What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5333659 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for reduction of the term of the fixed-term tenancy of Yudai

How much money was awarded in case 5333659?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5333659?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5333659?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12636931-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5333659 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for reduction of the term of the fixed-term tenancy of Yudai

How much money was awarded in case 5333659?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5333659?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5333659?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12636931-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5333659 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for reduction of the term of the fixed-term tenancy of Yudai Nagase at [Tenancy address suppressed] is declined.
There are orders for non-publication of the names of the landlord, the tenant’s employer and the tenant’s supervisor.

Reasons

The tenant has applied for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 19 January 2026.
Because the tenant has moved to Invercargill, I agreed that he could attend by phone with his partner. An interpreter also joined by phone. Ms Tucker appeared in person on behalf of the landlord. The hearing took place on 7 October 2025.
The tenants have moved out, and both the tenants and the landlord have tried to get new tenants, but the market is difficult at present. The tenants have paid the rent up to the end of August. In the meantime, the rent arrears are building up and no new tenants have been found.
The Tribunal may 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. 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.
The onus is on the tenant to establish his claim. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant said that the change in circumstance was that he had moved to Invercargill. He said that he had to change jobs for two reasons: a. It is a condition of his work visa that he work alongside a fully licensed electrician. The electrician he was working with was not fully licensed. b. The electrician he was paired with was abusive.
This was different from the information he first provided to the landlord, which was that he had been let go. The landlord had obtained information from his employer confirming that Mr Nagase had resigned.
Ms Tucker was sympathetic to the tenants’ situation but was not authorised to release the tenants from their fixed-term contract. She had been trying to secure tenants for the property, but without success.
At the hearing the tenants said that Mr Nagase had to find another job in order to comply with his visa requirements. Because English is not the tenants’ first language, (and they and the interpreter were appearing by phone) I allowed them a further opportunity to provide evidence of the unforeseen change in circumstances. They were asked to provide evidence of the following: a. When the tenants took on the lease, had Mr Nagase secured the job at [XY] Electrics? b. Did the job that comply with the visa requirements? c. If not, why not? d. If yes, what was the change? e. Did Mr Nagase communicate with [XY] Electrics about what was required?
The tenants were also asked to provide information from [XY] Electrics and from Immigration NZ explaining what the requirements were, and the tenant was asked to explain what the change in their circumstances was and why it was unforeseen. The tenants’ evidence
Mr Nagase strongly denied that his resignation and relocation were unnecessary. He provided a statement and extensive documentation. In summary, he said that he had to leave his job because of: a. Breach of Electrical Workers Registration Board (EWRB) requirements. At [XY] Electrics, Mr Nagase was paired with another Limited Licence holder instead of a Full Licence holder. This was a clear breach of that Board’s requirements, meaning the legal conditions for working as an electrician in New Zealand. b. Breach of Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) requirements. Mr Nagase’s employer proposed lowering his hourly wage to NZD $20 or requiring me to attend an English language school for three months without pay. Mr Nagase’s visa conditions prohibit reducing the wage below the level approved at the time of application, and his licensed immigration adviser confirmed that a new visa could not be issued at the proposed rate. c. It was not possible to support Mr Nagase’s family on the proposed conditions. Because no agreement could be reached in discussions, he had no choice but to look for another employer. d. Lack of supervision and training for career progression. To remain in New Zealand long-term, Mr Nagase must obtain permanent residency. This requires complying with visa conditions and progressing to a Full Licence. Mr Nagase’s previous workplace could not provide the proper supervision or training necessary for that, making it impossible to achieve his long-term immigration pathway.
In answer to the questions posed in my previous minute, Mr Nagase said that in June 2024 his employment with [XY] Electrics was confirmed and he applied for a work visa sponsored by [XY] Electrics, and the visa was approved in September 2024. He entered New Zealand on 13 January 2025 and started working in February 2025.
Mr Nagase said that was hired with the expectation of bringing Japanese technical skills, in reality there were many differences between Japanese and New Zealand work methods and regulations, and he struggled with on-site English communication and local slang. His employer arranged a tutor and English classes during work hours.
At first, Mr Nagase was paired with a Full Licence holder. In April, a worker named Mr E from the UK joined the company under the same AEWV visa. From that time, Mr Nagase was increasingly assigned to work with Mr E.
Mr Nagase said that after Mr E learned that they were both on the same type of work visa and receiving the same hourly wage, his attitude drastically changed.
Since Mr E did not fully understand New Zealand work methods, did not hold a Full Licence, and created a power-harassing environment where Mr Nagase could not ask questions, Mr Nagase consulted the company directors (the husband and wife).
Mr Nagase said he received a letter from the director, which was based solely on Mr E’s one-sided claims about Mr Nagase. He said that some parts of the letter (regarding work mistakes) were factually incorrect, so he corrected them.
Mr Nagase produced a copy of a letter dated 7 May 2025 (which is presumably a different letter), in which Mr A, Director of [XY] Electrics set out matters to consider before coming to a meeting with the two directors the next day.
In the letter it is stated that Mr Nagase was hired as an electrician qualified in Japan, with the expectation that he would become a Qualified Electrician in New Zealand within 12 to 18 months of starting. The letter records that it transpired that Mr Nagase needed help with his English, and a private English Tutor had been arranged, along with time off work to support classes. As his English improved, it became apparent that his training and experience in Japan was not what was expected, and it was felt that he was working at the level of an apprentice. An apprentice was being paid $20.00 an hour.
The letter sets out that the rate he was being paid at was more than an apprentice. It was acknowledged that the rate was the minimum required for his visa.
The implication of the letter is that there was to be a discussion the next day about reducing his wage to $20.00.
Mr Nagase’s understanding of the discussions with his employer was that since the comments about his English ability were true, he was given two options: a. to lower his hourly wage to NZD $20, or b. to attend an English school for three months without pay.
After consulting his licensed immigration adviser, Mr Nagase learned that both options would breach visa conditions. He told the directors that their proposals would violate visa regulations, but despite several discussions, they could not reach an agreement.
During this period, Mr Nagase still had to work with Mr E, and it began to seriously affect Mr Nagase’s mental health. He could not sleep due to anxiety and stress.
Mr Nagase searched for a new job around Palmerston North but could not find any employer who met his visa and supervision requirements. He consulted his immigration adviser about this situation, and they introduced him to his current employer.
Since his discussions with [XY] Electrics had broken down and his mental health was being affected by working with Mr E, Mr Nagase decided to resign. This happened on 5 June 2025.
Mr Nagase said that because it was highly likely that he would not be able to remain in Palmerston North, Mr Nagase notified the property manager of his intention to vacate in mid-June.
At the end of June, Mr Nagase secured employment with his current company and obtained a new visa. Knowing that he would still be responsible for rent until a new tenant was found, and that he could assist with viewings, he requested his new employer to delay his start date until August, so that he could remain in the Palmerston North property until the very last moment. During that period, he had no income at all.
Mr Nagase said that in order to ensure a smooth visa process, he needed to find an Accredited Employer that was experienced in hiring migrant workers. However, most listings stated “Full Licence only” or “Registered Electrician only,” and there were no postings indicating “supervision provided” or “Limited Licence welcome.”
Therefore, he determined that it was not realistic to find lawful employment locally while holding a Limited Licence.
In support of his position, Mr Nagase provided: a. A letter dated 20 September 2024 from Immigration NZ stating that it was a condition of his visa that he was paid at least $30 an hour. b. Screenshots from the EWRB website and the Immigration NZ website. c. Screenshots of text communication with the company regarding Mr E. d. A copy of the letter dated 7 May 2025 from [XY] Electrics to Mr Nagase. e. Email from an immigration advisor regarding possible breach of the AEWV requirements. Landlord’s evidence
On behalf of the landlord, Ms Tucker provided an email from the Director of [XY] Electrics saying that they had investigated the allegations against the other employee and could not substantiate any wrongdoing. They told him to be more mindful around Mr Nagase.
Ms Tucker submitted: a. Mr Nagase was not fired. b. The tenants did not have to move to Invercargill. c. There is no evidence of applications for other positions in Palmerston North. d. There was no evidence from Immigration NZ that Mr Nagase had to leave his job.
Ms Tucker submitted that this was a workplace issue and not a tenancy issue and that the landlord should not be out of pocket because the tenants decided to move.

Was there an unforeseen change in circumstances?

Mr Nagase’s supervisor

In summary, between April and 5 June when Mr Nagase resigned, Mr E was Mr Nagase’s supervisor.
Mr Nagase did not get on with him, and he raised this with his employer. In a text He said that Mr E spoke very fast and that he was disrespectful and sarcastic, blaming Mr Nagase for not understanding English, He felt that he was being mocked and said it was mentally draining. In another text, he asked if he could pair up with a different supervisor, Eden.
In a text dated 4 June, Mr Nagase said that he could no longer endure [Mr E’s] words and actions. The next day he formally resigned.
I acknowledge that Mr Nagase was finding this situation difficult, and it is possible that the working relationship was such that he needed employment advice about whether he had a personal grievance, but he was not fired from his job.
In none of the communication with his employer, did Mr Nagase raise any concerns about Mr E’s qualifications. He did not say that it was a breach of the EWRB requirements for him to work under Mr E’s supervision.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that Mr E was not qualified to supervise Mr Nagase, and there is no evidence that breaching the EWRB requirements had a bearing on Mr Nagase’s work visa.
In summary between February and March Mr Nagase worked with other supervisors. During April and May he worked with a supervisor whom he found disrespectful. It is possible that Mr Nagase had a valid grievance, but I do not find that his working relationship amounts to an unforeseen change in circumstances. It is not relevant to the whether the fixed-term tenancy should be reduced. Work visa
Mr Nagase also considered taking three months’ leave of work to attend a language school full-time, but that would also have been in breach of his visa.
I accept that if Mr Nagase’s wages had been reduced to $20 per hour, a condition of his work visa would have been breached. This would have placed him in a very difficult position. However, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that: a. The wages were lowered; b. Immigration NZ had revoked his visa or threatened to do so.
I also accept that there was no evidence of attempting to find work in Palmerston North. It is implicit from his texts that his reason for leaving was because of his working relationship with Mr E.
In summary, Mr Nagase was in an unhappy work situation. The prospect of reduction of wages had been raised. His wages had not been reduced and so there was no actual unforeseen change in circumstances. He resigned on 5 June and then gave notice to the landlord on 13 June.
Mr Nagase’s decision to resign and move to Invercargill is not an unforeseen change in circumstances. Therefore, the tenants have not reached the first step in determining that the fixed-term tenancy should be reduced. Their application is dismissed.
Because the landlord has successfully defended the application, there is an order for suppression of the names of landlord as well as Mr Nagase’s employer and supervisor.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5333659 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5333659 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there an unforeseen change in circumstances?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Was there an unforeseen change in circumstances?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions