What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5282849 about?

The tribunal order states: [Tenant 1]’s application to reduce the fixed-term tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5282849?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282849?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12212736-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5282849 about?

The tribunal order states: [Tenant 1]’s application to reduce the fixed-term tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5282849?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282849?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12212736-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

22C Aurea Avenue, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5282849 — Rent arrears

Order

[Tenant 1]’s application to reduce the fixed-term tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing on 30 July 2025.
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 18 February 2025 to 18 February 2026. The weekly rent was $730.00. A bond of $2,920.00 was paid and lodged with the bond centre. Background
On 2 May 2025 the “vacating tenant” (who I will call [vacating tenant]) messaged the “continuing tenants” (who I will call [The tenant/s]) stating that he found his room a bit small. He said he hadn't considered the problem before. It would be very damp with the curtains drawn. Therefore, he planned on finding another, bigger place to live and needed to sublet the current room.
In reply, [Tenant 1] said that if he wanted to sublet, in addition to obtaining the landlord’s permission, [vacating tenant] would need to negotiate with them, especially when it came to the selection of new tenants and living safely.
On 2 May 2025, [vacating tenant] said he had been living alone without considering the situation of two people, as well as the direction and light issues. He said that living there for a long time might have a bad effect on his eyes and body.
In a further message, the vacating tenant said: “I think my bad mood these days may have something to do with the weather. It rained continuously, but the layout of the room required me to draw the curtains or block the window with something to see the screen. However, this way I could not get sunlight for a long time, and the sink and bathroom also grew pink mould”. [Vacating tenant] said he worked from home yesterday and sat all morning: “I really felt like I couldn't take it anymore and was about to get depressed”.
In another message, the vacating tenant said he had checked the room he stayed in before. He hadn’t realised, but it had windows in two directions so it could get sunlight almost all day long. He said he had been unable to find his medical records of his depression in 2017.
[Vacating tenant] vacated the property on 7 May 2025. Application to the Tribunal
On 10 June 2025 the vacating tenant applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy. In the application form, [vacating tenant] stated: After two months, I found my bedroom had poor natural light and the bathroom had only a very small fixed window that could not be opened and was mouldy. These conditions made me physically unwell and I lost my appetite; I took sick leave and became emotionally low...I was diagnosed with depression in 2017...My girlfriend and I are now renting another place for $320 per week, but I am still paying $300 per week for the original tenancy – for a total of $620 per week (about half of my income). In July, I need to pay over $10,000 in visa and agency fees (including $1,630 for my girlfriend’s work visa, $6,450.00 for my residence visa, and $2,000 for an agent) ...”.
One of the proposals that [vacating tenant] made in correspondence with the continuing tenants was that, in return for consent to vacate the tenancy, he would pay them $1,500.00 as compensation and transfer ownership of the washing machine and fridge.
In June 2025, [vacating tenant] proposed that he move back in with his girlfriend as an additional tenant, and they would pay $330.00 a week towards the rent.
The continuing tenants opposed the application. In written submissions they stated: • [Vacating tenant] cited depression as grounds for early termination but did not provide the Tribunal with any formal medical diagnosis or supporting documentation. • There were no significant problems with the living conditions at the premises. [Vacating tenant] changed needs arose from his intention to live with his girlfriend. • [Vacating tenant] claimed financial hardship but had willingly offered to bear additional financial responsibilities, including rent and visa expenses for his girlfriend. • [Vacating tenant] proposed that his girlfriend move into the property, which contradicted his claim of intolerable living conditions. The claimed hardship resulted primarily from his desire to secure suitable accommodation for his girlfriend.
In written submissions, the continuing tenants sought a Tribunal order confirming that the existing tenancy agreement remained valid and enforceable and required strict compliance from all parties (unless explicitly amended or terminated by mutual consent or Tribunal order).
At the hearing, the continuing tenants said they wanted to uphold the integrity of the tenancy agreement and preserve their legal rights. Continuing Tenants as Respondents
I note that, although named as applicants in the application form, the continuing tenants did not consent to their inclusion as such and are respondents to the vacating tenant’s application. Relevant Law
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy pursuant to section 66(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) where: • There has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and • There would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and • The applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.
Unforeseen means unexpected, unlikely, or not a real risk. It follows that a change which the tenants decide to make themselves is not unforeseen, for example, where there is a change of flatmates and the new flatmate does not pay his rent, as in Cowdy and Company Limited v Crosby (DC Christchurch, Judge Hattaway,12 March 1998 TT2717,97).
By contrast, in Bickerton v Lott (DC Wellington, Chief Judge Young, 18 December 2000, TT 756/00) there was an unforeseen change of circumstances when one of the student tenants became unwell, was unable to continue at University and had to return home. In the same case, the Court said that severe hardship means more than ordinary hardship. It was held that the tenants, who faced bankruptcy if ordered to pay rent to the end of the fixed term, would suffer severe hardship.
In a more recent decision, the Court said that, to come within the definition of unforeseen change of circumstances, “...there must be something which was well outside contemplation by the parties at the time the tenancy agreement was entered into...” (Davies v Clarke [2017] NZDC 21608).
Section 85(2) of the Act provides how the Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction: The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Analysis
There is a threshold issue whether the Tribunal can reduce a joint tenancy where the tenants do not make a joint application. There are conflicting Tribunal decisions. In Derbyshire & Ors v Mark and Maggies Property Company Ltd (TT Wellington, 13/01477/WB, 9 December 2013) the Tribunal said that a fixed term tenancy could not be terminated under section 66 by one of several co-tenants.
In Edwards Realty Limited v Allpress [2019] NZTT Manukau 4188371, 4188301 I gave reasons for a different view, which I repeated in Rodriguez v Terry Street Holdings Ltd [2019] NZTT Auckland 4216558. More recently, Adjudicator Prowse has determined that section 66 can be applied to a joint tenancy where not all tenants seek the end of the tenancy: Landlord v Tenant [2024] NZTT 4925973.
It is unnecessary to rehash the legal points, but in essence I take the view that section 66 is not to be read down so it only applies when all the tenants to a fixed term tenancy agree. There is no indication in the Act that the provision should be so limited. For the purpose of this decision, I have assumed in the vacating tenant’s favour that the Tribunal has the power to reduce a fixed term tenancy, pursuant to section 66, when only one of several joint tenants wishes the tenancy to end.
Unfortunately, I am not satisfied that there has been an unforeseen change in the vacating tenant’s circumstances. He was diagnosed with depression in 2017, long before the tenancy agreement. [Vacating tenant] knew before moving to New Zealand that his condition could be affected by the weather, and as it turned out, his condition worsened in the late autumn with reducing amounts of natural light in his room.
The only thing that could be said to be unforeseen was that [vacating tenant] had not lived in Auckland before and was not expecting the persistent rain. It is not the case that [vacating tenant] unexpectedly fell ill with a new medical condition, and it was not unforeseen that his condition could get worse (he mentioned that medication had helped). It was not suggested that he has had to stop working. His proposal to move back to the premises with his girlfriend, made during negotiations, tends to detract from his argument that the property was less suitable for him than he had initially realised.
In any event, the suitability of the premises cannot constitute an unforeseen change of circumstances. The tenants determined the allocation of rooms among themselves.
The evidence does not establish that the premises were unhealthy or in breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. For example, [vacating tenant] said his room had one window and a small skylight in the ensuite bathroom that could not be opened. The Healthy Homes Standards require that each habitable space has at least one qualifying window or door. The definition of “habitable space” does not include a bathroom. Therefore, the window in the room was sufficient, so long as the openable area was at least 5% of the floor area, or a smaller window was lawful when the property was built.
[Vacating tenant] may well face severe hardship paying two rents. He provided financial information which I accept shows financial hardship. [Vacating tenant] said he had about $700.00 per week for all remaining expenses besides rent. He provided material from the IRD’s website indicating that this is less than the $850.00 couples typically need for non-housing costs. In addition, I accept that he has to pay for his girlfriend’s work visa application because she currently has no right to work.
However, [Vacating tenant] has continued to pay rent since he vacated, and the landlord said there are currently no rent arrears. The fact that the vacating tenant has been able to continue paying his share of the rent tends to undermine the notion that he will suffer severe hardship, and indeed, he said he would continue to pay the rent even if the fixed term was not reduced.
The continuing tenants have decided to uphold their legal rights. This overlooks the practical reality that [vacating tenant] does not live with them anymore. Given they did not know [Vacating tenant] very well to begin with, valid concerns about their personal security or privacy do not really explain their apparent resistance to finding a replacement tenant. Their evidence is that they cannot afford the full rent on their own, at least currently, so not finding a replacement tenant could have implications for their tenure. Joint liability means the continuing tenants would be just as liable for rent arrears as the vacating tenant, regardless of who has failed to pay their share, and equally at risk of termination.
Despite the best efforts of the landlord, the parties have not been able to reach an agreed outcome. This does not mean the Tribunal is able to impose its own solution. The Tribunal can only act within the confines of its jurisdiction and cannot invent a remedy when there isn’t one under general legal principles.
I have considered section 85(2) of the Act. I have reluctantly decided that this does not enable the fixed term to be reduced. The Tribunal can only refer to the substantial merits and justice of the case in the context of applying general principles of law. This provides flexibility to apply legal principles appropriately in widely varying factual circumstances. However, if the Act (properly understood) does not provide a remedy, I do not consider the Tribunal can circumvent this. Section 85 does not create a licence for the Tribunal to impose its own views on the substantial merits and justice of the case, unless its determination is based on general principles of law (Welsh v Housing New Zealand (HC Wellington, AP 35/2000, 9 March 2001, Doogue and Goddard JJ)).
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to terminate a tenancy is largely based on there being rent arrears or other breaches of the tenancy agreement or the Act which are serious enough to justify termination. Because [vacating tenant] has continued to pay his share of the rent and there are no rent arrears, I cannot identify a basis under the Act to terminate the tenancy. Name Suppression
The vacating tenant requested name suppression. This order contains sensitive personal information about the vacating tenant. It also includes a measure of criticism of the continuing tenants. I have decided to exercise my discretion to grant name suppression to all parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5282849 — Rent arrears at 22C Aurea Avenue, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5282849 — Rent arrears at 22C Aurea Avenue, Pakuranga, Auckland 2010

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