What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5108924 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 5108924?

Compensation: failure to maintain fr…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $212.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,971.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5108924?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5108924?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11505147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5108924 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 5108924?

Compensation: failure to maintain fr…: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $212.75 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $5,971.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5108924?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5108924?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11505147-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5108924 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5108924 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5108924 — net $1,644.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 February 2025	$5,971.43		Rent arrears to 7 February 2025
Repairs	$212.75		Repairs
Compensation: failure to maintain front door lock		$1,500.00	failure to maintain front door lock
Total award	$6,184.18	$1,500.00
Net award	$1,644.18
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,644.18

Claims and awards for application 5108924 — net $1,644.18 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 7 February 2025

Amount: $5,971.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 7 February 2025

Repairs

Amount: $212.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs

Compensation: failure to maintain front door lock

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: failure to maintain front door lock

Total award

Landlord $6,184.18 · Tenant $1,500.00

Net award

Landlord $1,644.18

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,644.18

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Property damage Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenant and the Landlord’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,644.18 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [Property Managers]. The tenant appeared with a support person and was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter.
This tenancy began on 24 March 2024 and was for a fixed term until 23 March 2025. The rent was $760.00 per week.
The tenant left the tenancy on 14 December 2024 and left the key in the letterbox the next day. The tenant seeks a reduction of the fixed term due to multiple issues experienced at the tenancy. The tenant also seeks to have her bond refunded.
The landlord says that they were prepared to negotiate a lease break with the tenant but that they were unable to agree on terms. The landlord seeks rent arrears up to the date that they re-let the property. The landlord also claims for minor damage to a wall during the tenancy.

What must the tenant prove to reduce the fixed term?

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.
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; and 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.
“Unforeseen” means unexpected or without warning. An unforeseen change in circumstances has in previous cases included circumstances such as an unexpected transfer of the tenant’s employment to another city, relocation to another city for cancer treatment and services being cut to the property due to an earthquake and substantial damage to the property 1 : 1 Usher & Usher v Bravo Property Management [2024] NZTT 4892686 at [13]
Changes in the condition of the property are not an unforeseen change in a tenant’s circumstances, such as mould, flooding, sewage problems or the need for ordinary repairs and maintenance, or minor repairs 2 .

Has there been a change in circumstances?

At the hearing the tenants explained that the change in her circumstances was the fact that she experienced various issues with the property that were not resolved, as set out below. She said that she lost confidence that the property would be properly maintained. Handbasin
The tenant said that the handbasin in the bathroom was so small that it was very difficult to use without splashing water on the surrounds and into the cupboards. She said that she notified the landlord early on in the tenancy regarding this issue but never heard back.
The landlord accepted that the tenant had contacted them but said that they contacted the owner who said the handbasin was fixed in as part of the unit and so could not be changed. The landlord acknowledged that they did not get back to the tenant on this issue but said that the tenant did not raise it again. Bathroom door
The tenant said that the ensuite bathroom door did not have a lock on the outside and so when it was unoccupied it would gradually slide open. She contacted the landlord about this issue and raised it again at an inspection but it was never fixed.
The landlord said that there was not supposed to be a lock on the ensuite door but acknowledged that it would have been inconvenient to have the door sliding open. The landlord said that this was minor issue and that they would have fixed it the tenant had raised it with them again. Front door
The tenant said that there was an intermittent problem with the front door lock. She said that the wind could sometimes blow the door open even when it was locked and sometimes even when locked it was possible to pull the door open.
The tenant notified the landlord about the lock on 26 August 2024. The landlord responded that they could come and have a look at the door or the tenant could take a video and send it to them. The tenant confirmed that the lock sometimes worked and sometimes didn’t, and then took a video and sent it to the landlord the next day. 2 Usher & Usher v Bravo Property Management [2024] NZTT 4892686 at [14] and Davies v Clarke [2017] NZDC 21608 at [15]
The landlord confirmed receipt but did not attend at the property until a routine inspection on 5 October 2024. The tenant mentioned the issue again and the landlord said that he looked at the lock and it appeared to be working and he tightened the screws holding the lock in place and that the tenant didn’t raise the issue of the lock again.
In my view the landlord should have attended urgently to address the issue with the front door lock and if it could not be immediately resolved should have instructed a locksmith. External locks are a matter of security and safety. I accept that the landlord may have thought that the lock issue was resolved after the inspection on 5 October 2024 but this should have been confirmed with the tenant. In any event, the delay between the tenant sending the video to the landlord on 27 August 2024 and the landlord inspecting the lock on 5 October 2024 was far too long. Carparking
The tenant said that they had multiple issues with other people parking in their carpark space causing inconvenience.
The landlord said that they were not informed about any carparking issue until 13 November 2024 and they were doing their best to resolve the situation.
I have reviewed all of the evidence and correspondence on this issue. It is clear that the issue caused stress for the tenant. However the landlord appeared to be responsive on this issue and was following up with the Building Manager, and even requested that they be authorised to arrange towing when needed for this particular unit. The tenant moved out before this issue could be resolved.

Should the fixed term be reduced?

In my view the communication between the landlord and tenant regarding the handbasin and the bathroom door lock could have been better. It appears to me that the landlord was acting responsibly to resolve the carparking issue.
l have found the landlord should have been much more proactive regarding the front door lock. This is a safety issue and in my view, even when notified of an intermittent fault, the landlord should have arranged for a locksmith to attend without delay.
However I do not consider that the landlord’s failure can amount to a change in the tenants’ circumstances for the purposes of section 66(1). All of the issues raised by the tenant are ordinary repairs and maintenance.
The RTA provides numerous remedies for tenants who do not consider that their tenancy is being properly maintained. Tenants may apply to the Tribunal for work orders and for compensation and exemplary damages.
It is only in every extreme situations that the condition of a property may amount to a change in the tenant’s circumstances so that the fixed term can be reduced. I do not consider that he landlord’s failure to immediately attend to the locks can amount to a change in circumstances, particularly as the tenant did not follow up.
The tenants’ application to reduce the fixed term tenancy is dismissed. I do however consider that the tenant is entitled to some compensation as there has been a loss of amenity due to the lock issue. The tenant was understandably concerned about her security and safety and when the door blew on one occasion her cat escaped. I consider that compensation in the amount of $1,500 is appropriate to compensate the tenant for this maintenance breach.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord said that they took immediate steps as soon as the tenant moved out and advertised the property. They said that as the tenant vacated just before the holiday period it was not easy to find a tenant immediately but that a new tenant was found and moved in on 8 February 2025.
The landlord seeks rent up to and including 7 February 2025 in the amount of $5,971.43. The landlord provided a rent summary confirming the amount.
As the tenant has not been successful in obtaining a reduction of the fixed term, the tenant is entitled to rent arrears up to either the end of the fixed term (23 March 2025) or the date on which the property was re-let, whichever is the earlier.
The landlord is entitled to rent arrears up to and including 7 February 2025.
This claim is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The landlord said that there was a gouge in one wall on the stairs which may have happened when the tenant moved out. They produced a quote in the amount of $212.75 to repair the damage and to paint just that small area. The landlord also produced entry inspection photos and photos from the end of the tenancy proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant did not think that she had caused the damage but accepted that it must have occurred during the tenancy after looking after the photos. The award of compensation to the landlord in the amount of $212.75 is made by consent. Filing fees and name suppression
As both parties have had some success I have not made orders for reimbursement of the filing fee, but have exercised my discretion to make an order suppressing both the landlord and tenant’s identifying details (including the tenancy address).

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5108924 — net $1,644.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 7 February 2025	$5,971.43		Rent arrears to 7 February 2025
Repairs	$212.75		Repairs
Compensation: failure to maintain front door lock		$1,500.00	failure to maintain front door lock
Total award	$6,184.18	$1,500.00
Net award	$1,644.18
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,644.18

Claims and awards for application 5108924 — net $1,644.18 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 7 February 2025

Amount: $5,971.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 7 February 2025

Repairs

Amount: $212.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs

Compensation: failure to maintain front door lock

Amount: $1,500.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: failure to maintain front door lock

Total award

Landlord $6,184.18 · Tenant $1,500.00

Net award

Landlord $1,644.18

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,644.18

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Property damage Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenant and the Landlord’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,644.18 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [Property Managers]. The tenant appeared with a support person and was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter.
This tenancy began on 24 March 2024 and was for a fixed term until 23 March 2025. The rent was $760.00 per week.
The tenant left the tenancy on 14 December 2024 and left the key in the letterbox the next day. The tenant seeks a reduction of the fixed term due to multiple issues experienced at the tenancy. The tenant also seeks to have her bond refunded.
The landlord says that they were prepared to negotiate a lease break with the tenant but that they were unable to agree on terms. The landlord seeks rent arrears up to the date that they re-let the property. The landlord also claims for minor damage to a wall during the tenancy.

What must the tenant prove to reduce the fixed term?

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.
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; and 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.
“Unforeseen” means unexpected or without warning. An unforeseen change in circumstances has in previous cases included circumstances such as an unexpected transfer of the tenant’s employment to another city, relocation to another city for cancer treatment and services being cut to the property due to an earthquake and substantial damage to the property 1 : 1 Usher & Usher v Bravo Property Management [2024] NZTT 4892686 at [13]
Changes in the condition of the property are not an unforeseen change in a tenant’s circumstances, such as mould, flooding, sewage problems or the need for ordinary repairs and maintenance, or minor repairs 2 .

Has there been a change in circumstances?

At the hearing the tenants explained that the change in her circumstances was the fact that she experienced various issues with the property that were not resolved, as set out below. She said that she lost confidence that the property would be properly maintained. Handbasin
The tenant said that the handbasin in the bathroom was so small that it was very difficult to use without splashing water on the surrounds and into the cupboards. She said that she notified the landlord early on in the tenancy regarding this issue but never heard back.
The landlord accepted that the tenant had contacted them but said that they contacted the owner who said the handbasin was fixed in as part of the unit and so could not be changed. The landlord acknowledged that they did not get back to the tenant on this issue but said that the tenant did not raise it again. Bathroom door
The tenant said that the ensuite bathroom door did not have a lock on the outside and so when it was unoccupied it would gradually slide open. She contacted the landlord about this issue and raised it again at an inspection but it was never fixed.
The landlord said that there was not supposed to be a lock on the ensuite door but acknowledged that it would have been inconvenient to have the door sliding open. The landlord said that this was minor issue and that they would have fixed it the tenant had raised it with them again. Front door
The tenant said that there was an intermittent problem with the front door lock. She said that the wind could sometimes blow the door open even when it was locked and sometimes even when locked it was possible to pull the door open.
The tenant notified the landlord about the lock on 26 August 2024. The landlord responded that they could come and have a look at the door or the tenant could take a video and send it to them. The tenant confirmed that the lock sometimes worked and sometimes didn’t, and then took a video and sent it to the landlord the next day. 2 Usher & Usher v Bravo Property Management [2024] NZTT 4892686 at [14] and Davies v Clarke [2017] NZDC 21608 at [15]
The landlord confirmed receipt but did not attend at the property until a routine inspection on 5 October 2024. The tenant mentioned the issue again and the landlord said that he looked at the lock and it appeared to be working and he tightened the screws holding the lock in place and that the tenant didn’t raise the issue of the lock again.
In my view the landlord should have attended urgently to address the issue with the front door lock and if it could not be immediately resolved should have instructed a locksmith. External locks are a matter of security and safety. I accept that the landlord may have thought that the lock issue was resolved after the inspection on 5 October 2024 but this should have been confirmed with the tenant. In any event, the delay between the tenant sending the video to the landlord on 27 August 2024 and the landlord inspecting the lock on 5 October 2024 was far too long. Carparking
The tenant said that they had multiple issues with other people parking in their carpark space causing inconvenience.
The landlord said that they were not informed about any carparking issue until 13 November 2024 and they were doing their best to resolve the situation.
I have reviewed all of the evidence and correspondence on this issue. It is clear that the issue caused stress for the tenant. However the landlord appeared to be responsive on this issue and was following up with the Building Manager, and even requested that they be authorised to arrange towing when needed for this particular unit. The tenant moved out before this issue could be resolved.

Should the fixed term be reduced?

In my view the communication between the landlord and tenant regarding the handbasin and the bathroom door lock could have been better. It appears to me that the landlord was acting responsibly to resolve the carparking issue.
l have found the landlord should have been much more proactive regarding the front door lock. This is a safety issue and in my view, even when notified of an intermittent fault, the landlord should have arranged for a locksmith to attend without delay.
However I do not consider that the landlord’s failure can amount to a change in the tenants’ circumstances for the purposes of section 66(1). All of the issues raised by the tenant are ordinary repairs and maintenance.
The RTA provides numerous remedies for tenants who do not consider that their tenancy is being properly maintained. Tenants may apply to the Tribunal for work orders and for compensation and exemplary damages.
It is only in every extreme situations that the condition of a property may amount to a change in the tenant’s circumstances so that the fixed term can be reduced. I do not consider that he landlord’s failure to immediately attend to the locks can amount to a change in circumstances, particularly as the tenant did not follow up.
The tenants’ application to reduce the fixed term tenancy is dismissed. I do however consider that the tenant is entitled to some compensation as there has been a loss of amenity due to the lock issue. The tenant was understandably concerned about her security and safety and when the door blew on one occasion her cat escaped. I consider that compensation in the amount of $1,500 is appropriate to compensate the tenant for this maintenance breach.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord said that they took immediate steps as soon as the tenant moved out and advertised the property. They said that as the tenant vacated just before the holiday period it was not easy to find a tenant immediately but that a new tenant was found and moved in on 8 February 2025.
The landlord seeks rent up to and including 7 February 2025 in the amount of $5,971.43. The landlord provided a rent summary confirming the amount.
As the tenant has not been successful in obtaining a reduction of the fixed term, the tenant is entitled to rent arrears up to either the end of the fixed term (23 March 2025) or the date on which the property was re-let, whichever is the earlier.
The landlord is entitled to rent arrears up to and including 7 February 2025.
This claim is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The landlord said that there was a gouge in one wall on the stairs which may have happened when the tenant moved out. They produced a quote in the amount of $212.75 to repair the damage and to paint just that small area. The landlord also produced entry inspection photos and photos from the end of the tenancy proving that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant did not think that she had caused the damage but accepted that it must have occurred during the tenancy after looking after the photos. The award of compensation to the landlord in the amount of $212.75 is made by consent. Filing fees and name suppression
As both parties have had some success I have not made orders for reimbursement of the filing fee, but have exercised my discretion to make an order suppressing both the landlord and tenant’s identifying details (including the tenancy address).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5108924 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5108924 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What must the tenant prove to reduce the fixed term?

Has there been a change in circumstances?

Should the fixed term be reduced?

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What must the tenant prove to reduce the fixed term?

Has there been a change in circumstances?

Should the fixed term be reduced?

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions