What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146697 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 5146697?

Compensation: $1,890.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146697?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146697?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11699260-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146697 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 5146697?

Compensation: $1,890.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146697?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146697?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11699260-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5146697 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146697 — net $1,890.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation	$1,890.00	Compensation
Net award	$1,890.00
Bond	$2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,890.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146697 — net $1,890.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation	$1,890.00	Compensation
Net award	$1,890.00
Bond	$2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,890.00

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 20 February 2025.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,890.00 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 $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,890.00 [The tenant/s]: $630.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [The landlord’s representative], and the Tribunal was assisted by [redacted], interpreter.
The parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term, commencing on 29 January 2025 and due to end on 29 January 2026.
The tenants have applied for the termination/reduction of their fixed term tenancy and refund of the bond. This is application number 5146697.
The landlord has filed a cross application, seeking termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, payment from the bond, compensation, and exemplary damages. This is application number 5162551. The landlord also claims the tenants signed the tenancy agreement with no genuine intention to fulfil their obligations and were therefore in breach of section 137. The landlord has since withdrawn the claim for compensation arising from damage to the premises.
Following the hearing, the parties agreed that the tenancy was to end on 20 February 2025. The tenants returned the keys to the landlord. Tenants’ application: 5146697
The tenants’ evidence is that they signed the tenancy agreement on 22 January 2025. After signing, the landlord gave them the keys. On 23 January 2025 [The tenant/s], with the assistance of his friend (who provided oral evidence at the hearing), went to the premises and mowed the lawn. The following day, when they returned to drop some items off, they found the door had been kicked open. They informed the landlord, and emailed photographs.
Later that day, when the tenants returned, they heard running water inside the premises, and there was an intruder there. They contacted the police. The police attended within 10 minutes. They found the kitchen floor was flooded with water, and someone had tried to remove the hot water cylinder. The tenants’ line trimmer and lawn mower, which were stored in the garage, were stolen. There was a further event on 25 January 2025, when a petrol can was stolen, and they called the police. As a result of these three events, the tenants have not moved into the premises.
The tenants discussed cancellation of the tenancy with the landlord, but did not agree to pay the $620.00 fee, noting the premises had already been listed. The parties were unable to reach agreement on how the keys were to be returned. The tenants’ previous landlord allowed them to stay on, so they were still renting. They could not afford to pay rent for two properties. They felt unsafe, due to the burglaries, and did not move in.
In response, the landlord states they agreed to give the tenants the keys early, and they seemed happy to look after the house. The landlord detailed the events and their discussions about the implication of signing a fixed term tenancy. The landlord was not aware of any burglaries over the last 10 years. They had given the tenants one weeks rent free and gave the keys early so they could move in. Later, the tenants had refused to allow viewings and the owner agreed to seek termination of the tenancy.
In reply, the tenants stated they did not refuse to allow viewings. Legal framework
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 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.
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.” Analysis
The tenants have submitted that they ought to be able to cancel their tenancy agreement, since they gave notice to the landlord before the official start of the tenancy, and had not moved in. However, the tenants signed the fixed term tenancy agreement on 22 January 2025. This is a standard form agreement from Tenancy Services. The agreement clearly states that by signing the agreement, they are entering into a legally binding contract. The agreement also records that the bond amount of $2,520.00 was paid in cash by the tenants on 22 January 2025.
The start date of the tenancy was 29 January 2025. Because the landlord gave the tenants the keys, they had the benefit of early possession. Whether they moved in on the start date is not material. They had already agreed to be bound by the tenancy agreement. They cannot unilaterally cancel the contract by giving notice before the end of the fixed term. The fact that they gave notice before the start date is not determinative.
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.
Therefore, 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 series of burglaries, immediately prior to their move in date, resulting in the tenants feeling unsafe.
While I accept that this does not show that the premises itself was unsafe, or that this was a reflection of the general neighbourhood, from the tenants’ perspective, this was unforeseen. The fact that the tenants had purchased a lawnmower and line trimmer, and had stored some items at the house, illustrates they had every intention of moving into the premises. However, the three events, which were unexpected and occurred in quick succession, created personal security and safety concerns for the tenants. I am satisfied that these concerns were genuinely held, and meant they felt they could not move in. I also accept that this decision (not to move in) was not a decision taken lightly by the tenants.
I am satisfied, on the evidence given, that the tenants would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy was not reduced. They cannot afford to pay rent for the subject premises together with rent for the premises they live in. I find that requiring them to do so would cause severe hardship.
In terms of the hardship for the other party, I acknowledge that, for the owner of the premises, there is a financial cost.
Having considered the evidence of both parties, and while acknowledging the financial situation for the 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.

Should the landlord be compensated?

1 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson, at 3.3

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.
In this case, I am satisfied that the date of the hearing was the appropriate date for the ending of this tenancy, being 20 February 2025, as recorded in the first order. I consider the tenants ought to compensate the landlord the equivalent of four weeks rent.
I am satisfied that the tenants have established that they paid an additional weeks rent that was not shown in the landlord’s rent summary. This must be factored in, and therefore, the landlord is to be paid three weeks rent, since one week has already been paid by the tenants. This is awarded above.
The landlord has not provided any evidence of the associated costs for re-letting the premises. The landlord can only claim for reasonable costs that are actually incurred, and therefore, the request for the equivalent of one weeks rent is declined. Landlord’s application: 5162551
As noted above, the landlord has withdrawn its claim for compensation for damage to the premises.
The claim for recovery of unpaid rent has been considered above, as part of the tenants’ application.
In terms of the landlord’s claim that the tenants were in breach of section 137 of the RTA, this is discussed below.
Section 137 relates to prohibited transactions and prohibits persons entering into transactions or contracts purporting to do anything that contravenes the provisions of the RTA, or defeats, evades or prevents the operation of any of the provisions of the RTA.
The landlord claims the tenants signed the tenancy agreement with no genuine intent to fulfil their obligations as a tenant. On the contrary, I find the evidence shows that the tenants were in fact genuine in their intention to carry out their responsibilities as tenants. They have provided evidence, which I accept, that they purchased a lawnmower and line trimmer soon after signing the tenancy agreement. They did not own these items prior to moving in. So, the fact that they purchased them soon after signing the agreement, and mowed the lawns, shows a genuine intent on their part to move into the premises. They also paid the bond on signing the agreement. While they did not continue to pay rent in a timely way, their reasons for doing so relate to the unforeseen change in their circumstances, which has been discussed above.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Name suppression and filing fee
Both parties seek name suppression. Having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, and noting that both have established some of their claims, the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s names and identifying details.
As each party has had some success with their application, there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146697 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146697 — 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