What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5296086?

The tribunal order states: Ravindra Narayan Raman must pay The Rent Shop Limited - as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5296086?

Compensation: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Rent: $4,605.72 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $58.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296086?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296086?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12959493-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5296086?

The tribunal order states: Ravindra Narayan Raman must pay The Rent Shop Limited - as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5296086?

Compensation: $350.00 awarded to tenant; Rent: $4,605.72 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $58.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296086?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296086?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12959493-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

56B Orion Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5296086 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5296086 — net $1,834.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 20 July 2025	$4,605.72		Rent to 20 July 2025
Water charges to end of tenancy	$58.60		Water charges to end of tenancy
Compensation – premises not reasonably tidy		$350.00	Compensation – premises not reasonably tidy
Total award	$4,664.32	$350.00
Net award	$1,834.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,834.32

Order

Ravindra Narayan Raman must pay The Rent Shop Limited - as Agent for Kuppamma Karupuswamy Pillai Vinu $1,834.32 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (BN-00033727) to The Rent Shop Limited - as Agent for Kuppamma Karupuswamy Pillai Vinu immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 13 January 2026. I called the tenant when he did not appear in person. The tenant erroneously thought a teleconference had been scheduled. I permitted the tenant to attend by telephone and provided him with copies of the documents handed up by the landlord and an opportunity for comment.
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 12 February 2025 to 12 February 2026.
On 7 April 2025, the tenant applied to the Tribunal for release from the fixed- term tenancy, compensation, and exemplary damages for failure to maintain.
On 26 June 2025, the landlord applied for rent arrears and water charges.
The applications came before me following a successful application for a rehearing. The bond of $2,480.00 had already been reimbursed to the landlord pursuant to the Tribunal’s order dated 10 October 2025. Rent and Water
The landlord claimed rent to 20 July 2025 in the sum of $4,605.72. Rent is claimed to the date prior to the premises being re-let, as discussed below. The landlord claimed water charges of $58.60 supported by invoices. I award this amount.
The tenant complained that there were visitors approximately twice a week wanting to buy drugs. In an email dated 10 March 2025 to the landlord, the tenant referred to this issue and to a problem with the oven. The tenant stated that they were not feeling safe in the house and wanted to move out.
On 28 May 2025, the landlord called and emailed the tenant stating that the owner had agreed to release the tenant as from 30 June 2025 and waive the break lease fee. The landlord said the tenant declined to take up the offer and preferred to continue with the Tribunal application.
The landlord said the tenant did not agree to be released from the tenancy because he did not want to pay a break-lease fee. The landlord said the keys were returned on 6 June 2025 and the tenant confirmed that he returned the keys to the landlord’s office.
This was a fixed term tenancy, so the tenant could not end the tenancy by giving notice or by simply deciding to leave. It is not clear when exactly he left and whether the rent was in arrears at the time. The tenant also had some reasonable grounds for wanting to leave. I am not satisfied that the tenant abandoned the premises, although he left in breach of contract.
At the same time, the evidence does not show that the return of the keys was accepted by the landlord as a surrender of possession. Contractually the landlord was entitled to rent to the end of the fixed term on 12 February 2026. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord did not take all reasonable steps to find new tenants. The landlord started advertising once the keys had been returned. Reduction of Fixed-Term
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy, pursuant to section 66 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.
There are several Police reports. A burglary was reported on 6 March 2025. The tenant said criminals were gaining access to the storage area underneath the house and stealing his belongings. A person acting suspiciously was reported on 24 March 2025. As noted above, there were frequent unwanted visits by individuals wanting to buy drugs. There is credible evidence from his doctor that the tenant was scared by this and spent much of his time locked inside the house.
