What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322304 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]’ application for a reduction of the fixed-

How much money was awarded in case 5322304?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322304?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322304?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12561196-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322304 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]’ application for a reduction of the fixed-

How much money was awarded in case 5322304?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322304?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322304?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12561196-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Siltstone Street, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5322304 — Tenancy dispute

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]’ application for a reduction of the fixed- term tenancy is declined.

Reasons

The hearing was held via video conference on 14 October 2025.
Ms Moir and Ms Hayes attended the hearing via video conference. Ms Hayes addressed me while Ms Moir sat beside her.
Mr Wallace attended the hearing via teleconference on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant has applied for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 14 March 2026. Facts
The tenants, Ms [The tenant/s] and Ms [The tenant/s], entered into a 12-month fixed-term tenancy commencing 15 March 2024.
The tenancy was renewed for a further 12-month fixed term. On 24 January 2025, the then property manager, Ms Ferriss-Sheehan, emailed Ms Moir a document headed Renewal of a Fixed-Term Tenancy Agreement. The renewal recorded a new term from 15 March 2025 to 14 March 2026.
On 24 January 2025, a clerical error in the end date (it was recorded as 14 March 2025 when it should have been 14 March 2026) was not noted until Ms Ferriss-Sheehan discovered it after the tenants had signed the fixed-term renewal and returned it to her. Ms Ferriss-Sheehan then emailed Ms Moir again that same morning, asking her to initial the correction beside the date change.
Both tenants confirmed at the hearing that they initialled the correction during a routine inspection on 24 January 2025, and that the manager took the document away afterwards. The discovery of the clerical error and the initialling of the correction occurred on the same day.
On 11 July 2025, the tenants gave notice that they intended to vacate on 8 August 2025 because they had purchased a house. The property manager at the time, Mr Craig Wallace, informed them that they remained bound by a fixed- term tenancy through to 14 March 2026, and that the early exit would be treated as a break lease, requiring payment of $480 for advertising and new-tenant screening costs.
At the hearing, Ms Hayes confirmed that they had sold a Northland property earlier in the year and used the proceeds to purchase their new home, settling on 8 August 2025. Ms Hayes stated in evidence that choosing 8 August 2025 as the vacate date coincided with the settlement of their new home. She accepted that buying a home had always been part of their plan and that the sale of their previous property began in April 2025.

What are the tenants seeking?

The tenants seek release from the fixed term under section 66(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), arguing that: a. they did not knowingly sign a fixed-term renewal; b. their financial circumstances have changed due to mortgage, rates, and insurance obligations; and c. continuing to pay rent on a vacant rental property causes severe hardship. The tenants’ submissions
Ms Hayes submits that they did not regard their situation as one of deliberate non-compliance but as the result of confusion about the renewal process. She says that when the fixed-term tenancy ended in March 2025, they believed, based on advice and general practice, that the tenancy would automatically roll over into a periodic tenancy.
Ms Hayes states that they were not offered any alternative tenancy options at the time of renewal and were presented with a renewal document for another fixed term. She explains that they were unaware they could have requested a periodic tenancy or that the tenancy could have automatically rolled over into one, and no discussion of other options took place.
In relation to the purchase of their home, Ms Hayes explains that they had always intended to own their own property. Their previous home in the Northland had been marketed for sale in April 2025, and the purchase of their new home in Rolleston was settled on 8 August 2025, coinciding with their intended move-out date.
While Ms Hayes acknowledges that the home purchase was part of their long- term plan, she says the financial strain created by having to meet both mortgage and rental payments at the same time has caused significant difficulty. She argues that the resulting hardship was not anticipated when they signed the renewal agreement because they believed their tenancy would be periodic by that stage and could be terminated with at least 21 days’ notice.
Ms Hayes said in evidence that fortnightly household income of approximately $3,500 (after tax) against fortnightly mortgage, rates, insurance, and utilities of $1,600 plus rent of $1,240. This leaves approximately $660 for groceries, fuel, children’s expenses, and other living costs. She stated that no child-support payments or government benefits were being received. The landlord’s submissions
Mr Wallace opposes the application. He submits that the tenants knowingly signed the fixed-term renewal and that purchasing a home required a carefully considered long-term plan. A plan to buy a home, he says, cannot be regarded as unforeseen, and the resulting financial burden from taking on a mortgage does not amount to severe hardship.
Mr Wallace also notes that the agency offered to temporarily reduce the rent to assist in finding replacement tenants, with the tenants to pay the difference, but the tenants declined this offer pending the Tribunal hearing.
At the time of the hearing, the property had not yet been formally re-tenanted but an interested party was expected to commence the tenancy in November 2025. Mr Wallace confirmed that the tenants remained fully paid-up to date with rent.
Mr Wallace submits that while he does not hold exact mortgage figures about his client’s financial circumstances, most landlords rely on rent to meet mortgage and insurance obligations, and that loss of rent would place the owner in financial hardship. Mr Wallace acknowledged that the tenants did not accept his submissions on this point without proof of such hardship.

What do I need to determine?

The Tribunal is therefore required to determine: a. whether the tenants knowingly entered a fixed-term renewal. If there was a further 12-month fixed-term renewal, the Tribunal may reduce a fixed-term tenancy where: b. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and c. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and d. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986..

Whether the tenants knowingly entered a fixed-term renewal?

