Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316870 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 41 Miro Street, Mount Maunganui, Mount

Decided 12 Dec 2025 · Published 12 Dec 2025 · Application 5316870

Water Rates

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

Mount Maunganui

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Edison

Dispute themes

Award balance

Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.

Gross award: $3,811.54
Bond payment as ordered: −$2,400.00
Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord: $1,411.54

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5316870 — net $1,411.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to start of new tenancy on 16 August 2025	$3,257.14	Rent to start of new tenancy on 16 August 2025
Water charges to June 2025	$35.40	Water charges to June 2025
Advertising to find new tenant	$359.00	Advertising to find new tenant
Loss of rent to end of fixed term	$160.00	Loss of rent to end of fixed term
Net award	$1,411.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,411.54

Claims and awards for application 5316870 — net $1,411.54 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent to start of new tenancy on 16 August 2025

Amount: $3,257.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent to start of new tenancy on 16 August 2025

Water charges to June 2025

Amount: $35.40
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water charges to June 2025

Advertising to find new tenant

Amount: $359.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Advertising to find new tenant

Loss of rent to end of fixed term

Amount: $160.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Loss of rent to end of fixed term

Net award

Landlord $1,411.54

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,411.54

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $1,411.54 immediately, as compensation for loss resulting from the reduction in the term of the tenancy and as further particularised in the table below.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 1, 41 Miro Street, Mount Maunganui, Mount Maunganui 3116 is reduced and ended on 9 July 2025.
The bond is paid to the landlord.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone on 27 November 2025.
Following the hearing, the tenant was given an opportunity to provide any documentation supporting her claim to hardship. An email from a nurse- coordinator at a Tauranga clinic was provided. It does not advance matters and so I have not sought further comment from the landlord.
The landlord applied to the Tribunal for rent, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond and release from a fixed term tenancy. Background
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 16 April 2025 to 15 April 2026. The weekly rent was $600.00. A bond of $2,400.00 was paid and lodged at the Bond Centre.
On 4 July 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord asking to be released from the tenancy the following Wednesday. The tenant said she really needed to go home.
The landlord responded on 2 July 2025 with his proposals. Part of the bond would be used to pay the outstanding rent of $600.00 and the advertising cost, leaving a bond of $1,441.00. In return for reimbursement of the balance of the bond, the landlord would release the tenant from the tenancy.
Both parties signed a bond refund form dated 9 July 2025, which was also when the tenant vacated. The form provided that the full bond would be refunded to the landlord. The tenant had already applied to the Tribunal for refund of the bond to herself on 3 July 2025. When the landlord found out, he requested that the tenant withdraw the application. The landlord says that the tenant’s application means their settlement agreement has been repudiated.
The tenant says she was employed and able to afford the rent when she took the tenancy. She had relocated from Wanganui for work, leaving her children behind. However, due to unforeseen circumstances she had to urgently leave her job. Her children required her immediate care and support. These changes had significantly impacted her financial situation, and she could no longer afford the rent.
The tenant said her children needed her help because their father, who was looking after them, was unwell. The situation caused her depression, and her doctor signed her off work. Faced with the prospect of much-reduced income, the tenant sought to end the tenancy. The tenant says she is not currently working. Relevant Law
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy pursuant to section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) 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. The applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. Analysis
The landlord submitted that Tribunal decisions have consistently held that family distance or relocation is not extreme hardship. He cited Harrison v Tay [2019] NZTT Tauranga 4179873 as an example. I am unable to locate this case on the Tenancy Services website. When requested to do so, the landlord was unable to provide a copy. However, I would accept that voluntary relocation is not an unforeseen change of circumstances.
The tenant’s argument, as I understood it, was not that her relocation to Mt Maunganui for employment and her decision to leave her children in the care of their father was an unforeseen change of circumstances, but that the father’s illness and the danger this put her children in brought on depression. She was no longer able to work and faced the prospect of having to get by on benefits. I accept that the changed circumstances of her children and the impact on her mental health were unforeseen.