The landlord noted that the new tenants have not suffered the same intrusions. I do not doubt this, but I also accept the tenant’s evidence, which was not challenged on this point. A burglary which is not an isolated act but part of a “state of affairs” or series of events can meet the test in section 66 (as I discussed in Tiwari v Samson [2025] NZTT 5162371 at [16]-[20]). I am satisfied that there has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances.
The next requirement is that the tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. It is not clear whether the tenant would suffer financial hardship, or severe financial hardship, if the tenancy is not reduced, or that any such hardship would be greater than that suffered by the landlord if the term is reduced. No evidence was presented to address this issue. In my view, however, “severe hardship” is not limited to financial hardship.
There would have been hardship if the tenant had been forced to continue living at the premises, given the effect this would have had on the tenant’s wellbeing. I am prepared to accept that not reducing the fixed term would have caused the tenant severe hardship in the sense of the emotional toll of having to continue living in premises where (not unreasonably) he did not feel safe.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss (section 66(2) of the Act). The loss to the landlord is the rent until new tenants were found (who agreed to pay an additional $30.00 per week).
While there would have been grounds to reduce the term, the tenant could have accepted the landlord’s offer to release him from the tenancy from 30 June 2025. The landlord’s offer also waived any break-lease fee. Further, while I am not satisfied that the property was abandoned, the tenant did leave without notifying the landlord, who was only able to commence advertising for new tenants once the keys were returned.
For these reasons, it is appropriate either to decline to reduce the fixed term or to award compensation; I consider it is in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of the case that the tenant remains liable for rent to 20 July 2025. Duty to Maintain
The tenant complained about a gas leak, problems with the oven, and said the lawns were overgrown and the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy (section 45 of the Act).
The ingoing inspection report dated 7 February 2025 identified stains to the carpet in the lounge and bedrooms. The premises are shown in a reasonably clean and tidy condition in the photographs. There was some rubbish underneath the house and some parts of the lawn were overgrown (see, for example, ingoing photographs 300-Exterior 43 and 301-Exterior 44).
In an email dated 10 March 2025, the tenant stated that the oven door had not been fixed. The oven was tested on or about 24 March 2025 and found to be working. The invoice stated that the oven door hinges needed to be replaced so that it would close. The hinges had been ordered, and the door fixed.
The tenant complained about a gas leak at the premises on the day he moved in. A plumber attended that day and found the external LPG unit (used to heat water) had been stolen from the side of the house. A new unit was sourced and installed at a cost of $1,890.97.
The landlord said that all the maintenance issues raised by the tenant were addressed. An invoice dated 4 March 2025 noted that loose rubbish under the house was removed and a towel rail in the bathroom was installed.
Pre-tenancy cleaning was performed by a professional cleaning company. An invoice dated 22 February 2025 referred to cleaning in the bathroom and kitchen and lawn mowing.
The evidence shows, in my opinion, that the premises were not reasonably tidy at the start of the tenancy, because there were some items of rubbish under the house, which was a storage area for the tenant’s use. It is not clear that the carpets were cleaned, and they were stained.
However, the issues were relatively minor. Most of the storage space was available. The carpets look quite new and in good condition, without very visible stains in the photographs. The yard down the side of the house was overgrown, but is overlooked by a neighbouring property, so the loss of amenity would be limited, and the issue was addressed later in February. I award compensation of $350.00.
I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to comply with its maintenance obligations. The issue with the gas leak was not the landlord’s fault and was attended to promptly once it was known.
The oven ought to have been checked prior to the tenancy, but again the issue was addressed reasonably promptly. As noted above, the tenant emailed the landlord about the oven on 10 March 2025 and the issue was remedied within two weeks. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
The tenant requested name suppression but has not been “wholly or substantially successful” pursuant to section 95A. I decline suppression.
It is appropriate for the parties to bear their own costs.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5296086 — net $1,834.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 20 July 2025	$4,605.72		Rent to 20 July 2025
Water charges to end of tenancy	$58.60		Water charges to end of tenancy
Compensation – premises not reasonably tidy		$350.00	Compensation – premises not reasonably tidy
Total award	$4,664.32	$350.00
Net award	$1,834.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,834.32

Order

Ravindra Narayan Raman must pay The Rent Shop Limited - as Agent for Kuppamma Karupuswamy Pillai Vinu $1,834.32 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (BN-00033727) to The Rent Shop Limited - as Agent for Kuppamma Karupuswamy Pillai Vinu immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 13 January 2026. I called the tenant when he did not appear in person. The tenant erroneously thought a teleconference had been scheduled. I permitted the tenant to attend by telephone and provided him with copies of the documents handed up by the landlord and an opportunity for comment.
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 12 February 2025 to 12 February 2026.
On 7 April 2025, the tenant applied to the Tribunal for release from the fixed- term tenancy, compensation, and exemplary damages for failure to maintain.
On 26 June 2025, the landlord applied for rent arrears and water charges.
The applications came before me following a successful application for a rehearing. The bond of $2,480.00 had already been reimbursed to the landlord pursuant to the Tribunal’s order dated 10 October 2025. Rent and Water
The landlord claimed rent to 20 July 2025 in the sum of $4,605.72. Rent is claimed to the date prior to the premises being re-let, as discussed below. The landlord claimed water charges of $58.60 supported by invoices. I award this amount.
The tenant complained that there were visitors approximately twice a week wanting to buy drugs. In an email dated 10 March 2025 to the landlord, the tenant referred to this issue and to a problem with the oven. The tenant stated that they were not feeling safe in the house and wanted to move out.
On 28 May 2025, the landlord called and emailed the tenant stating that the owner had agreed to release the tenant as from 30 June 2025 and waive the break lease fee. The landlord said the tenant declined to take up the offer and preferred to continue with the Tribunal application.
The landlord said the tenant did not agree to be released from the tenancy because he did not want to pay a break-lease fee. The landlord said the keys were returned on 6 June 2025 and the tenant confirmed that he returned the keys to the landlord’s office.
This was a fixed term tenancy, so the tenant could not end the tenancy by giving notice or by simply deciding to leave. It is not clear when exactly he left and whether the rent was in arrears at the time. The tenant also had some reasonable grounds for wanting to leave. I am not satisfied that the tenant abandoned the premises, although he left in breach of contract.
At the same time, the evidence does not show that the return of the keys was accepted by the landlord as a surrender of possession. Contractually the landlord was entitled to rent to the end of the fixed term on 12 February 2026. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord did not take all reasonable steps to find new tenants. The landlord started advertising once the keys had been returned. Reduction of Fixed-Term
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy, pursuant to section 66 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.
There are several Police reports. A burglary was reported on 6 March 2025. The tenant said criminals were gaining access to the storage area underneath the house and stealing his belongings. A person acting suspiciously was reported on 24 March 2025. As noted above, there were frequent unwanted visits by individuals wanting to buy drugs. There is credible evidence from his doctor that the tenant was scared by this and spent much of his time locked inside the house.
The landlord noted that the new tenants have not suffered the same intrusions. I do not doubt this, but I also accept the tenant’s evidence, which was not challenged on this point. A burglary which is not an isolated act but part of a “state of affairs” or series of events can meet the test in section 66 (as I discussed in Tiwari v Samson [2025] NZTT 5162371 at [16]-[20]). I am satisfied that there has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances.
The next requirement is that the tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. It is not clear whether the tenant would suffer financial hardship, or severe financial hardship, if the tenancy is not reduced, or that any such hardship would be greater than that suffered by the landlord if the term is reduced. No evidence was presented to address this issue. In my view, however, “severe hardship” is not limited to financial hardship.
There would have been hardship if the tenant had been forced to continue living at the premises, given the effect this would have had on the tenant’s wellbeing. I am prepared to accept that not reducing the fixed term would have caused the tenant severe hardship in the sense of the emotional toll of having to continue living in premises where (not unreasonably) he did not feel safe.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss (section 66(2) of the Act). The loss to the landlord is the rent until new tenants were found (who agreed to pay an additional $30.00 per week).
While there would have been grounds to reduce the term, the tenant could have accepted the landlord’s offer to release him from the tenancy from 30 June 2025. The landlord’s offer also waived any break-lease fee. Further, while I am not satisfied that the property was abandoned, the tenant did leave without notifying the landlord, who was only able to commence advertising for new tenants once the keys were returned.
For these reasons, it is appropriate either to decline to reduce the fixed term or to award compensation; I consider it is in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of the case that the tenant remains liable for rent to 20 July 2025. Duty to Maintain
The tenant complained about a gas leak, problems with the oven, and said the lawns were overgrown and the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy (section 45 of the Act).
The ingoing inspection report dated 7 February 2025 identified stains to the carpet in the lounge and bedrooms. The premises are shown in a reasonably clean and tidy condition in the photographs. There was some rubbish underneath the house and some parts of the lawn were overgrown (see, for example, ingoing photographs 300-Exterior 43 and 301-Exterior 44).
In an email dated 10 March 2025, the tenant stated that the oven door had not been fixed. The oven was tested on or about 24 March 2025 and found to be working. The invoice stated that the oven door hinges needed to be replaced so that it would close. The hinges had been ordered, and the door fixed.
The tenant complained about a gas leak at the premises on the day he moved in. A plumber attended that day and found the external LPG unit (used to heat water) had been stolen from the side of the house. A new unit was sourced and installed at a cost of $1,890.97.
The landlord said that all the maintenance issues raised by the tenant were addressed. An invoice dated 4 March 2025 noted that loose rubbish under the house was removed and a towel rail in the bathroom was installed.
Pre-tenancy cleaning was performed by a professional cleaning company. An invoice dated 22 February 2025 referred to cleaning in the bathroom and kitchen and lawn mowing.
The evidence shows, in my opinion, that the premises were not reasonably tidy at the start of the tenancy, because there were some items of rubbish under the house, which was a storage area for the tenant’s use. It is not clear that the carpets were cleaned, and they were stained.
However, the issues were relatively minor. Most of the storage space was available. The carpets look quite new and in good condition, without very visible stains in the photographs. The yard down the side of the house was overgrown, but is overlooked by a neighbouring property, so the loss of amenity would be limited, and the issue was addressed later in February. I award compensation of $350.00.
I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to comply with its maintenance obligations. The issue with the gas leak was not the landlord’s fault and was attended to promptly once it was known.
The oven ought to have been checked prior to the tenancy, but again the issue was addressed reasonably promptly. As noted above, the tenant emailed the landlord about the oven on 10 March 2025 and the issue was remedied within two weeks. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
The tenant requested name suppression but has not been “wholly or substantially successful” pursuant to section 95A. I decline suppression.
It is appropriate for the parties to bear their own costs.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296086 — Tenancy dispute at 56B Orion Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296086 — Tenancy dispute at 56B Orion Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions