What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5123188 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 5123188?

Compensation: $2,040.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Expenses: $418.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5123188?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5123188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11777927-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5123188 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 5123188?

Compensation: $2,040.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Expenses: $418.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5123188?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5123188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11777927-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5123188 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5123188 — net $2,040.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation	$2,040.00	Compensation
Compensation: expenses	$418.00	expenses
Net award	$2,040.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,040.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and ended on 23 January 2025.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] from the bond. The balance of the bond is to be paid to the tenants. These amounts are set out in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: [The tenant/s]:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [The landlord/s representative].
This is a fixed term tenancy which began on 15 March 2024 and was due to end on 15 March 2025. The rent is $680.00 per week and a bond of $2,600.00 was paid. The tenants’ application
The tenants have applied for the reduction of their fixed term tenancy and refund of the bond. This is application number 5123188. The tenants moved out of the premises by 25 December 2024, due to noise from roading and construction work occurring close to the property.
The tenants state there was continuous noise from heavy machinery working on the construction of roading and a fly over. Their premises was sited directly opposite the construction site. They were disturbed by the noise and vibrations, which would occur into the night. The tenants provided video evidence at the hearing. They say the work started around May 2024 and was ongoing.
The tenants also provided evidence from their employer, a work colleague and neighbour. The noise was particularly disruptive for their three-year old son. They were concerned about his well-being, with the constant shaking resulting in frequent nightmares. Both tenants suffered from sleepless nights, which impacted their health and professional performance. There was also excessive dust from the construction work. The landlord’s application
The landlord has filed a cross application, seeking termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, payment from the bond and compensation. This is application number 5129095.
The landlord states they were made aware that the tenants wished to move out on 12 December 2024. They collected the keys (which the tenants had left at the property) on 6 January 2025 and completed an exit inspection.
The landlord detailed the steps taken to find new tenants. They advertised on 3 January 2025 and there were multiple viewings. This was a difficult time to find new tenants and an application was received on 28 January 2024. The new tenants moved in on 24 February 2025, and the landlord seeks rent up to 23 February 2025. The amount sought is $5,051.43. The landlord did not receive any rent from the tenants after 2 January 2025.
The landlord also sought early termination fees of $1,601.51. In terms of the advertising fees that were incurred, the landlord states these were: Facebook $50.00, Trade Me $189.00 and the Trade Me special advertisement $89.00. There was also a credit check fee of $90.00.
The landlord also seeks compensation for cleaning costs of $172.50 following its exit inspection on 6 January 2025. A copy of this report, including photographs, was provided. The landlord was concerned about cleaning of the shower glass, marks on a door frame and some dust. In response, the tenants note that when they moved in, during the first week, they had to do additional cleaning. The tenants provided their own photographs of the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy. Tenants’ application: 5123188 Legal framework
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
Under a fixed term tenancy, a tenant has a contractual obligation to continue paying rent up to the end of the fixed term, unless the landlord agrees to release the tenant. 1 This means that a tenant cannot unilaterally break this obligation, since neither party is entitled to terminate unless by mutual consent or by order of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy under section 66(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and 1 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson, at 3.3 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.
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) of the RTA. Analysis
In terms of the requirements under section 66 of the RTA, having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I am satisfied that the tenants have established that there has been an unforeseen change in their circumstances. The unforeseen change in this case is the noise and disruption due to the construction work close to the premises. The tenants’ concerns for the welfare of their son, and their own welfare, are genuine.
The tenants have provided supporting evidence of the level of noise and how it has affected them. The video evidence demonstrates that there was noisy construction work occurring in the early hours of the morning. The tenants’ video was taken around 1:00 am on 16 December 2024.The tenants state that this noise regularly occurred, from 11:00pm to 4:00am and affected their work.
The tenants have provided supporting evidence from the principal at the school where one of the tenants worked. The principal wrote that the tenants’ decision to move out was not taken lightly but was a necessary response to the untenable living conditions imposed by the ongoing road works and noise. The letter from one of the tenant’s colleagues confirmed that she noticed a significant change in the tenant’s well-being, between May and December 2024. The colleague observed that the tenant would often come to work exhausted, and had to take time off because her young child was frequently unwell. This colleague also discussed the impact of the construction work on a close relative who, despite living half a kilometre away from the tenants, found the constant noise and vibrations to be disruptive.
I am also satisfied, from the evidence, that the tenants would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy was not reduced. The tenants have provided direct oral evidence of their financial difficulties, stating they were struggling financially, and their parents had to help them out.
In terms of the hardship for the other party, I acknowledge that, for the owner of the premises, there is a financial cost. I note the landlord’s submission that the owners had structured their financial planning accordingly, based on the tenancy being fixed for a one year term.
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, and while acknowledging the financial situation for the owner/landlord, I find that the tenants’ hardship would be greater than the hardship the landlord would suffer if the term were not reduced. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the tenants have established the criteria under section 66 to enable the Tribunal to reduce the fixed term tenancy.
In terms of when the tenancy ought to end, I do not consider the date the tenants moved out to be the appropriate date. Taking into account the tenants’ situation, the financial cost to the landlord, the date that the tenancy was to have ended, and when the premises was re-tenanted, I find the appropriate date for the ending of the tenancy is 23 January 2025. This is around 4 weeks from the date the tenants moved out of the premises, and is in line with the end of the rent period using the landlord’s rent summary.

Should the landlord be compensated?

Section 66(2) of the RTA requires the Tribunal to consider whether the tenants ought to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. The resulting loss can be measured in the loss of rent and any associated costs.
Having found that the end date of the tenancy ought to be 23 January 2025, the tenants are to compensate the landlord the equivalent of four weeks rent. Relying on the landlord’s rent summary, and noting that the tenants paid rent up to 2 January 2025, the balance owed to the landlord is $2,040.00. This is the amount that the tenants ought to compensate the landlord.
I also consider it reasonable that the tenants pay the landlord part of the claimed fees, in compensation for the expenses incurred in finding new tenants. I acknowledge that the landlord acted promptly when advised that the tenants no longer wished to continue with the tenancy, and actively took steps to find new tenants during the challenging holiday period. The landlord is entitled to compensation for costs actually incurred. From the landlord’s evidence at the hearing, these total $418.00. This is awarded to the landlord. Landlord’s application: 5129095
The landlord claims rent arrears and a termination fee. The amount payable to the landlord in terms of compensation for loss of rent, and compensation for associated costs arising from the reduction of the fixed term tenancy, has been determined above. Cleaning
In terms of the claim for cleaning costs, at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA.
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 2 . This is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 3 Furthermore, it does not equate to being commercially clean 4 , spotless 5 , or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 6 Therefore, a landlord may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant 7 and cannot claim excessive time to clean and tidy the premises. 8
In this case, having viewed the evidence provided by both parties, I consider that the tenants have met the required standard of cleanliness. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for cleaning costs is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
As each party has had some success with their application, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5123188 — net $2,040.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation	$2,040.00	Compensation
Compensation: expenses	$418.00	expenses
Net award	$2,040.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,040.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and ended on 23 January 2025.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] from the bond. The balance of the bond is to be paid to the tenants. These amounts are set out in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: [The tenant/s]:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [The landlord/s representative].
This is a fixed term tenancy which began on 15 March 2024 and was due to end on 15 March 2025. The rent is $680.00 per week and a bond of $2,600.00 was paid. The tenants’ application
The tenants have applied for the reduction of their fixed term tenancy and refund of the bond. This is application number 5123188. The tenants moved out of the premises by 25 December 2024, due to noise from roading and construction work occurring close to the property.
The tenants state there was continuous noise from heavy machinery working on the construction of roading and a fly over. Their premises was sited directly opposite the construction site. They were disturbed by the noise and vibrations, which would occur into the night. The tenants provided video evidence at the hearing. They say the work started around May 2024 and was ongoing.
The tenants also provided evidence from their employer, a work colleague and neighbour. The noise was particularly disruptive for their three-year old son. They were concerned about his well-being, with the constant shaking resulting in frequent nightmares. Both tenants suffered from sleepless nights, which impacted their health and professional performance. There was also excessive dust from the construction work. The landlord’s application
The landlord has filed a cross application, seeking termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, payment from the bond and compensation. This is application number 5129095.
The landlord states they were made aware that the tenants wished to move out on 12 December 2024. They collected the keys (which the tenants had left at the property) on 6 January 2025 and completed an exit inspection.
The landlord detailed the steps taken to find new tenants. They advertised on 3 January 2025 and there were multiple viewings. This was a difficult time to find new tenants and an application was received on 28 January 2024. The new tenants moved in on 24 February 2025, and the landlord seeks rent up to 23 February 2025. The amount sought is $5,051.43. The landlord did not receive any rent from the tenants after 2 January 2025.
The landlord also sought early termination fees of $1,601.51. In terms of the advertising fees that were incurred, the landlord states these were: Facebook $50.00, Trade Me $189.00 and the Trade Me special advertisement $89.00. There was also a credit check fee of $90.00.
The landlord also seeks compensation for cleaning costs of $172.50 following its exit inspection on 6 January 2025. A copy of this report, including photographs, was provided. The landlord was concerned about cleaning of the shower glass, marks on a door frame and some dust. In response, the tenants note that when they moved in, during the first week, they had to do additional cleaning. The tenants provided their own photographs of the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy. Tenants’ application: 5123188 Legal framework
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
Under a fixed term tenancy, a tenant has a contractual obligation to continue paying rent up to the end of the fixed term, unless the landlord agrees to release the tenant. 1 This means that a tenant cannot unilaterally break this obligation, since neither party is entitled to terminate unless by mutual consent or by order of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy under section 66(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and 1 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson, at 3.3 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.
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) of the RTA. Analysis
In terms of the requirements under section 66 of the RTA, having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I am satisfied that the tenants have established that there has been an unforeseen change in their circumstances. The unforeseen change in this case is the noise and disruption due to the construction work close to the premises. The tenants’ concerns for the welfare of their son, and their own welfare, are genuine.
The tenants have provided supporting evidence of the level of noise and how it has affected them. The video evidence demonstrates that there was noisy construction work occurring in the early hours of the morning. The tenants’ video was taken around 1:00 am on 16 December 2024.The tenants state that this noise regularly occurred, from 11:00pm to 4:00am and affected their work.
The tenants have provided supporting evidence from the principal at the school where one of the tenants worked. The principal wrote that the tenants’ decision to move out was not taken lightly but was a necessary response to the untenable living conditions imposed by the ongoing road works and noise. The letter from one of the tenant’s colleagues confirmed that she noticed a significant change in the tenant’s well-being, between May and December 2024. The colleague observed that the tenant would often come to work exhausted, and had to take time off because her young child was frequently unwell. This colleague also discussed the impact of the construction work on a close relative who, despite living half a kilometre away from the tenants, found the constant noise and vibrations to be disruptive.
I am also satisfied, from the evidence, that the tenants would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy was not reduced. The tenants have provided direct oral evidence of their financial difficulties, stating they were struggling financially, and their parents had to help them out.
In terms of the hardship for the other party, I acknowledge that, for the owner of the premises, there is a financial cost. I note the landlord’s submission that the owners had structured their financial planning accordingly, based on the tenancy being fixed for a one year term.
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, and while acknowledging the financial situation for the owner/landlord, I find that the tenants’ hardship would be greater than the hardship the landlord would suffer if the term were not reduced. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the tenants have established the criteria under section 66 to enable the Tribunal to reduce the fixed term tenancy.
In terms of when the tenancy ought to end, I do not consider the date the tenants moved out to be the appropriate date. Taking into account the tenants’ situation, the financial cost to the landlord, the date that the tenancy was to have ended, and when the premises was re-tenanted, I find the appropriate date for the ending of the tenancy is 23 January 2025. This is around 4 weeks from the date the tenants moved out of the premises, and is in line with the end of the rent period using the landlord’s rent summary.

Should the landlord be compensated?

Section 66(2) of the RTA requires the Tribunal to consider whether the tenants ought to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. The resulting loss can be measured in the loss of rent and any associated costs.
Having found that the end date of the tenancy ought to be 23 January 2025, the tenants are to compensate the landlord the equivalent of four weeks rent. Relying on the landlord’s rent summary, and noting that the tenants paid rent up to 2 January 2025, the balance owed to the landlord is $2,040.00. This is the amount that the tenants ought to compensate the landlord.
I also consider it reasonable that the tenants pay the landlord part of the claimed fees, in compensation for the expenses incurred in finding new tenants. I acknowledge that the landlord acted promptly when advised that the tenants no longer wished to continue with the tenancy, and actively took steps to find new tenants during the challenging holiday period. The landlord is entitled to compensation for costs actually incurred. From the landlord’s evidence at the hearing, these total $418.00. This is awarded to the landlord. Landlord’s application: 5129095
The landlord claims rent arrears and a termination fee. The amount payable to the landlord in terms of compensation for loss of rent, and compensation for associated costs arising from the reduction of the fixed term tenancy, has been determined above. Cleaning
In terms of the claim for cleaning costs, at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the RTA.
The tenant’s obligation is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 2 . This is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. 3 Furthermore, it does not equate to being commercially clean 4 , spotless 5 , or hotel/motel standard of cleanliness. 6 Therefore, a landlord may have some work to get the premises up to standard for a new tenant 7 and cannot claim excessive time to clean and tidy the premises. 8
In this case, having viewed the evidence provided by both parties, I consider that the tenants have met the required standard of cleanliness. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for cleaning costs is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
As each party has had some success with their application, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5123188 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5123188 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the landlord be compensated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the landlord be compensated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions