What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302314 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Nzps Property Management Limited As Agent For Amie

How much money was awarded in case 5302314?

Breaklease Fee: $1,069.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,922.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302314?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302314?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12814739-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302314 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Nzps Property Management Limited As Agent For Amie

How much money was awarded in case 5302314?

Breaklease Fee: $1,069.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,922.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302314?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302314?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12814739-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 5 Brunel Street, Mornington, Dunedin 9011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5302314 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5302314 — net $1,540.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 July 2025	$2,922.86	Rent arrears to 25 July 2025
Breaklease fee	$1,069.50	Breaklease fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,540.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,540.36

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5302314 — net $1,540.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 July 2025	$2,922.86	Rent arrears to 25 July 2025
Breaklease fee	$1,069.50	Breaklease fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,540.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,540.36

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Nzps Property Management Limited As Agent For Amie Best $1,540.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (BN-00018167) to Nzps Property Management Limited As Agent For Amie Best immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 11 September 2025 and 19 November 2025.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant applied for reduction of her fixed term tenancy to 23 June 2025. Background
In my prior Order, dated 11 September 2025, I outlined the following: a. The tenant confirmed, during the 11 September 2025 hearing, she intended to make an application for the reduction of her fixed term tenancy. Her fixed term tenancy commenced on 6 January 2025 and was due to end on 6 January 2026; b. The property manager, to avoid a delay in my hearing of the landlord’s application, agreed to me hearing the tenant’s claim for reduction of her fixed term tenancy without the tenant having to make a separate application; c. The law pertaining to reduction of a fixed term tenancy; and d. The tenant’s stated reasons for ending the fixed term tenancy early;
I made a preliminary decision, based on the evidence provided by both parties: a. The evidence produced proves, on the balance of probabilities, the breakup of a stable 4-year relationship was “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk”. As such I find it was an unforeseen circumstance that led the tenant to break her lease early; b. Regardless of the date the tenancy is found to end, the tenant is contractually liable for the break lease fees of $1,069.50 claimed by the landlord; c. For me to weigh up the final part of the legal test, which party’s hardship would be greater if I agree to reduce the fixed term of the tenancy to 23 June 2025 or hold the tenant responsible for rent until 25 July 2025, I require further information from both parties about the issue of hardship.
The owner of the property objected to all of my findings, except the one pertaining to the break lease fee and asked me to allow submissions on these findings, thereby treating them as a preliminary indication of what I was going to find based on the following: a. The attending property manager agreed to the Tribunal hearing ‘the basis’ of the tenant’s intended application, on this understanding that this would assist the Tribunal in managing the proceedings efficiently and avoid duplication and that the landlord would not have the opportunity to contest or test or raise reasonable objections against the finding that the breakup of the relationship was in fact ‘unforeseen’ for the purpose of section 66(1) of the RTA; b. The landlord submits that the breakup of the tenant’s relationship was not ‘unlikely’ nor was it ‘not a serious possibility’ in an objective sense; c. The Tenant’s subjective statement that she ‘would never have entered the 12-month lease if there was any possibility that her relationship would end’ cannot be a determinative legal test. If it were, every tenant who sincerely believed their relationship was stable could invoke section 66 whenever the relationship ended; d. The tenancy was a single occupation tenancy and there was no mention of the tenant’s partner moving in later or contributing to rent or otherwise being part of the financial or actual structure of the tenancy. All rent payments were from the tenant’s account. The tenant’s own application materials demonstrated that she independently satisfied the Landlord’s affordability assessment. If the relationship was as committed and financially intertwined the partner would have shown some interest in viewing the property or disclosed his intended financial contribution or presence; e. The tenant was very young when she entered into the relationship with her partner and her four-year relationship cannot be considered as stable as a decades long marriage; f. The tenant is a law and criminology student and capable if understanding risk, financial obligation and that young adult relationships do sometime end; g. If the tenant has genuinely depended on her partner, or any third party, for as much as half of the weekly rent, it is logical that she would have listed the partner as a guarantor to secure the tenancy and mitigate the financial risk inherent in relying on another person’s ongoing and significant contribution; h. If the Tribunal’s interpretation was applied broadly, it would effectively convert many fixed-term student tenancies into arrangements where the tenant can walk away midterm whenever a relationship ends, with the landlord absorbing the financial consequences it this interpretation is not consist with the contractual nature of fixed-term tenancies or the purpose of s66 as a narrow exception; and i. The landlord acknowledges s66 of the RTA also requires the Tribunal to weigh: i. the hardship to the tenant if the term is not reduced; against ii. the hardship to the landlord if it is reduced.

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

The law related to reduction of fixed term tenancy
Parties enter into a fixed term tenancy for security. For tenants this is security of tenure; they can be sure they have a home for at least the agreed term. For landlords it is security of income; they can rely on a set amount of income from their investment.
If a tenant wishes to default on that contract, and the landlord accepts the repudiation, then the tenancy ends on the terms agreed. In such a situation of surrender the landlord can stipulate the terms of early surrender, provided they are reasonable. Such reasonable terms can be to ensure the aggrieved party (here the landlord) be placed in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement.
If the parties cannot agree to end the tenancy, it is open to that party to apply to the Tribunal to reduce the term pursuant to section 66(1) RTA.
The Tribunal can 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. c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.
Section 66 sets a high threshold for reducing fixed term tenancies. The jurisdiction in this section is an extension to the doctrine of frustration found in the general law of contract. In most cases, s66 is used to seek a balance between the competing interests of applicant tenants, for whom significant obligations under fixed term agreements can create severe hardship when circumstances unexpectedly turn against them, and landlords, who have financial obligations and expectations of their own arising from the same bargain.
The term “unforeseen” is a legal term defined by reference to the reverse (“foreseeability”) in cases relating to negligence (in determining whether a duty of care is owed and what damages are reasonably foreseeable) and in cases assessing damages for breach of contract (also in assessing the remoteness of damage). In both contexts, there is a body of case law which has established that: a. Foreseeability must be assessed objectively through the eyes of a reasonable person who has taken all reasonable steps to inform themselves of the circumstances; b. An outcome is foreseeable in legal terms if it is “liable to result”, “not unlikely”, “quite likely”, a “real danger”, a “serious possibility” or a “real risk”; c. The term “unforeseen” has few if any direct dictionary definitions, but by thesaurus is aligned with such concepts as “unexpected” and “without warning”. In a legal context, it must also be taken as the reverse of what is “foreseen”, thus being “not liable to result”, “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk”. Reconsideration of the tenant’s stated reasons for ending the tenancy early
The tenant has informed the Tribunal today that her ability to pay her rent was contingent upon her getting 50% contribution to the rent from her long-term partner of four years while she studied for the remainer of the 2025 year. It was unforeseen that such a long term and stable relationship would end suddenly. The tenant says she would never have entered the 12-month lease if there was any possibility that her relationship would end and that, but for this unforeseen circumstance, she would have finished the fixed term tenancy as agreed and moved back in with him at the end of the 2025 university year.
The property owner’s representative at the 11 September 2025 hearing argued that it was not made aware that the tenant was financially dependent on her ex- partner to pay the rent, her ex-partner was not a tenant, and that it was reasonably foreseeable that if relationship came to an end it would result in issues with the tenant meeting her commitments under the tenancy agreement. Therefore, she should be held to the terms of the bargain. Further, she should be deemed to have abandoned the tenancy earlier than the 6 January 2026, being the end of the fixed term, and the landlord had made her aware that she would be liable for the break lease fee and for rent until a new tenant had moved into the premise when she asked to end the fixed term early. Additionally, she signed a break lease document agreeing to pay the break lease fee and the rent until a new tenant was found and that she should be estopped from reneging on that agreement as the landlord released her from the fixed term tenancy earlier and incurred the cost of re-letting the property when the tenancy was only halfway through the agreed fixed term.
The tenant argued that the landlord had not asked her how she was going to fund her rent for the year, and from the documents provided in her application the landlord could see that her student loan was not sufficient to cover her rent and other fixed costs. Further, the payslip provided was from her old employer in Alexandra, Otago. Alexandra is roughly 2hours and 20minutes or 190 km from Dunedin. It would not be reasonable for the landlord to assume she would continue to drive that distance on a regular basis to continue to work for that employer nor that she would be able to work the hours she had when she was studying fulltime. Instead, her ex-partner agreed to provide as much funding as he could to ensure she could study for that year without having to earn enough money to cover rent on her own as well as covering the rent for year on the flat in Alexandra they had shared before they made the decision that she finish her studies in Dunedin for the year, as an investment int their joint future.
The tenant has indicated that the couple had plans for a future life together, they considered their relationship was strong enough to be sustained for a 12-month long distance relationship when they could see each other on weekends and in the university holidays and had tools such as face time to stay in touch. The tenant stated that her ex-partner had always been very supportive of her and she had no reason to believe that their joint decision for her to study alone in Dunedin for 12 months would mean that their relationship was at a much higher risk of ending. On the contrary, despite their age, they were planning for the future and the tenant completing her tertiary qualification was a joint decision made as an investment in the couple’s future.
I do not accept the owner’s assertion that tenant was very young when she entered into the relationship with her partner and her four-year relationship cannot be considered as stable as a decade’s long marriage. Decades long marriages can and do also fail unexpectantly and there are many couples that married partners they met when they were in their teens and early twenties that have sustained long and happy marriages. Age is not determinative of more or less risk of a relationship failing or surviving. I am satisfied that the tenant and her ex- partner were in a committed relationship that they believed would not only survive but be enhanced by the 12-month commitment they made to their joint future even if it meant the tenant had to move away for 12 months. The tenant says she was excited about having time away to study and to experience living alone for a while.
In relation to the landlord’s assertion the tenant should have listed her ex-partner as a guarantor, the landlord did not ask for a guarantor. The ex-partner was not a guarantor. The ex-partner made a commitment to his long-term partner to support her living costs as he was working, and she would not be working as much for a 12-month period while she finished her studies which they both believed was an investment in there future. The tenant has provided evidence the couple intended to live together again from the beginning of 2026, after the tenant graduated. She also intended to return to her old employer at the time until she found alternative employment in Alexandra. This opportunity has been lost along with her relationship.
I do not accept the floodgates argument, that the Tribunal’s interpretation was applied too broadly, and effectively converts many fixed-term student tenancies into arrangements where the tenant can walk away midterm whenever a relationship ends, with the landlord absorbing the financial consequences and that this interpretation is not consistent with the contractual nature of fixed-term tenancies or the purpose of s66 as a narrow exception. Not every student relationship can prove it is a stable long term committed relationship and that the stability of the relationship gave rise to a financial commitment made by one partner to another as an investment in their planned future together. Additionally, each case would be considered on its specific case facts and its specific merits.
The landlord did not do its due diligence on how the tenant was planning to fund her rent. It undertook its usual processes of getting payslips and study link information but did not question whether the job at Alexandra would continue and at the same level of earnings the payslip suggested she had been earning pre- return to study. Had the landlord’s agent undertaken more due diligence and asked those questions, the financial support from the ex-partner most likely would have been uncovered. The tenant was under no obligation to disclose information she was not asked for.
Further, the hardship test is what ultimately makes the s66 a high threshold for reducing fixed term tenancies as the Tribunal is tasked with balancing of the two parties competing interests. The foreseeability test is but one part of the overall test the Tribunal must apply. It is the part of the test that gets an applicant to the starting gate but is no guarantee that it will win them the race.
After reconsidering whether the breakup of the relationship was an unforeseen circumstances, I still find that the evidence produced proves, on the balance of probabilities, the breakup of a stable 4-year relationship was “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk”. As such I find it was an unforeseen circumstance that led the tenant to break her lease early. Is the tenant’s hardship greater than the landlord’s?
The tenant claims she would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced to 23 June 2025, when: a. The property manager had agreed to her ending the fixed term tenancy early due to her change in financial circumstances; and b. She was asked by the property manager to move out by 24 June 2023 so a prospective new tenant could move in. Based on that request she moved out on 23 June 2025 to cheaper accommodation she could afford, and would not have moved into had she known she would have had to pay the rent on this premise and her new premise until new tenants actually moved into this premise well after 24 June 2025; c. Being required to pay the rent on this premise to 25 July 2025 will put her under extreme financial duress when: i. She is no longer eligible for study link, has to find a new home back in Alexandra and a job post graduating in the new year; ii. She has a limited income of $399.25 per week after tax and her only asset is her car which she needs for work; iii. She has already had to take a loan to help her pay for her other living expenses as she currently pays $200.00 per week rent and this leaves her $199.25 for her other living expenses; iv. She is looking for a flatmate but at this time of the year it is hard to find one as most students leave Otago over the Christmas New Year period and accommodation is plentiful; v. She intends to relocate to Alexandra after she graduates. She is unsure what her employment prospects are and what earnings she may have to help her repay any debt to the landlord.
I am in no doubt the tenant will suffer undue hardship if she has to pay the rent arrears, and break lease fees she owes the landlord.
However, the landlord would also suffer hardship if the term is reduced.
The landlord provided evidence that she owns the house the tenant rented and is renting a property in Auckland, and she has to top up the rent she receives in order to cover the mortgage. The landlord has proven the tenant reneging on the payment of the weekly rental in the tenancy agreement has meant the landlord has had to cover the rent for the period 23 June to 24 July 2025 and the break lease fees out of its emergency savings. Additionally, the landlord has proven she has no way to repay the monies in the emergency fund as her earnings only just cover her own living expenses in Auckland (which are higher than in Dunedin) and she has no other assets she could sell and no other financial support she can call on if she or her children face another emergency or financial crisis. She is heavily reliant on recouping the money owed to her to provide financial stability and certainty for her and her children. Without this she may be unable to pay the mortgage and may loose her only asset.
I may only make an order reducing the term of the tenancy to 21 February 2024 where I am satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which she would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the owner would suffer if the term were reduced.
I find that the although the tenant’s financial duress is the result of an unforeseen circumstance, the tenant’s hardship is not greater than the landlord’s hardship. Therefore, the tenant’s application to reduce the term of the tenancy to 23 June 2025 is dismissed.
The tenancy ended on 24 July 2025 and rent is payable to that date.

Is the tenant responsible for the break lease fee?

I award compensation of $1,069.50 to the landlord, for the reasonable administration and advertising costs it incurred.
The tenant signed a break lease form agreeing to this cost and the landlord has proven it expended this fee amount on advertising, screening potential new tenants, conducting viewings and credit checks and the administration costs associated with drawing up a new tenancy agreement and dealing with bond monies. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because Nzps Property Management Limited As Agent For Amie Best has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302314 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 5 Brunel Street, Mornington, Dunedin 9011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302314 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3, 5 Brunel Street, Mornington, Dunedin 9011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

Is the tenant responsible for the break lease fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

Is the tenant responsible for the break lease fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.