What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5274101 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 5274101?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5274101?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5274101?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12051139-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5274101 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 5274101?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5274101?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5274101?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12051139-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5274101 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and now ends at 11.59 pm on Monday 30 June 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,625.00 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

A hearing was held by teleconference on 24 June 2025. Both parties attended.
This matter concerns an application filed by the tenants on 27 May 2025 seeking a reduction of their fixed-term tenancy. The tenancy commenced on 23 September 2024 and is due to expire on 22 September 2025, with weekly rent of $875.00 and a bond of $2,625.00. The tenants request early termination of the agreement due to persistent issues with the property’s water supply, which they state has caused health and safety concerns and financial hardship. The landlord opposes the application, maintaining that she is not liable for the alleged issues and that the early departure is motivated by the tenants’ preference to relocate to a cheaper rental. The tenants’ claim
The tenants submit that since early in the tenancy they have faced significant problems with the water supply, including discoloured and foul-smelling water, unusable for drinking or domestic use. These issues were first reported to the landlord in mid-January 2025, followed by multiple emails and a formal 14-day breach notice issued on 25 February 2025. They state that the landlord’s responses were dismissive and delayed, and although some cleaning work was eventually arranged, the problem persisted, forcing them to purchase water at their own cost.
They also submitted that the disconnection of the rainwater system, necessary to address contamination, meaning they have not been able to benefit from natural water replenishment. They claim this has resulted in ongoing and significant financial strain due to the recurring cost of purchasing water every 6–8 weeks.
They also raise safety concerns, noting that the high flow of water from disconnected gutters had begun to run under the house toward an external electrical box, raising the risk of electrical fire. The tenants describe the situation as not only financially unviable, but increasingly unsafe, noting that the landlord threatened them not to engage with the Tribunal process and made veiled references to reputational consequences should they do so.
They have since secured an alternative rental property and now seek to exit the tenancy on hardship grounds. The landlord’s response
The landlord denies liability for the water issues and maintains that the water system was fully functional. She states that the tenants chose to disconnect parts of the water system (including downpipes), leading to water supply limitations. She notes that cleaning was arranged in March 2025 and contends that this resolved the issue. She also argues that the water the tenants purchased was for their own use and not her responsibility.
The landlord further suggests that the tenants simply wish to relocate for convenience and lower cost, and that the issues raised are being exaggerated to justify early termination. She points to the absence of a formal complaint at the time notice was given in May and argues that the tenants are attempting to vacate without securing replacement tenants. She says this will impose an undue financial burden on her, as she will be unable to secure new tenants during the winter months and will be forced to carry mortgage payments until summer, when she intends to sell the property. Legal framework
The legal test for reducing a fixed-term tenancy is set out in section 66(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term where: •there has been an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances; and •the tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term is not reduced; and •the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship if the term is reduced.
This provision reflects the general principle that fixed-term agreements are binding, but also recognises that fairness may require relief in limited and exceptional cases.
In determining whether the statutory test is met, the Tribunal must weigh the nature and extent of the hardship to the tenants if the tenancy continues, against the impact on the landlord if it is ended early.
Where a reduction is granted, the Tribunal may also order the tenant to compensate the landlord for any proven loss resulting from the early termination. See section 66(2) RTA. Analysis
The central question is whether the tenants have established a sufficient basis under section 66 to justify early termination of the fixed-term agreement.
First, I consider whether there was an unforeseen change in circumstances. At the time the tenancy began, the tenants likely assumed that the water supply would be safe and fit for consumption. The problems arose within a short time and were not foreseeable to the average tenant entering a residential tenancy. The failure of the system to deliver potable water, and the added financial and health-related burden this created, constitutes an unforeseen development. I find this limb of section 66(1) is satisfied.
Second, I consider whether the tenants would suffer severe hardship if required to remain until 10 September 2025. The evidence shows that the tenants were required to incur significant and recurring expenses for bottled water, tank refills, and offsite laundry use. Moreover, email communications reveal a sustained dispute between the parties regarding responsibility for the issue, with limited progress over a period of months. The tenants report that this has undermined their trust in the tenancy and made remaining in the property untenable.
While the landlord eventually arranged for tank cleaning and replacement of filters, this action came weeks after the formal notice was issued and months after the initial report and after significant ongoing disruption to the tenants’ living conditions. Moreover, email evidence shows that the landlord at times minimised the seriousness of the complaints and suggested that the tenants’ actions or expectations were unreasonable. Of particular concern is the threatening tone of some emails, where the landlord implied that contacting the Tribunal would make it difficult for the tenants to rent again locally. This conduct undermines the tenants’ ability to enforce their legal rights without fear of retaliation.
In terms of section 66, I find the water issues, associated financial burden, and health and safety concerns—combined with a breakdown in trust and communication—amount to an unforeseen change in circumstances giving rise to severe hardship. The situation is not one the tenants could have reasonably foreseen when entering into the agreement in September 2024. I find the hardship suffered is more than inconvenience or frustration; it is ongoing, financially impactful, and related to essential living conditions. Accordingly, the second element of section 66(1) is met.
Third, I must consider the balance of hardship. The landlord would lose rental income for the remaining weeks of the fixed term if suitable replacement tenants cannot be found. By contrast, the tenants are facing direct financial loss, compromised living conditions, and a potential safety risk. On balance, I find that the hardship to the tenants if the term is not reduced would exceed any hardship to the landlord if the term is reduced. Therefore, all three elements of section 66(1) are met.
While it is not necessary to find a breach of the landlord’s maintenance obligations under section 45 RTA to grant relief under section 66, I note that access to safe and sanitary water is a fundamental element of a habitable dwelling. The landlord’s obligations include ensuring that the premises remain in a reasonable state of repair, and that essential services such as water are functional and safe. In this case, I find that the landlord did not respond with sufficient urgency or responsibility to the complaints raised. The tenants were left to resolve significant aspects of the water issue themselves, including contacting water suppliers, coordinating inspections, and arranging for filter advice and system maintenance. Compensation
Under section 66(2) of the RTA, the Tribunal may order the tenant to pay reasonable compensation to the landlord for loss caused by the early termination. In this case, I accept that the landlord may suffer inconvenience or loss due to a winter vacancy. However, there is no evidence before the Tribunal of any actual financial loss. No replacement tenant has been found, but the landlord has not provided evidence of advertising costs, mortgage figures, or other quantifiable loss.
Nonetheless, a fair and proportionate outcome is to release the bond to the landlord by way of reasonable compensation. Filing fee
The tenants have succeeded with their claim but are required to pay the landlord compensation. Therefore, I consider that the tenants should wear the cost of the filing fee paid on the application. Suppression
The tenants have requested name suppression. Under section 95A RTA, a party who wholly or substantially succeeds in the proceedings may be granted a suppression order.
In this case, the tenants have been successful in establishing a claim under section 66 and securing early termination of the fixed term tenancy. I am satisfied that they have substantially succeeded. Accordingly, an order is made suppressing the identifying details of the tenants.
There are no grounds to grant suppression for the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5274101 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5274101 — Cleanliness

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