What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301981 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 5301981?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301981?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301981?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12387546-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301981 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 5301981?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301981?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301981?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12387546-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5301981 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application for a reduction in the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

This tenancy is for a fixed term to 26 February 2026. There are five tenants. The tenants were all named in the tenancy agreement.
Each tenant does not have an individual tenant agreement with the landlord they have a collective agreement where together they are “the tenant”. They are each jointly and severally liable to the landlord for all of the tenant obligations under the Tenancy Agreement and Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
One of the tenants has applied to reduce the fixed term tenancy. The other tenants do not want the tenancy to end. The landlord also opposes the reduction to the fixed term tenancy. The Law
Section 77(1) RTA 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants. This Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear claims/disputes between flatmates.
A tenancy agreement is a contract. Parties are bound by the terms they agree to.
The usual legal position is that a fixed term contract will be applied strictly. The Tribunal can only interfere with a fixed term in very limited circumstances.
Section 66 of the RTA allows the Tribunal to reduce the fixed term tenancy. There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term or terminate the tenancy. In particular, the applicant will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in their circumstances, b. the change was unforeseen, c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced; and d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
Section 66(2) provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage which results from the reduction of the term.
As the tenants have joint and several liability under the Tenancy Agreement, I cannot reduce the term or terminate the tenancy for only the applicant tenant. If I am satisfied that the tenancy should terminate then I must reduce the term for all tenants or terminate the total tenancy. Issues
The issues are: a. Can one of several tenants apply for a reduction of the fixed term tenancy? b. Has there been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances? c. Did that change in the unforeseen change in applicant’s circumstances cause severe hardship? d. Is the hardship that would be suffered by the applicants greater than the hardship suffered by the other party? e. If the Tribunal makes an order reducing the fixed term should the Tribunal also award compensation to the landlord? If so, what is reasonable? Application by One Tenant
There is a line of authorities which have determined that all the tenants must seek to end the tenancy and that one or more tenants cannot apply to end the fixed term tenancy, when the other tenants wish to stay.
That line of authority started with a decision by Adjudicator Henwood in Derbyshire v Mark & Maggies Property Company Ltd Wellington 1 .
A more recent Tribunal decision has determined that the Tribunal can hear and determine an application by one (or more) of several tenants, when other tenants want the tenancy to continue. See Tenant v Landlord 2 .
I have proceeded on the basis that I can hear the application. The other tenants attended the hearing as interested parties. All opposed the tenancy being terminated. Unforeseen Change in Circumstances
Unforeseen means unexpected, without warning, or the reverse of “foreseen”, not liable to result, unlikely not a serious possibility, not a real risk. 3
[Tenant 1] was not able to clearly say what the unforeseen change in her circumstances was that might allow me to consider terminating the tenancy. The most I could discern is that there had been a falling out between the tenants. They are a group of university students, and this was there first year flatting together.
As the adjudicator noted in Tenant v Landlord 4 : “I do not regard the other behaviours complained about by the tenants, fallings out with each other, noise, coming home at different hours of the day and night, food being eaten by another, to be an unforeseen event. Unforeseen means unexpected. I consider that in a flat of five second year university students, that these behaviours would be normal complaints. Put another way it would be expected in a flat of five people who had not flatted together before, that there would be some issues around noise, schedules, cleanliness, sharing of food, drinking or not, friends coming over. It is also completely normal and expected that not all flatmates would get on with one another and there would be a clash of personalities.” 1 Derbyshire v Mark & Maggies Property Company Ltd Wellington [2013] NZTT 1477WN 2 [2024] NZTT 4925973 3 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand, Thomson Reuters [2018] 4 [2024] NZTT 4925973
Buchanan v Burrow TT Dunedin TT487/06, 20 July 2006, also confirms that a dispute with a co-tenant is not an unforeseen circumstance.
[Tenant 1] has not proved that it is more likely than not that there has been an unforeseen change in her circumstances. As such, the application fails at the first hurdle, and I do not need to consider the other issues.
I endorse the comments of the adjudicator in Tenant v Landlord, as follows: “43. The law is a blunt instrument, it allows me to either find that there are grounds for a reduction or not, it does not allow me to reduce the rent or vary the terms of the tenancy, in these circumstances and that is why I have not done so.
I appreciate that this decision will have significant impact on the lives of three young women. I have carefully considered thoroughly all the evidence provided by both parties before determining the matter. Young people entering into fixed term contracts at university must understand that the requirements to reduce a fixed term tenancy are a high bar. The front page of this tenancy agreement warned the tenants about the ramifications of entering into a fixed term agreement it said:
As I advised the parties at the hearing, the application is dismissed. I encourage the tenants to work together to find a solution that is in all of their interests.
There is public interest in having the decision published because it is important for the public to understand what needs to be proven for the Tribunal to consider a claim for reduction of a fixed term tenancy. But I do not consider that there is any public interest in naming the tenant. The Landlord was content for its name to be published.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application for a reduction in the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

This tenancy is for a fixed term to 26 February 2026. There are five tenants. The tenants were all named in the tenancy agreement.
Each tenant does not have an individual tenant agreement with the landlord they have a collective agreement where together they are “the tenant”. They are each jointly and severally liable to the landlord for all of the tenant obligations under the Tenancy Agreement and Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
One of the tenants has applied to reduce the fixed term tenancy. The other tenants do not want the tenancy to end. The landlord also opposes the reduction to the fixed term tenancy. The Law
Section 77(1) RTA 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants. This Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear claims/disputes between flatmates.
A tenancy agreement is a contract. Parties are bound by the terms they agree to.
The usual legal position is that a fixed term contract will be applied strictly. The Tribunal can only interfere with a fixed term in very limited circumstances.
Section 66 of the RTA allows the Tribunal to reduce the fixed term tenancy. There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term or terminate the tenancy. In particular, the applicant will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in their circumstances, b. the change was unforeseen, c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced; and d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
Section 66(2) provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage which results from the reduction of the term.
As the tenants have joint and several liability under the Tenancy Agreement, I cannot reduce the term or terminate the tenancy for only the applicant tenant. If I am satisfied that the tenancy should terminate then I must reduce the term for all tenants or terminate the total tenancy. Issues
The issues are: a. Can one of several tenants apply for a reduction of the fixed term tenancy? b. Has there been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances? c. Did that change in the unforeseen change in applicant’s circumstances cause severe hardship? d. Is the hardship that would be suffered by the applicants greater than the hardship suffered by the other party? e. If the Tribunal makes an order reducing the fixed term should the Tribunal also award compensation to the landlord? If so, what is reasonable? Application by One Tenant
There is a line of authorities which have determined that all the tenants must seek to end the tenancy and that one or more tenants cannot apply to end the fixed term tenancy, when the other tenants wish to stay.
That line of authority started with a decision by Adjudicator Henwood in Derbyshire v Mark & Maggies Property Company Ltd Wellington 1 .
A more recent Tribunal decision has determined that the Tribunal can hear and determine an application by one (or more) of several tenants, when other tenants want the tenancy to continue. See Tenant v Landlord 2 .
I have proceeded on the basis that I can hear the application. The other tenants attended the hearing as interested parties. All opposed the tenancy being terminated. Unforeseen Change in Circumstances
Unforeseen means unexpected, without warning, or the reverse of “foreseen”, not liable to result, unlikely not a serious possibility, not a real risk. 3
[Tenant 1] was not able to clearly say what the unforeseen change in her circumstances was that might allow me to consider terminating the tenancy. The most I could discern is that there had been a falling out between the tenants. They are a group of university students, and this was there first year flatting together.
As the adjudicator noted in Tenant v Landlord 4 : “I do not regard the other behaviours complained about by the tenants, fallings out with each other, noise, coming home at different hours of the day and night, food being eaten by another, to be an unforeseen event. Unforeseen means unexpected. I consider that in a flat of five second year university students, that these behaviours would be normal complaints. Put another way it would be expected in a flat of five people who had not flatted together before, that there would be some issues around noise, schedules, cleanliness, sharing of food, drinking or not, friends coming over. It is also completely normal and expected that not all flatmates would get on with one another and there would be a clash of personalities.” 1 Derbyshire v Mark & Maggies Property Company Ltd Wellington [2013] NZTT 1477WN 2 [2024] NZTT 4925973 3 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand, Thomson Reuters [2018] 4 [2024] NZTT 4925973
Buchanan v Burrow TT Dunedin TT487/06, 20 July 2006, also confirms that a dispute with a co-tenant is not an unforeseen circumstance.
[Tenant 1] has not proved that it is more likely than not that there has been an unforeseen change in her circumstances. As such, the application fails at the first hurdle, and I do not need to consider the other issues.
I endorse the comments of the adjudicator in Tenant v Landlord, as follows: “43. The law is a blunt instrument, it allows me to either find that there are grounds for a reduction or not, it does not allow me to reduce the rent or vary the terms of the tenancy, in these circumstances and that is why I have not done so.
I appreciate that this decision will have significant impact on the lives of three young women. I have carefully considered thoroughly all the evidence provided by both parties before determining the matter. Young people entering into fixed term contracts at university must understand that the requirements to reduce a fixed term tenancy are a high bar. The front page of this tenancy agreement warned the tenants about the ramifications of entering into a fixed term agreement it said:
As I advised the parties at the hearing, the application is dismissed. I encourage the tenants to work together to find a solution that is in all of their interests.
There is public interest in having the decision published because it is important for the public to understand what needs to be proven for the Tribunal to consider a claim for reduction of a fixed term tenancy. But I do not consider that there is any public interest in naming the tenant. The Landlord was content for its name to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301981 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301981 — 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