The landlord submitted that for the hardship to be “severe” it must be exceptional, and this case did not meet that test. The tenant had chosen to leave the premises as a matter of convenience.
The Courts have not attempted to define “severe hardship” except to say it is “...evidently more than ordinary hardship that falls consequent upon an event” (Bickerton v Lott (DC Wellington, TT No 756/00, Chief Judge Young, 18 December 2000)). In the case of students living “hand to mouth”, it was accepted in Bickerton that there would be severe hardship if they had to pay a further $800.00 each for rent until the end of the tenancy: “It is no exaggeration to say that with respect to three of the tenants it could result in bankruptcy”.
Similarly, here, the tenant is being asked to pay a sum of money which she cannot afford. If she were required to pay the rent to the end of the tenancy on 15 April 2026 (34 weeks and 4 days) it would involve payment of $20,742.86. That would place the tenant in severe hardship, in my opinion.
In contrast, the landlord is retired and dependent on the rental property for part of his income. There is a mortgage on the premises. If the tenancy is reduced it may cause the landlord hardship temporarily. However, I am satisfied that the tenant’s hardship will be greater than the landlord’s.
The matter does not end there, because section 66(2) of the Act provides that, when an order reducing the fixed term tenancy is made, the Tribunal can order reasonable compensation for any loss which results from the reduction in the term of the tenancy. The date which the Tribunal determines for reduction is a matter of discretion, and, as recognised in Bickerton: “Depending on the timing of such an order this would in itself result in compensation to the landlords”. The Court considered a number of factors when assessing compensation, including the conduct of the parties in finding replacement tenants. A similar analysis was applied in Lehrer v Protheroe (CIV 2009-070-65, DC Tauranga, Judge Rollo, 19 October 2009) where the focus was on whether the time taken to find a new tenant was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord started advertising for new tenants from about 30 June 2025. It cannot be said that he delayed finding new tenants, quite the opposite. He also appears to have reduced the rental to secure a replacement tenant, and paid to furnish the premises so that the new tenant, who did not have furniture, could move in.
The tenant says she has cooperated fully with the landlord to find a solution, such as assisting in finding a new tenant and paying for the Trade Me advert. I am not sure I fully accept these points. The landlord is claiming the cost of the advert in his application, which does not suggest it has been paid by the tenant. Further, the landlord was prepared to release the tenant on payment of the bond, an understanding which the tenant reached with the landlord after she had applied to the Tribunal. She did not then withdraw the application. The tenant decided that she needed the bond to secure a new rental, but she is currently living with a family member and is not renting.
These factors must be weighed in the scales when considering reduction of the fixed-term tenancy and the compensation that may be awarded. The tenant vacated on 9 July 2025. The landlord had an expectation of rental income for another 9 months. Instead, the last rental payment was made on 1 July 2025 for the period to 9 July 2025. The tenant signed the bond refund form but then sought reimbursement of the full bond through Tribunal proceedings. Further, in the circumstances, I do not consider the time taken to find a new tenant was unreasonable.
I reduce the fixed-term tenancy so that it came to an end on 9 July 2025. However, I award compensation to the landlord from 10 July 2025 to 16 August 2025, when a new tenant was found, in the sum of $3,257.14 (5 weeks and 3 days). The landlord is also entitled to compensation for water consumption charges to 30 June 2025 ($35.40) and the Trade Me advertising cost ($359.00).
The landlord claimed $960.00 for the cost of refurbishing the property. This was calculated by taking the $30.00 difference between the actual rental ($595.00) and the rental he had previously achieved renting out the premises on a furnished basis ($625.00) multiplied by 32 weeks (i.e., from 16 August 2025 to 15 April 2026 or thereabouts).
While I understand that the landlord furnished the property to secure a tenant, it was the landlord’s decision to do so. The rental achieved, on the evidence available, might simply represent the current market rent for the premises on a furnished basis. What can be said is that the landlord would have received $600.00 per week if the tenant had not broken the lease, and he would not have needed to furnish the premises. Instead, he will recover $5.00 less per week from 16 August 2025 to 15 April 2026, which represents his loss of bargain. I consider that $160.00 compensates the landlord for the loss of rental over this period. Filing Fee
Both parties have had some success (the tenant has successfully reduced the tenancy, and the landlord has been awarded compensation). They will bear their own costs.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Water Rates Mount Maunganui

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s12, s66, s66(2)

Key findings

Dispute theme: water rates

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316870 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $1,411.54 immediately, as

How much money was awarded in case 5316870?

Advertising To Find New Tenant: $359.00 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent To End Of Fixed Term: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Rent To Start Of New Tenancy On 16 A…: $3,257.14 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To June 2025: $35.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316870?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12863160-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

For landlords & property managers

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.

Order a Tenantcheck →

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5316870 — net $1,411.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.

Claim

Landlord

Tenant

Reason

Rent to start of new tenancy on 16 August 2025

$3,257.14

Rent to start of new tenancy on 16 August 2025

Water charges to June 2025

$35.40

Water charges to June 2025

Advertising to find new tenant

$359.00

Advertising to find new tenant

Loss of rent to end of fixed term

$160.00

Loss of rent to end of fixed term

Net award

$1,411.54

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

$1,411.54

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $1,411.54 immediately, as compensation for loss resulting from the reduction in the term of the tenancy and as further particularised in the table below.

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 1, 41 Miro Street, Mount Maunganui, Mount Maunganui 3116 is reduced and ended on 9 July 2025.

The bond is paid to the landlord.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone on 27 November 2025.

Following the hearing, the tenant was given an opportunity to provide any documentation supporting her claim to hardship. An email from a nurse- coordinator at a Tauranga clinic was provided. It does not advance matters and so I have not sought further comment from the landlord.

The landlord applied to the Tribunal for rent, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The tenant applied for refund of the bond and release from a fixed term tenancy. Background

The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 16 April 2025 to 15 April 2026. The weekly rent was $600.00. A bond of $2,400.00 was paid and lodged at the Bond Centre.

On 4 July 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord asking to be released from the tenancy the following Wednesday. The tenant said she really needed to go home.

The landlord responded on 2 July 2025 with his proposals. Part of the bond would be used to pay the outstanding rent of $600.00 and the advertising cost, leaving a bond of $1,441.00. In return for reimbursement of the balance of the bond, the landlord would release the tenant from the tenancy.

Both parties signed a bond refund form dated 9 July 2025, which was also when the tenant vacated. The form provided that the full bond would be refunded to the landlord. The tenant had already applied to the Tribunal for refund of the bond to herself on 3 July 2025. When the landlord found out, he requested that the tenant withdraw the application. The landlord says that the tenant’s application means their settlement agreement has been repudiated.

The tenant says she was employed and able to afford the rent when she took the tenancy. She had relocated from Wanganui for work, leaving her children behind. However, due to unforeseen circumstances she had to urgently leave her job. Her children required her immediate care and support. These changes had significantly impacted her financial situation, and she could no longer afford the rent.

The tenant said her children needed her help because their father, who was looking after them, was unwell. The situation caused her depression, and her doctor signed her off work. Faced with the prospect of much-reduced income, the tenant sought to end the tenancy. The tenant says she is not currently working. Relevant Law

The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy pursuant to section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) 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. The applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. Analysis

The landlord submitted that Tribunal decisions have consistently held that family distance or relocation is not extreme hardship. He cited Harrison v Tay [2019] NZTT Tauranga 4179873 as an example. I am unable to locate this case on the Tenancy Services website. When requested to do so, the landlord was unable to provide a copy. However, I would accept that voluntary relocation is not an unforeseen change of circumstances.

The tenant’s argument, as I understood it, was not that her relocation to Mt Maunganui for employment and her decision to leave her children in the care of their father was an unforeseen change of circumstances, but that the father’s illness and the danger this put her children in brought on depression. She was no longer able to work and faced the prospect of having to get by on benefits. I accept that the changed circumstances of her children and the impact on her mental health were unforeseen.

The landlord submitted that for the hardship to be “severe” it must be exceptional, and this case did not meet that test. The tenant had chosen to leave the premises as a matter of convenience.

The Courts have not attempted to define “severe hardship” except to say it is “...evidently more than ordinary hardship that falls consequent upon an event” (Bickerton v Lott (DC Wellington, TT No 756/00, Chief Judge Young, 18 December 2000)). In the case of students living “hand to mouth”, it was accepted in Bickerton that there would be severe hardship if they had to pay a further $800.00 each for rent until the end of the tenancy: “It is no exaggeration to say that with respect to three of the tenants it could result in bankruptcy”.

Similarly, here, the tenant is being asked to pay a sum of money which she cannot afford. If she were required to pay the rent to the end of the tenancy on 15 April 2026 (34 weeks and 4 days) it would involve payment of $20,742.86. That would place the tenant in severe hardship, in my opinion.

In contrast, the landlord is retired and dependent on the rental property for part of his income. There is a mortgage on the premises. If the tenancy is reduced it may cause the landlord hardship temporarily. However, I am satisfied that the tenant’s hardship will be greater than the landlord’s.

The matter does not end there, because section 66(2) of the Act provides that, when an order reducing the fixed term tenancy is made, the Tribunal can order reasonable compensation for any loss which results from the reduction in the term of the tenancy. The date which the Tribunal determines for reduction is a matter of discretion, and, as recognised in Bickerton: “Depending on the timing of such an order this would in itself result in compensation to the landlords”. The Court considered a number of factors when assessing compensation, including the conduct of the parties in finding replacement tenants. A similar analysis was applied in Lehrer v Protheroe (CIV 2009-070-65, DC Tauranga, Judge Rollo, 19 October 2009) where the focus was on whether the time taken to find a new tenant was reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord started advertising for new tenants from about 30 June 2025. It cannot be said that he delayed finding new tenants, quite the opposite. He also appears to have reduced the rental to secure a replacement tenant, and paid to furnish the premises so that the new tenant, who did not have furniture, could move in.

The tenant says she has cooperated fully with the landlord to find a solution, such as assisting in finding a new tenant and paying for the Trade Me advert. I am not sure I fully accept these points. The landlord is claiming the cost of the advert in his application, which does not suggest it has been paid by the tenant. Further, the landlord was prepared to release the tenant on payment of the bond, an understanding which the tenant reached with the landlord after she had applied to the Tribunal. She did not then withdraw the application. The tenant decided that she needed the bond to secure a new rental, but she is currently living with a family member and is not renting.

These factors must be weighed in the scales when considering reduction of the fixed-term tenancy and the compensation that may be awarded. The tenant vacated on 9 July 2025. The landlord had an expectation of rental income for another 9 months. Instead, the last rental payment was made on 1 July 2025 for the period to 9 July 2025. The tenant signed the bond refund form but then sought reimbursement of the full bond through Tribunal proceedings. Further, in the circumstances, I do not consider the time taken to find a new tenant was unreasonable.

I reduce the fixed-term tenancy so that it came to an end on 9 July 2025. However, I award compensation to the landlord from 10 July 2025 to 16 August 2025, when a new tenant was found, in the sum of $3,257.14 (5 weeks and 3 days). The landlord is also entitled to compensation for water consumption charges to 30 June 2025 ($35.40) and the Trade Me advertising cost ($359.00).

The landlord claimed $960.00 for the cost of refurbishing the property. This was calculated by taking the $30.00 difference between the actual rental ($595.00) and the rental he had previously achieved renting out the premises on a furnished basis ($625.00) multiplied by 32 weeks (i.e., from 16 August 2025 to 15 April 2026 or thereabouts).

While I understand that the landlord furnished the property to secure a tenant, it was the landlord’s decision to do so. The rental achieved, on the evidence available, might simply represent the current market rent for the premises on a furnished basis. What can be said is that the landlord would have received $600.00 per week if the tenant had not broken the lease, and he would not have needed to furnish the premises. Instead, he will recover $5.00 less per week from 16 August 2025 to 15 April 2026, which represents his loss of bargain. I consider that $160.00 compensates the landlord for the loss of rental over this period. Filing Fee

Both parties have had some success (the tenant has successfully reduced the tenancy, and the landlord has been awarded compensation). They will bear their own costs.