What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279502 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 5279502?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279502?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279502?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12181683-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5279502 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 5279502?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279502?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279502?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12181683-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Flat 6, 12 Wellington Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5279502 — Tenancy dispute

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 tenants] at Flat 6, 12 Wellington Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 is reduced and will now end at the expiry of their termination notice (if one is served) of at least 21 days.
When the tenants serve a termination notice (other a than a notice terminating the fixed term tenancy at the end of the term), [the tenants] must pay Plan Investments Limited $1,980 compensation.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 31 December 2025.
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. Background and Decision
This tenancy began as a fixed term tenancy in December 2023. The premises are a two-bedroom flat in a block of flats that was formerly part of a motel.
In October 2024, the tenants’ daughter’s partner died. Their daughter has four dependent children, and they live in a rented property in Huntly.
The daughter was left without her partner’s income, but the impact of that did not hit home immediately. She had a small business that the children helped with but because it required hard physical work, it was not sustainable.
In January 2025 the tenants agreed an extension to the fixed term to the end of December 2025. The rent increased from $500 per week to $530 per week. The rent included $30 per week for electricity. The landlord said that if the tenancy had become a periodic tenancy, the rent would have increased by a further $20 to $30 per week.
In due course it became obvious that the daughter was not managing to make ends meet. The tenants began assisting her financially. The tenants and their daughter then decided that to ease the financial burden on them, they would find a rental property with 4 or 5 bedrooms that could accommodate them all. That would reduce the burden of rent and outgoings on each of them.
The tenants approached the landlord about ending their tenancy early. The landlord indicated that it was willing to consider it, but they would want compensation equivalent to three months rent. The tenants did not consider that to be a reasonable outcome and so they have made this application to reduce the term of their fixed term tenancy.
I accept that the death of the tenants’ daughter’s partner was unforeseen. It was also unforeseen that their daughter would find herself in financial difficulty needing their assistance.
The question then is were these unforeseen events a change in the tenants’ circumstances? Mr Ling pointed out that the daughter is an adult living in her own premises and her sad change of circumstances should not be treated as a change in the tenants’ circumstances for the purposes of the Act. He said that otherwise, where would the line be drawn between tenants and their wider family members?
I understand Mr Ling’s point, but I think that the change in circumstances referred to in s66 of the Act is not limited to a change that directly involves the tenants. The word “circumstances” envisages something broader than that. A person’s circumstances encompass the people and things around them where a change can affect them. It can include family members and I don’t agree that it is limited to dependant family members or those living in the same household.
In this case the change plainly had a profound effect of the daughter’s situation and that of the tenants’ grandchildren. It is natural for the tenants to want and indeed feel duty bound to assist their daughter and at the same time seek a solution to the daughter’s predicament that suits all concerned. It would be a harsh interpretation to exclude this type of situation from the Tribunal’s discretion. I note that the Tribunal has a discretion in terms of how the term is reduced and the amount of compensation to award the landlord and that can be used to do justice in different situations.
I find that this was an unexpected change in the tenants’ circumstances that allows the Tribunal to consider granting relief under s66 of the Act.
I then must consider the relative hardship that the parties will suffer if the decision goes against them.
If the term is not reduced the tenants will continue to help their daughter financially which obviously affects them negatively. They will also be unable, at least until the end of the year, and possibly longer, to provide the support to their daughter and grandchildren that they would be able to offer if they were living under the same roof.
The consequences for the landlord are financial. Mr Ling said that the landlord has many unoccupied rental properties and that two-bedroom flats are especially difficult to fill at present. The landlord has bank borrowings that must be serviced.
The landlord is a professional landlord with many rental properties. It seems that the market at present is less favourable for landlords than it has been in the past. That is the nature of markets and landlords are expected to factor that into their business operation. The tenants are less prepared for their change of circumstances and their hardship goes beyond the financial. I find that the tenants’ hardship would be severe if the term is not reduced and that it will be greater than the landlord’s if the decision were to go against them.
It follows that the Tribunal will make an order reducing the fixed term.
Both parties would prefer a notice period rather than a fixed date for the end of the term and so that is what I have ordered.
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.
The tenants have rightly accepted that the landlord should receive compensation. One way of looking at this is that the tenants could have opted for a periodic tenancy from December 2024 which would have resulted in a higher rent amounting in total to around $1,000. In all the circumstances and to acknowledge that the parties chose to agree to a fixed term, compensation of four weeks rent is fair. I have awarded that excluding the electricity element of the rent.
I make no award of the filing fee.
The tenants have been successful and so I have granted them name suppression.

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 tenants] at Flat 6, 12 Wellington Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 is reduced and will now end at the expiry of their termination notice (if one is served) of at least 21 days.
When the tenants serve a termination notice (other a than a notice terminating the fixed term tenancy at the end of the term), [the tenants] must pay Plan Investments Limited $1,980 compensation.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 31 December 2025.
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. Background and Decision
This tenancy began as a fixed term tenancy in December 2023. The premises are a two-bedroom flat in a block of flats that was formerly part of a motel.
In October 2024, the tenants’ daughter’s partner died. Their daughter has four dependent children, and they live in a rented property in Huntly.
The daughter was left without her partner’s income, but the impact of that did not hit home immediately. She had a small business that the children helped with but because it required hard physical work, it was not sustainable.
In January 2025 the tenants agreed an extension to the fixed term to the end of December 2025. The rent increased from $500 per week to $530 per week. The rent included $30 per week for electricity. The landlord said that if the tenancy had become a periodic tenancy, the rent would have increased by a further $20 to $30 per week.
In due course it became obvious that the daughter was not managing to make ends meet. The tenants began assisting her financially. The tenants and their daughter then decided that to ease the financial burden on them, they would find a rental property with 4 or 5 bedrooms that could accommodate them all. That would reduce the burden of rent and outgoings on each of them.
The tenants approached the landlord about ending their tenancy early. The landlord indicated that it was willing to consider it, but they would want compensation equivalent to three months rent. The tenants did not consider that to be a reasonable outcome and so they have made this application to reduce the term of their fixed term tenancy.
I accept that the death of the tenants’ daughter’s partner was unforeseen. It was also unforeseen that their daughter would find herself in financial difficulty needing their assistance.
The question then is were these unforeseen events a change in the tenants’ circumstances? Mr Ling pointed out that the daughter is an adult living in her own premises and her sad change of circumstances should not be treated as a change in the tenants’ circumstances for the purposes of the Act. He said that otherwise, where would the line be drawn between tenants and their wider family members?
I understand Mr Ling’s point, but I think that the change in circumstances referred to in s66 of the Act is not limited to a change that directly involves the tenants. The word “circumstances” envisages something broader than that. A person’s circumstances encompass the people and things around them where a change can affect them. It can include family members and I don’t agree that it is limited to dependant family members or those living in the same household.
In this case the change plainly had a profound effect of the daughter’s situation and that of the tenants’ grandchildren. It is natural for the tenants to want and indeed feel duty bound to assist their daughter and at the same time seek a solution to the daughter’s predicament that suits all concerned. It would be a harsh interpretation to exclude this type of situation from the Tribunal’s discretion. I note that the Tribunal has a discretion in terms of how the term is reduced and the amount of compensation to award the landlord and that can be used to do justice in different situations.
I find that this was an unexpected change in the tenants’ circumstances that allows the Tribunal to consider granting relief under s66 of the Act.
I then must consider the relative hardship that the parties will suffer if the decision goes against them.
If the term is not reduced the tenants will continue to help their daughter financially which obviously affects them negatively. They will also be unable, at least until the end of the year, and possibly longer, to provide the support to their daughter and grandchildren that they would be able to offer if they were living under the same roof.
The consequences for the landlord are financial. Mr Ling said that the landlord has many unoccupied rental properties and that two-bedroom flats are especially difficult to fill at present. The landlord has bank borrowings that must be serviced.
The landlord is a professional landlord with many rental properties. It seems that the market at present is less favourable for landlords than it has been in the past. That is the nature of markets and landlords are expected to factor that into their business operation. The tenants are less prepared for their change of circumstances and their hardship goes beyond the financial. I find that the tenants’ hardship would be severe if the term is not reduced and that it will be greater than the landlord’s if the decision were to go against them.
It follows that the Tribunal will make an order reducing the fixed term.
Both parties would prefer a notice period rather than a fixed date for the end of the term and so that is what I have ordered.
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.
The tenants have rightly accepted that the landlord should receive compensation. One way of looking at this is that the tenants could have opted for a periodic tenancy from December 2024 which would have resulted in a higher rent amounting in total to around $1,000. In all the circumstances and to acknowledge that the parties chose to agree to a fixed term, compensation of four weeks rent is fair. I have awarded that excluding the electricity element of the rent.
I make no award of the filing fee.
The tenants have been successful and so I have granted them name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279502 — Tenancy dispute at Flat 6, 12 Wellington Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279502 — Tenancy dispute at Flat 6, 12 Wellington Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions