,590.00 to the landlord, which includes (but is not limited to) the ‘break lease’ fee the landlord charged and other losses resulting from the loss of the fixed term tenancy. The landlord’s application Rent
The landlord seeks rent arrears of $3,800.00 from 27 November 2024 to 9 January 2025 (the tenants paid rent to 26 November 2024); and the difference in rent between this tenancy and the new tenancy of $737.14 for the period between 10 January and 18 May 2025.
The tenant accepted there were rent arrears of $1,100.00 to the date when they returned the keys and the date they seek to have the tenancy ended. I award that amount to the landlord.
I make no further award of rent arrears. The landlord was prepared to waive the difference in rent between this and the new tenancy when trying to negotiate a settlement with the tenants.
This was a case that the parties could have settled. Though that ‘offer’ is now off the table, I see no reason not to take it into account. Cleaning costs
The landlord seeks cleaning costs of $397.90. Both parties provided photographic evidence from the start of the tenancy and the end.
Claims for cleaning are not decided on the subjective opinion of either party but on an objective assessment of the evidence. A tenant’s responsibility is to leave the premises reasonably clean, not clean to a point where a new tenancy can commence, or clean to a ‘motel standard’.
The tenants accepted that the oven required further cleaning. I agree. Beyond that, I have determined from the evidence that the tenants met their statutory responsibility to leave the premises reasonably clean. I award the landlord compensation of $150.00 only. Break lease costs
The phrase ‘break lease fee’ is not a statutory phrase. It is better described as compensation for the landlord’s time and efforts locating a new tenant.
The tenants’ advocate suggested that the landlord had discriminated against prospective tenants found by these tenants.
Discrimination for RTA purposes is specific and is referenced to the Human Rights Act 1993. A claim for discrimination under section 12 RTA would be made by the person allegedly discriminated against.
I would not conclude that the landlord erred in any way. This tenancy now ends as of 13 December 2024 when the tenants finally vacated and returned the keys. The new tenancy started on 10 January 2025, less than one month later.
When a landlord agrees to end a tenancy early and agrees to find a replacement tenant it has a duty to mitigate loss. But a landlord can reasonably conduct due diligence and is not required to just accept any tenant who applies, nor any tenant the departing tenants refers. Allowing for the intervention of Christmas and the New Year, I find that the landlord acted quickly and diligently.
In this case, the landlord has mitigated its loss by agreeing to a new tenancy at a lower rent. While it might have initially advertised the premises for a higher rent, it quickly changed that. That the tenancy has been reduced in term has resulted in a direct financial loss to the landlord, as the rental market has changed. The tenants appear not to have recognised that. Result
The term of the fixed term tenancy is reduced and will now be considered to have ended on 13 December 2024.
The bond will be paid to the landlord in full to pay rent arrears to 13 December 2024 ($1,100.00); a contribution to cleaning costs ($150.00); and compensation for the landlord’s loss of the fixed term tenancy including costs incurred locating a new tenant ($1,590). Name suppression
The tenants sought, and are entitled to, an order for name suppression as their application is successful – see section 95A RTA.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5081822 — Rent arrears at 4 Edgar Way, Rolleston, 7614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5081822 — Rent arrears at 4 Edgar Way, Rolleston, 7614

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions