How much money was awarded in case 5120875?

Break Lease Fee: $396.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120875?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120875?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11524504-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5120875?

Break Lease Fee: $396.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120875?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120875?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11524504-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

86A Rosewarne Crescent, Glendene, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5120875 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5120875 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5120875 — net $369.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Break lease fee	$396.00		Break lease fee
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$396.00	$27.00
Net award	$369.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$369.00

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

[The tenant/s] must pay Auckland Property Management Limited As Agent For David & Rose Silay $369.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 86A Rosewarne Crescent, Glendene, Auckland 0602 is reduced and now ends after the tenant gives the landlord 21 days’ notice.

The tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 31 January 2026.

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. Since early in the tenancy the tenant has had difficulty accessing the premises due to the shared driveway and the neighbours parking in a way to make access difficult.

The tenant has tried to resolve this issue with the neighbour, with the authorities and by contacting the landlord. On 20 December 2024 the tenant sent an email to the Property Manager and her Manager. The Manager responded on the same day saying that it was a tricky situation, and she has sought legal advice and would respond accordingly. The Manager never responded to the tenant.

There was no communication from the landlord leading up to this hearing and at the hearing she stated that as they had been served with the Tribunal application it would be left to the Tribunal to sort it out. Unfortunately, this meant that there was no attempt to resolve the issue before this hearing.

The tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. The tenant spoke about the stress experienced by having their access restricted, by the neighbours becoming hostile and due to one of the tenant’s health conditions which could require a speedy exit from the premises.

The landlord would suffer hardship if the term is reduced although the only evidence of this presented at the hearing would be having to secure a new tenant for the premises.

I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I award compensation of $396.00 to the landlord, taking into account the need to secure a new tenant. This figure is half the standard break lease fee used by the landlord. I have only awarded half because the landlord had failed to communicate with the tenant including not advising of the process to end the fixed term tenancy early. Also, as the landlord has not started to look for new tenants there is no way to determine the actual costs that may be incurred.

The tenant also claimed compensation for having to end the tenancy early. I am not persuaded that the tenants should be compensated because this situation is not solely the landlord’s fault. I note that while the tenant said that there were no cars parked at the front of the neighbour’s home when they came to view the premises it was quite clear that there was a shared driveway with the difficulties that can stem from that. The tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

As the tenant has had some success with their application, I reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason I have suppressed the tenant’s name from this order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5120875 — net $369.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Break lease fee	$396.00		Break lease fee
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$396.00	$27.00
Net award	$369.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$369.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Auckland Property Management Limited As Agent For David & Rose Silay $369.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 86A Rosewarne Crescent, Glendene, Auckland 0602 is reduced and now ends after the tenant gives the landlord 21 days’ notice.
The tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 31 January 2026.
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. Since early in the tenancy the tenant has had difficulty accessing the premises due to the shared driveway and the neighbours parking in a way to make access difficult.
The tenant has tried to resolve this issue with the neighbour, with the authorities and by contacting the landlord. On 20 December 2024 the tenant sent an email to the Property Manager and her Manager. The Manager responded on the same day saying that it was a tricky situation, and she has sought legal advice and would respond accordingly. The Manager never responded to the tenant.
There was no communication from the landlord leading up to this hearing and at the hearing she stated that as they had been served with the Tribunal application it would be left to the Tribunal to sort it out. Unfortunately, this meant that there was no attempt to resolve the issue before this hearing.
The tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. The tenant spoke about the stress experienced by having their access restricted, by the neighbours becoming hostile and due to one of the tenant’s health conditions which could require a speedy exit from the premises.
The landlord would suffer hardship if the term is reduced although the only evidence of this presented at the hearing would be having to secure a new tenant for the premises.
I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I award compensation of $396.00 to the landlord, taking into account the need to secure a new tenant. This figure is half the standard break lease fee used by the landlord. I have only awarded half because the landlord had failed to communicate with the tenant including not advising of the process to end the fixed term tenancy early. Also, as the landlord has not started to look for new tenants there is no way to determine the actual costs that may be incurred.
The tenant also claimed compensation for having to end the tenancy early. I am not persuaded that the tenants should be compensated because this situation is not solely the landlord’s fault. I note that while the tenant said that there were no cars parked at the front of the neighbour’s home when they came to view the premises it was quite clear that there was a shared driveway with the difficulties that can stem from that. The tenant’s claim for compensation is dismissed.
As the tenant has had some success with their application, I reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason I have suppressed the tenant’s name from this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120875 — Tenancy dispute at 86A Rosewarne Crescent, Glendene, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120875 — Tenancy dispute at 86A Rosewarne Crescent, Glendene, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions