How much money was awarded in case 5308933?

Rent Arrears: $3,621.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308933?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12247416-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5308933?

Rent Arrears: $3,621.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308933?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12247416-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5308933 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5308933 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5308933 — net $1,021.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 July 2025	$3,621.43	Rent arrears to 28 July 2025
Net award	$1,021.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,021.43

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 tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and now ends on 28 July 2025.

[The tenant/s] must pay Residential Re Limited T/A Bayleys Rpm As Agent For Maxview House Ltd Brian Anna Zhou $1,826.43 by 5pm on Monday 19 August 2025, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2600.00 to Residential Re Limited T/A Bayleys Rpm As Agent For Maxview House Ltd Brian Anna Zhou immediately.

Reasons

A hearing was held on 6 August 2025 by teleconference. The landlord attended. [The tenant/s] attended for the tenants.

The tenants have applied for a reduction of a fixed-term tenancy pursuant to section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”). The tenancy commenced on 8 November 2024 and is due to expire on 7 November 2025. The rent is $650 per week, and a bond of $2,600 is lodged with the Bond Centre.

On 9 June 2025, [the tenant/s] advised the landlord that they were unable to continue with the tenancy due to a significant change in their circumstances. The tenant cited her partner’s (who was a co-tenant) loss of employment, her own reduced working hours due to a high-risk pregnancy (supported by medical evidence on the Tenancy Tribunal file), and severe financial pressures, including the temporary suspension of Working for Families payments and the withdrawal of her daughter from daycare due to cost. The tenant advised that she had sold household belongings to pay for essential living expenses and has since moved to a cheaper rental at $550 per week to avoid further hardship.

The landlord responded the same day, advising the tenant that she was bound to the fixed term tenancy until 7 November 2025. The landlord stated that if the tenant wished to break the fixed term, she would be liable for the marketing and administrative costs and rent until a replacement tenant was secured.

The tenants seek an order reducing the fixed-term tenancy on the basis of severe hardship, effective from 28 July 2025, being the date they vacated and moved to alternative accommodation.

The landlord has filed a cross-application for rent arrears of $4,457.14 to 6 August 2025 (the date of the hearing) but has indicated that they have prospective tenants interested in the property and expect to re-let it within one week. Relevant Law

Section 66(1) of the Act allows the Tribunal to reduce the term of a fixed-term tenancy if, because of unforeseen circumstances, the tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term were not reduced. Under section 66(2), the Tribunal must balance the hardship to the tenant against the hardship that would be suffered by the landlord if the tenancy were reduced. Furthermore, where a reduction is granted, the Tribunal may also order the tenant to compensate the landlord for any proven loss resulting from the early termination. See: section 66(2) RTA.

These provisions recognise that while fixed-term tenancies are ordinarily binding, fairness may require relief in exceptional cases.

The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The hardship must be more than ordinary financial difficulty. It must be significant, unforeseen, and sufficiently serious to justify early termination. Tenants remain liable for rent under section 40(1)(a) of the Act until the tenancy ends, either by expiry or an order of the Tribunal. Section 66 is an exception to this, but only in circumstances where the tenant meets the high threshold of hardship. Analysis

Should the fixed term be reduced?

In this case, the tenants’ evidence demonstrates that there has been a clear and unforeseen change in circumstances since the tenancy was entered into. The tenant’s partner’s loss of employment, combined with her own reduced working hours due to a high-risk pregnancy, represents a significant change in the household’s financial position. This has been compounded by the temporary suspension of Working for Families payments and the need to remove their child from daycare due to financial constraints.

The tenants have provided detailed financial information, including a weekly budget and bank statements, showing that the rent of $650 per week became unsustainable and resulted in severe financial pressure. The Tribunal accepts that the tenants’ evidence is credible and demonstrates genuine hardship.

[The tenant/s] also explained that her partner has actively sought employment since losing his job but has not yet secured work. Approximately 2 weeks before the hearing, he applied to work and income for assistance. However, he was placed on a six-week compliance course rather than receiving immediate placement or training that could lead directly to income. These circumstances have contributed to the households reduced ability to meet rental obligations.

The tenants have taken proactive steps to resolve the situation. They sought to negotiate early termination, assisted in showing the property to prospective tenants, and moved to a more affordable rental on 28 July 2025, at a weekly rent of $550 with two weeks’ free rent. This demonstrates a genuine effort to mitigate the landlord’s potential loss and their own liability.

The tenants move to a new rental property on 28 July 2025 at $550 per week, with two weeks’ free rent, has already reduced their financial pressure and provided some stability for their family. Without such a move, the tenants’ financial situation would have worsened to the point of significant hardship, including the risk of falling into unmanageable arrears.

Balancing the hardship to each party as required by section 66(2), I find that the hardship to the tenants in continuing the tenancy would have been significantly greater than any hardship to the landlord in granting early termination. The tenants’ actions were timely and reasonable in response to worsening circumstances, and the early termination is appropriate in this case. The landlord has acknowledged that prospective tenants are interested in the property and that it is likely to be re- let within a short timeframe, thereby limiting the landlord’s financial loss.

The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the legal test under section 66(1) of the Act is met, and that it is appropriate to reduce the fixed term. Date of Reduction and Rent Liability

The tenants vacated the premises and moved to alternative accommodation on 28 July 2025. The Tribunal considers it reasonable to reduce the fixed term from that date. The tenant is liable for rent up to 28 July 2025.

The landlord’s cross-application for rent arrears of $4,457.14 is therefore to be adjusted based on rent liability to 28 July 2025, and any payments or bond to be applied towards that amount.

The landlord also sought marketing fees ($172.50) and administrative costs ($632.50) for re-letting the property. However, these are expenses the landlord would have incurred in any event at the natural end of the tenancy on 7 November 2025, as the property would have needed to be re-let at that time. In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds that these costs are part of the landlord’s ordinary business expenses and are not losses caused by the early termination within the meaning of section 66(2) of the Act. They are therefore not awarded. Conclusion

The tenants have established that there was an unforeseen change in their circumstances, that they would suffer severe hardship if the fixed term was not reduced, and that this hardship outweighs any hardship to the landlord. Accordingly, the Tribunal grants the application for reduction of the fixed term. Orders

The fixed term is reduced and deemed to have ended on 28 July 2025.

The tenants are liable for rent up to 28 July 2025. The bond of $2,600 is to be applied against the tenants’ rent arrears.

The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is adjusted accordingly, and any remaining arrears after application of the bond are to be paid by the tenants. It remains open to the tenants to seek further assistance from Work and Income or to liaise with the landlord regarding a payment plan for the remaining amount owed.

The landlord’s claim for marketing fees and administrative costs are dismissed. Filing fee

Section 102(2) of the Act provides that the unsuccessful party is to reimburse the successful party the filing fee. In this case both parties filed applications, and each has achieved some success. Given that both parties have been partly successful, it is not appropriate for either to be required to reimburse the other is filing fee. No order is made in respect of the filing fee. Suppression order

Under section 95A of the Act, the Tribunal may order suppression of a party’s name and identifying details if that party has been wholly or substantially successful and if it is in the interests of justice to do so.

The landlord does not seek a suppression order.

The tenants seek a suppression order. The tenants have been mostly successful in their application, with the fixed term reduced to the date they sought and their range liability ending on that date. Given the sensitive personal circumstances involved, including health and pregnancy related issues, and the fact that the tenants took reasonable steps to minimise the landlord’s loss, it would be disproportionate and unfair for the tenants to be publicly identified. The Tribunal is satisfied that granting suppression is in the interests of justice.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5308933 — net $1,021.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28 July 2025	$3,621.43	Rent arrears to 28 July 2025
Net award	$1,021.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,021.43

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 tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and now ends on 28 July 2025.

[The tenant/s] must pay Residential Re Limited T/A Bayleys Rpm As Agent For Maxview House Ltd Brian Anna Zhou $1,826.43 by 5pm on Monday 19 August 2025, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2600.00 to Residential Re Limited T/A Bayleys Rpm As Agent For Maxview House Ltd Brian Anna Zhou immediately.

Reasons

A hearing was held on 6 August 2025 by teleconference. The landlord attended. [The tenant/s] attended for the tenants.

The tenants seek an order reducing the fixed-term tenancy on the basis of severe hardship, effective from 28 July 2025, being the date they vacated and moved to alternative accommodation.

These provisions recognise that while fixed-term tenancies are ordinarily binding, fairness may require relief in exceptional cases.

Should the fixed term be reduced?

The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the legal test under section 66(1) of the Act is met, and that it is appropriate to reduce the fixed term. Date of Reduction and Rent Liability

The landlord’s cross-application for rent arrears of $4,457.14 is therefore to be adjusted based on rent liability to 28 July 2025, and any payments or bond to be applied towards that amount.

The fixed term is reduced and deemed to have ended on 28 July 2025.

The tenants are liable for rent up to 28 July 2025. The bond of $2,600 is to be applied against the tenants’ rent arrears.

The landlord’s claim for marketing fees and administrative costs are dismissed. Filing fee

The landlord does not seek a suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308933 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308933 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term be reduced?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions