What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5100523 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 5100523?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100523?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100523?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11518106-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5100523 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 5100523?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100523?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100523?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11518106-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5100523 — State of repair

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

[The tenant/s] entered into a fixed term tenancy commencing on 13 August 2024 and ending on 17 February 2025.
On 25 October 2024, [The tenant/s] contacted Ms Phelan about a problem with rats in the house.
The rats had got into a kitchen drawer and chewed on wooden kitchen utensils.
Ms Phelan engaged [pest control].
The tenants filed this application on 8 December 2024, seeking to be released from the fixed term tenancy.
On 12 December, the tenants formally asked the landlord to be released from the fixed term tenancy. The landlord agreed to release the tenants on the condition that a new tenant was found, and [The tenant/s] must pay the rent up to the date of the new tenancy.
The landlords found new tenants and agreed to release [The tenant/s] with effect from 13 January 2025. The rent is fully paid to that date. The landlord is not seeking any costs relating to releasing these tenants or advertising for new tenants.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 21 February 2025. [The tenant/s] attended the hearing. Ms Phelan represented the landlord.
[The tenant/s] no longer require an order releasing them from the fixed term tenancy. The fixed term tenancy ended by consent. [Tenant 1] asked the Tribunal to consider whether he is entitled to any refund of the rent from the date that he and [Tenant 2] left the property (19 December 2024) until the official end of his tenancy (13 January 2025).
I could only make such an order if there was a legal basis for me to conclude that [The tenant/s] tenancy effectively ended on 19 December 2024 - in other words, that there was a legal basis to reduce the period of the fixed term tenancy.
The Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of a fixed term tenancy if: 1 a. The party seeking the reduction has suffered an “unforeseen change in circumstances”; and b. They would suffer a “severe hardship” if the term of the tenancy was not reduced; and c. The hardship that they would suffer is greater if the term of the tenancy is not reduced is greater than the hardship that the other party would suffer if the term of the tenancy was reduced.
The Tribunal has generally held that a relevant argument about “unforeseen change of circumstances” is one that relates to the tenant’s circumstances, and not to the condition of the property itself.
Issues with the property are dealt with by other provisions in the RTA. Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and in a reasonable state of cleanliness. 2
However, this is not a ‘hard and fast’ rule. In Southern Suburbs Realty Ltd v Heenan 3 the Tribunal decided that, in the circumstances of that case, a flea infestation was an unforeseen change in circumstances that warranted reduction of the fixed term tenancy.
In this instance: 1 Section 66, Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 45 RTA 3 [2013] NZTT Manukau 5890 a. There is no evidence of any rat problems before October 2024. The entry inspection shows that the premises were in clean and tidy condition. b. When the tenants contacted Ms Phelan about the problem, she took prompt and appropriate action. c. [Pest control] treatment was effective. [Pest control] notes on 18 November stated that activity had “dramatically reduced”. On 18 December, at the end of the six-week treatment, [pest control] confirmed very low activity at the bait stations and there had been only one rat sighting. d. [Pest control] treatment plan caused some inconvenience and concern for the tenants, in particular the fact that some of the bait was put inside food storage areas, but I accept that [pest control] are skilled professionals and that their treatment approach was appropriate and safe.
I acknowledge that the rat problem was unexpected and unpleasant for the tenants.
My findings are that: a. The landlord met its legal duty to provide the premises in a habitable condition. b. The landlord responded promptly and appropriately to the problem when it was brought to their attention. c. The treatment was effective. d. By December 2024, the evidence shows that the worst was well and truly over and there was no longer an “infestation”. e. The grounds for reducing the fixed term tenancy are not established. f. The agreement that the parties made, to allow the tenants to leave the fixed term tenancy provided that rent was paid to the date that a new tenancy began, was fair and reasonable. Both parties incurred costs and losses in that agreement. It would be unjust to impose a further cost on the landlord by way of the partial rent refund that the tenants are seeking.
Therefore, the application is dismissed.
The tenants sought name suppression. The nature of the application substantially changed from the date of filing to the date of hearing. The application raised a genuine question, and the issues the critical issue in dispute (release from the tenancy) was resolved by agreement. In the circumstances I will grant name suppression to the tenants. Having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, I will grant name suppression. 4

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

[The tenant/s] entered into a fixed term tenancy commencing on 13 August 2024 and ending on 17 February 2025.
On 25 October 2024, [The tenant/s] contacted Ms Phelan about a problem with rats in the house.
The rats had got into a kitchen drawer and chewed on wooden kitchen utensils.
Ms Phelan engaged [pest control].
The tenants filed this application on 8 December 2024, seeking to be released from the fixed term tenancy.
On 12 December, the tenants formally asked the landlord to be released from the fixed term tenancy. The landlord agreed to release the tenants on the condition that a new tenant was found, and [The tenant/s] must pay the rent up to the date of the new tenancy.
The landlords found new tenants and agreed to release [The tenant/s] with effect from 13 January 2025. The rent is fully paid to that date. The landlord is not seeking any costs relating to releasing these tenants or advertising for new tenants.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 21 February 2025. [The tenant/s] attended the hearing. Ms Phelan represented the landlord.
[The tenant/s] no longer require an order releasing them from the fixed term tenancy. The fixed term tenancy ended by consent. [Tenant 1] asked the Tribunal to consider whether he is entitled to any refund of the rent from the date that he and [Tenant 2] left the property (19 December 2024) until the official end of his tenancy (13 January 2025).
I could only make such an order if there was a legal basis for me to conclude that [The tenant/s] tenancy effectively ended on 19 December 2024 - in other words, that there was a legal basis to reduce the period of the fixed term tenancy.
The Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of a fixed term tenancy if: 1 a. The party seeking the reduction has suffered an “unforeseen change in circumstances”; and b. They would suffer a “severe hardship” if the term of the tenancy was not reduced; and c. The hardship that they would suffer is greater if the term of the tenancy is not reduced is greater than the hardship that the other party would suffer if the term of the tenancy was reduced.
The Tribunal has generally held that a relevant argument about “unforeseen change of circumstances” is one that relates to the tenant’s circumstances, and not to the condition of the property itself.
Issues with the property are dealt with by other provisions in the RTA. Landlords must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, and in a reasonable state of cleanliness. 2
However, this is not a ‘hard and fast’ rule. In Southern Suburbs Realty Ltd v Heenan 3 the Tribunal decided that, in the circumstances of that case, a flea infestation was an unforeseen change in circumstances that warranted reduction of the fixed term tenancy.
In this instance: 1 Section 66, Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 45 RTA 3 [2013] NZTT Manukau 5890 a. There is no evidence of any rat problems before October 2024. The entry inspection shows that the premises were in clean and tidy condition. b. When the tenants contacted Ms Phelan about the problem, she took prompt and appropriate action. c. [Pest control] treatment was effective. [Pest control] notes on 18 November stated that activity had “dramatically reduced”. On 18 December, at the end of the six-week treatment, [pest control] confirmed very low activity at the bait stations and there had been only one rat sighting. d. [Pest control] treatment plan caused some inconvenience and concern for the tenants, in particular the fact that some of the bait was put inside food storage areas, but I accept that [pest control] are skilled professionals and that their treatment approach was appropriate and safe.
I acknowledge that the rat problem was unexpected and unpleasant for the tenants.
My findings are that: a. The landlord met its legal duty to provide the premises in a habitable condition. b. The landlord responded promptly and appropriately to the problem when it was brought to their attention. c. The treatment was effective. d. By December 2024, the evidence shows that the worst was well and truly over and there was no longer an “infestation”. e. The grounds for reducing the fixed term tenancy are not established. f. The agreement that the parties made, to allow the tenants to leave the fixed term tenancy provided that rent was paid to the date that a new tenancy began, was fair and reasonable. Both parties incurred costs and losses in that agreement. It would be unjust to impose a further cost on the landlord by way of the partial rent refund that the tenants are seeking.
Therefore, the application is dismissed.
The tenants sought name suppression. The nature of the application substantially changed from the date of filing to the date of hearing. The application raised a genuine question, and the issues the critical issue in dispute (release from the tenancy) was resolved by agreement. In the circumstances I will grant name suppression to the tenants. Having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, I will grant name suppression. 4

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100523 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100523 — State of repair

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