The first issue is whether the tenants entered into a renewed fixed-term tenancy, or whether, as they claim, they were unaware that the tenancy had been renewed and believed it would continue as a periodic tenancy.
After reviewing the documentary and oral evidence, I am satisfied that the tenancy was validly renewed as a fixed-term tenancy for 12 months from 15 March 2025 to 14 March 2026.
The renewal agreement, dated 24 January 2025, is titled “Renewal of a Fixed- Term Tenancy Agreement”.
It expressly records the new term as running from 15 March 2025 to 14 March 2026, at a rent of $620 per week, and was signed by both tenants and by the landlord.
An initial clerical error in the end-date was promptly corrected the same day. Ms Ferriss-Sheehan emailed the tenants noting the error and requested that they initial the change beside the corrected date. Both tenants acknowledged during the hearing that they initialled this change in person at a later inspection and that the property manager took the signed document away.
The heading and body of the document leave no doubt as to its legal nature. It was plainly a renewal for a fixed term. The tenants’ signatures and initials (before and after the discovery of a clerical error) confirm that they understood and accepted those terms.
The fundamental principles of contract formation are that a binding agreement is created when one party makes an offer, the other party accepts that offer, and there is a mutual intention to create legal relations.
Here, the landlord, through its agent, made an offer to renew the tenancy on fixed-term terms. The tenants accepted that offer by signing the document and returning it. That act of acceptance created a binding contract.
The tenants saw the document, understood its contents, and executed it. Their signatures, together with the contemporaneous correspondence between the parties regarding the correction of the end date, demonstrate both offer and acceptance of the essential terms of the contract.
By signing, the tenants manifested clear consent to be bound by another fixed- term tenancy. If they did not wish to renew on those terms, they could have declined the offer or requested a periodic arrangement. They did neither.
Following the execution of the renewal, the tenants continued to reside in the property after 15 March 2025, paid rent at the renewed rate of $620 per week, and raised no objection or query about the tenancy’s status until July 2025, when they decided to vacate after purchasing a home.
Their ongoing performance of the tenancy under the renewed rate, without protest, is conduct wholly consistent with acceptance of a fixed-term agreement. It also supports the inference that they were aware of, and had agreed to, the renewed term.
Accordingly, I find that the tenants entered into a further 12-month fixed-term tenancy commencing on 15 March 2025 and expiring on 14 March 2026. Has there been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances?
No. I do not accept that there has been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances within the meaning of section 66(1) of the Act.
The tenants’ evidence shows that the purchase of their home was not unexpected, accidental, or beyond their control. On the contrary, it was the outcome of a well-thought-out and carefully planned decision. At the hearing, Ms Hayes accepted that it had “always been our intention to purchase our own home,” and that their Northland property was placed on the market for sale in April 2025, several months before they gave notice to end the tenancy. The purchase of their new home in Rolleston was settled on 8 August 2025, aligning precisely with their chosen vacate date.
These facts support the conclusion that the tenants’ change in circumstances was foreseeable and self-directed. A decision to sell one property and purchase another does not fall within the category of unforeseen events contemplated by section 66(1) of the Act. In my view, section 66(1) of the Act is designed to address unexpected or uncontrollable changes, such as illness, loss of employment, or an event that was unforeseeable, for instance, where the tenant could not reasonably have anticipated the event when entering into the fixed- term agreement.
The tenants also submit that they believed the tenancy would automatically roll over into a periodic term and that they did not realise they had signed another fixed-term renewal. I do not accept that the argument alters the position. The renewal document clearly stated that it was a Renewal of a Fixed-Term Tenancy Agreement, and the tenants signed and initialled that document. Any misunderstanding of the tenancy’s duration does not transform a planned and voluntary act, such as purchasing a home, into an unforeseen circumstance.
Accordingly, I find that the tenants’ decision to buy a home, and the resulting increased financial burden, were foreseeable consequences of their own planning. Whether the remaining limbs need to be considered.
Because I have found that there has been no unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances, it is unnecessary for me to consider the remaining two limbs under section 66(1) of the Act.
Section 66(1) of the Act is framed in a sequential manner. The Tribunal may only reduce or terminate a fixed-term tenancy if all three elements are satisfied a. that there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. that the applicant would suffer severe hardship if the tenancy were not reduced; and c. that the hardship to the applicant would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the tenancy were reduced.
In my view, the foreseeability requirement serves as a threshold test or gatekeeper. Unless the tenants can first establish that an unforeseen change in circumstances has occurred, there is no need to proceed to consider the degree or comparative balance of hardship between the tenants and the landlord.
Here, I have found that the tenants’ change in circumstances was foreseeable when they planned to sell their Northland property and purchase a new home in Rolleston. Accordingly, it cannot amount to an unforeseen event within the meaning of section 66(1) of the Act.
Because that threshold requirement has not been met, I do not need to make findings on the remaining two questions of severe hardship or comparative hardship. Conclusion
The tenants have failed to persuade me, on the balance of probabilities, that their plan to sell their Northland property and purchase their own home in Rolleston was an unforeseen change in circumstances.
Accordingly, the tenants’ application for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy is declined. Name suppression
As the tenants have not succeeded in their application, I decline to grant name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322304 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Siltstone Street, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322304 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Siltstone Street, Rolleston, Rolleston 7614

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What are the tenants seeking?

What do I need to determine?

Whether the tenants knowingly entered a fixed-term renewal?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

What are the tenants seeking?

What do I need to determine?

Whether the tenants knowingly entered a fixed-term renewal?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions