What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322440 about?

The tribunal order states: The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 2, 9

How much money was awarded in case 5322440?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322440?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322440?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12691012-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5322440 about?

The tribunal order states: The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 2, 9

How much money was awarded in case 5322440?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5322440?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5322440?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12691012-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 9 Dufferin Street, Mount Victoria, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5322440 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant, seeking a reduction of his fixed-term tenancy, and also an order that a car clamping fee be refunded.

Both parties appeared at the hearing in Wellington today, the landlord is represented by Mr Cook.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered in a fixed-term tenancy agreement, for a tenancy commencing on 17 March 2025, ending on 8 February 2026.

The sole tenant is Mr Newman, and the landlord is “Platinum Property Trust” by way of an agent Property Management Wellington Limited.

As I will discuss in more detail below, over the course of the Tenancy, there were two events of relevance, those were: a. The tenant having his vehicle clamped when parking at the premises, and incurring a fine; and b. The tenant seeking to end the fixed-term tenancy early due to hardship.

Again, I will discuss the more specific background in relation to those matters shortly.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

ANALYSIS

I will consider two claims from the tenant, separately. Application for reduction of the fixed term tenancy

The Tenancy is a fixed-term tenancy, due to end on 8 February 2026.

I am not entirely certain of the date, but the evidence is that sometime around July, the tenant requested to be released from his fixed-term tenancy, on the grounds of hardship. The landlord considered that application, but it was declined. I can see that the landlord has agreed to make efforts to find a replacement tenant, those efforts continue, but to date a replacement tenant has not been found.

Ultimately, the tenant has applied to the Tribunal for an order, cancelling the Tenancy, or reducing the fixed term.

At the hearing, the tenant confirmed that the reason he seeks a reduction in the fixed term period, is because of financial hardship. The tenant explained that he has a shop in Wellington, and that there has been a significant downturn in business, which has impacted his earnings. In short, the tenant can no longer afford to rent the Tenancy.

The tenant explained that he received advice from his accountant, which was that the tenant should look to end his tenancy and move back home with his parents to save money, and that is precisely what he did – he moved to his parents’ house, with his two teenage children.

The tenant also raised concerns in relation to matters with the landlord, including the parking fine, and the landlord not attending an agreed meeting, or not responding to other communications.

In response, Mr Cook confirmed that the reasons given by the tenant for seeking to end the tenancy early, were those raised at the hearing today, that is the hardship situation he faced.

The landlord did not consider that there was a change of circumstances, particularly given that Ms Newman is an existing businessman.

The respective hardship for the landlord would be a loss of rent on the premises, where they had expected rental in the premises until February next year. Mr Cook notes that there have been other properties in their portfolio where the tenancies have ended early, and that overall is having a significant impact on their business.

The landlord notes that they have been attempting to re-rent the premises but so far have not had anyone agreeable to rent it. Analysis

The usual legal position with fixed term contracts, is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it will only be in limited circumstances that a decision maker, like the Tribunal, would interfere with that term. In the case of residential tenancies, one of these circumstances is found in section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements. That provision holds in part: On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.

There is a high threshold that needs to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular the applicant will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in his or her circumstances; and b. that change was unforeseen; and c. that unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not ended; and d. the severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term was not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party would suffer if the term was reduced.

However, section 66(2) confirms that if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, that the Tribunal can order the tenant pay compensation to the landlord. That provision holds: Where the Tribunal makes an order under subsection (1), the Tribunal may order that the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy.

In this case, I accept that there has been a change in the tenant’s circumstances. I accept that when the tenant applied for the tenancy, he believed he was able to pay the rent, but that subsequently, he determined that was not the case. The explanation given to me today at the hearing matches that given to the landlord, an inability to pay the rent.

The next question then, is whether the change in circumstances would be unforeseen. The reason given by the tenant was a downturn in business in his shop. The Tribunal can take judicial notice in the fact of a continuing downturn for many retail and service businesses within Wellington, those situations are frequently reported in the media. I accept that for the most part, a small business owner would be unable to predict with certainty whether business would improve, remain stable, or decline. Those factors are invariably influenced by circumstances outside of the business owners control, such as prevailing rates of employment, government policies, etc. I have no reason to conclude that the tenant would have been able to foresee the situation he found himself in, when the Tenancy commenced.

The question then moves to a balancing exercise, between the respective hardships that would arise for the tenant, and the landlord. Neither party has provided financials, but have explained what the respective impact would be for them. For the tenant, the hardship would be an immediate, and I accept substantial, financial impact. For the landlord, my understanding is that the landlord has a portfolio of properties, so would probably be in a better situation to weather the impact of a reduction of rent, for one of those tenancies for a period of time. To put that another way, while I do not discount that there would be an impact from losing Mr Newman’s rent (assuming the premises are not relet), it can be accepted those payments would overall be a limited proportion of income for the landlord. Also it must be recognised that the tenancy is due to end in three months’ time, so the landlord will be in a materially similar position come February.

On the limited information I have available, I consider the tenant would face a severe hardship, which would be greater if the tenancy term was not reduced, than the landlord’s hardship if the tenancy term was reduced. That favours a reduction of the fixed-term Tenancy.

For the above reasons, I have determined that the application for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy must be granted. However, the RTA allows the Tribunal to order compensation to limit the impact on the landlord. This is a case with compensation should be provided. I have determined that the tenant should be liable for rent payments until 25 November 2025, two weeks’ time, which will allow additional time for the landlord to find a replacement tenant, and go some way to softening the loss for the landlord. Compensation for parking fine

The evidence is that when the tenant moved into the premises, he was given a map showing parking. The tenant says that in reliance of that map, he packed his vehicle, but it was subsequently clamped and a fine was raised. It seems that the information on the map was incorrect or had been corrupted.

In any event, the landlord has confirmed that the fine has been waived in full. That being the case, there is no longer any further matter for the Tribunal to consider in relation to the parking fine. As I noted to the tenant at the hearing today, the Tribunal only considers matters that are in dispute, and as the landlord has already agreed to refund the fine, there is nothing the Tribunal needs to do in relation to this claim.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant, seeking a reduction of his fixed-term tenancy, and also an order that a car clamping fee be refunded.

Both parties appeared at the hearing in Wellington today, the landlord is represented by Mr Cook.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered in a fixed-term tenancy agreement, for a tenancy commencing on 17 March 2025, ending on 8 February 2026.

The sole tenant is Mr Newman, and the landlord is “Platinum Property Trust” by way of an agent Property Management Wellington Limited.

Again, I will discuss the more specific background in relation to those matters shortly.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

ANALYSIS

I will consider two claims from the tenant, separately. Application for reduction of the fixed term tenancy

The Tenancy is a fixed-term tenancy, due to end on 8 February 2026.

Ultimately, the tenant has applied to the Tribunal for an order, cancelling the Tenancy, or reducing the fixed term.

The tenant also raised concerns in relation to matters with the landlord, including the parking fine, and the landlord not attending an agreed meeting, or not responding to other communications.

In response, Mr Cook confirmed that the reasons given by the tenant for seeking to end the tenancy early, were those raised at the hearing today, that is the hardship situation he faced.

The landlord did not consider that there was a change of circumstances, particularly given that Ms Newman is an existing businessman.

The landlord notes that they have been attempting to re-rent the premises but so far have not had anyone agreeable to rent it. Analysis

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322440 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 9 Dufferin Street, Mount Victoria, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5322440 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 9 Dufferin Street, Mount Victoria, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions