What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5337583 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and the Landlord name and

How much money was awarded in case 5337583?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5337583?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5337583?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12432765-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5337583 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and the Landlord name and

How much money was awarded in case 5337583?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5337583?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5337583?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12432765-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5337583 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and the Landlord name and identifying details.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced with the effect that it ended on Monday 1 September 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.
The tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 31 July 2026.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy under section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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. Facts
This was a fixed term tenancy from 1 August 2024 to 31 July 2026. Prior to the tenancy starting, the tenants’ baby was born 100 days prematurely in [City 1] on 14 June 2024. He remained in hospital with various medical complications until late November 2024. He was then discharged and taken home. While at home, the baby was on an oxygen machine and his blood oxygen levels required continued monitoring. In early January 2025, the baby’s oxygen levels dropped without explanation and he was rushed to [City 1] Hospital. He was then urgently transferred to [Hospital] in [City 2] where he remained for the next 4 months. The tenants also relocated to [City 2] for that reason.
Tenant A (the mother) does not work as she is caring fulltime for her baby. Tenant B (the father) is self-employed working as a Personal Trainer. During the four months that they were in [City 2], he could not continue his work in [City 1] and received no income from that business.
After 4 months the family returned to [City 1]. However, due to the baby’s serious medical condition, he has continued to undergo regular medical checks and surgical procedures in [City 2]. The tenants provided evidence of several admissions to [Hospital] between March to September for five cardiac catheterisation surgical procedures requiring the family to travel to [City 2]. Therefore, the tenants decided to relocate to [City 2] so that they would be closer to [Hospital].
The tenants informed the landlord of their situation and on 8 July 2025 emailed the landlord asking to be released from the fixed term tenancy. They proposed that their last day would be 1 September, although they could move sooner if replacement tenants were found. The landlord agreed to the tenancy ending on the basis that the landlord would re-advertise the premises to find replacement tenants. However, she advised the tenants that they would be liable for rent until new tenants were found. The landlord asked the tenants to pay the advertising fee of $241.50 and reference check fee of $35. She stated that once these fees were paid she would proceed with advertising the premises. The tenants paid the fees on 19 July.
The tenants found a property to let in [City 2] and asked the landlord on 22 July to provide a reference which she did. They also asked her whether there was anything else she required them to do before listing the property.
On 1 August, the tenants again contacted the landlord confirming that the lawns had been mowed and asked what else she would like them to do prior to listing.
The tenants became concerned that the landlord was not taking steps to advertise the premises despite them paying the advertising fee on 19 July.
The landlord says that she wanted to wash the outside of the house before advertising. She first advised an intention to do this on 27 July but cancelled because of wet weather. Later she indicated it would be done on the weekend of 2 August but she later told the tenants she was busy that weekend and would wait for the next sunny weekend.
On 4 August, the tenants advised the landlord of a prospective tenant they had found who was able to shift in on 1 September. However, the landlord was not interested because the proposed tenant had a rabbit and a cat and the landlord did not want pets at the premises. On 17 August, the landlord changed her mind and asked the tenants to see if the proposed tenants were still interested. However, they had secured another tenancy.
On 5 August, the tenants messaged the landlord again to ask her when the premises would be listed noting that they were happy for tenants to be shown through any afternoon. The landlord replied stating that before listing the premises, she was waiting for a good weekend day for her and her husband to wash the outside of the house, the conservatory roof and tidy up the garden. They also wanted to make sure everything was clean and presentable inside and outside the house. The landlord stated: “If you are able to take care of all this work, we can proceed with inspection and then move forward with advertising the property.”
The tenants replied on 5 August stating that the property would be clean and presentable for the weekend. They also advised that their expectation was that the listing would have gone up soon after they paid the fee on 19 July. They noted that people could be shown through while they were still living there.
The landlord says the exterior washing could not be completed until 17 August because of weather. She also claims that there was some rubbish in the yard (a rolled-up carpet) that prevented her husband from washing the house. The tenant explained that this was an outside fitness mat and he does not believe it prevented the landlord from washing the house or listing the premises.
The premises were not listed until 17 August 2025, almost 6 weeks after the tenants gave notice and 4 weeks after they paid the advertising fee.

Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances?

I am satisfied on the evidence that there has been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. This is due to their baby’s serious medical condition taking an unexpected turn for the worse, resulting in an emergency transfer to [Hospital] in [City 2] for a period of 4 months. I am also satisfied that since this long period of hospitalisation, the tenants’ baby requires ongoing treatment at [Hospital]. It is not practical for the tenants to remain in [City 1] with frequent trips required to [City 2] for treatment. The tenants understandably wish to ensure that their baby has the necessary and immediate access to the specialist medical services provided by [Hospital]. This has necessitated their move to [City 2].
While the baby was born prematurely and was hospitalised prior to the tenancy starting, there was no indication that he could not be treated in [City 1]. As far as the tenants were concerned, they made a commitment to the fixed term for 2 years and there was nothing to suggest that medical treatment in [City 1] would not be sufficient. Indeed, their baby was discharged from hospital and allowed home in late November 2024. The subsequent medical problems were unforeseen.

Will the tenants suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced?

Severe hardship is not ordinary hardship. It is self-evidently more than ordinary hardship that falls consequent upon an event. Severe hardship, if established, must then be compared with, and be greater than, the hardship that the landlord would suffer if the term of the lease is to be reduced at all.
The tenants advise that they have already borrowed $5,000 from family to fund rent that they continued to pay on this tenancy while they were in [City 2] for 4 months at the start of the year and tenant B was unable to earn any income. Tenant A is caring fulltime for their baby. They have also exhausted the last of any savings investments. They do not own any property aside from a car and the usual household and personal belongings. Tenant B is now back working as a personal trainer and is slowly re-building a client base in [City 2]. The family are receiving assistance from WINZ of approximately $600/week. The rent they pay in [City 2] is $650/week. The rent on these premises is also $650/week which they have stopped paying since 1 September. Tenant B’s income fluctuates but is between $400-$500/week. However, he reports that finances are tight and there is only just enough to cover their rent and living expenses in [City 2]. They simply cannot afford to pay rent on two properties.
In summary, I find that the tenants will suffer severe hardship financially if the tenancy is not terminated.

Will the landlord suffer hardship?

The landlord said that she and her husband both work full time and earn approximately $2,000/week. Their mortgage repayments are approximately $1,000/week. They own three residential properties including these premises and are in the process of building a new house. I have reached the conclusion that they are in a far better position financially than the tenants. Comparison of each party’s position
The financial information provided by each party was given orally and not supported by documentary evidence. Therefore, it invites a fairly crude assessment and comparison of the financial hardship each party would suffer. However, I consider that the severe hardship the tenants would suffer concerning their baby’s health and their financial position would likely be greater than any hardship the landlord will suffer if the tenancy is terminated. For those reasons, I make an order reducing the term of the tenancy and ending it with effect on 1 September 2025.
The landlord also accepted the reasons given by the tenants and was open to termination of the tenancy on 1 September 2025 (when they vacated the premises and handed over the keys). However, the landlord seeks refund of the bond, which is the equivalent of 4 weeks rent to compensate her for the early termination. The tenants do not consent to compensation because they claim the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to relet the premises without delay.

Should the Tribunal order compensation to the landlord?

Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See s 66(2) RTA .
As at the hearing date, the landlord has not been able to relet the premises.
The tenants object to any award of compensation for the landlord because they say she delayed the re-letting process by failing to take reasonable steps to relet the premises sooner. They raise the following factors: a. They gave the landlord 8 weeks’ notice of their intention to end the tenancy so that the landlord would have ample time to find replacement tenants but also made clear that they could move sooner if a tenant was found; b. The landlord agreed to the tenancy ending and to take on responsibility for finding new tenants; c. On 19 July the tenants paid the landlord the advertising costs requested but the landlords did not list the premises until 4 weeks later on 17 August; d. The landlords did not act reasonably by delaying advertising the premises until they washed the exterior of the house and inspected the interior; e. It is reasonable to expect that advertising the premises and conducting viewings for prospective tenants would take place before the tenants vacated; f. The tenants assisted the process by finding a prospective tenant that the landlord would not consider. The tenants also left their washing machine and dryer at the premises with the landlord’s consent to help secure a tenant; g. The tenants made it clear that they were happy to accommodate viewings and ensure the premises were presentable for that purpose; h. The landlord confirmed in communications that she intended to use photos taken the previous year for advertising so there was nothing to prevent her from listing the premises sooner using those photos; i. The landlords failure to list the premises has significantly contributed to the delay in finding new tenants.
The landlord disagrees with the tenants’ arguments and asks the Tribunal to review the email communications between the parties. She emphasized that it was necessary to wash the house and ensure it was presented well inside and out before advertising it for let.
I have reviewed all the communications between the parties including those filed by the landlord and considered the steps taken by the landlord. I also bear in mind section 49 RTA which provides: “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
I am not persuaded that it was reasonable for the landlord to delay advertising the premises until 17 August, almost 6 weeks after the tenants gave notice and after she had agreed to find replacement tenants. The landlord should have advertised the premises as soon as she received the advertising fee from the tenants on 19 July. At that point, she was obliged to take reasonable steps and mitigate any loss of rent given that she had agreed to end the tenancy and find replacement tenants. It is also reasonable and standard practice to advertise and arrange viewings during a current tenancy.
I do not accept that it was reasonable for the landlord to delay advertising until the exterior house was washed. That could easily be done later between tenancies. In any event, there was no evidence to show that the exterior was not in a reasonable condition. Similarly, the landlord argued that she needed to ensure the interior of the premises was clean, tidy, and well-presented before listing. However, she did not inspect the inside of the premises until 17 August to determine the condition, and there is no evidence that the house was not in a clean and tidy condition. The tenants advised the landlord that they would ensure the premises were presented well for viewings, and it was in their best interests to do so. The landlord did not need to photograph the interior for advertising because she intended to use photos from the previous year. Therefore, this was not a reason for the delayed listing.
The landlord’s failure to take reasonable steps to advertise the premises or make other efforts to find replacement tenants between 19 July and 17 August is a delay of 4 weeks. Coincidentally, the landlord seeks four weeks rent compensation for ending the tenancy on 1 September. However, given that the landlord is responsible for that delay, I find that the award of compensation sought by the landlord is not justified. In ending the tenancy on 1 September, the tenants’ liability to pay rent until that date allows for what I consider to be an appropriate amount of compensation to the landlord for the loss of the fixed term. It follows that the bond is to be refunded to the tenants.
Neither party sought suppression of their names and identifying details. However, I consider that the tenants need to end the tenancy in the first place has come about through no fault of either party. While, I have found that the landlord delayed matters, I am not satisfied that this was deliberate and likely occurred as a result of a failure to understand her obligations to mitigate loss. Therefore, there is no public interest in publishing the names and the personal medical and financial information that each party has had to disclose to the Tribunal. Therefore suppression is granted to both parties. See s95A RTA.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and the Landlord name and identifying details.

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced with the effect that it ended on Monday 1 September 2025.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.

The tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 31 July 2026.

The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy under section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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. Facts

This was a fixed term tenancy from 1 August 2024 to 31 July 2026. Prior to the tenancy starting, the tenants’ baby was born 100 days prematurely in [City 1] on 14 June 2024. He remained in hospital with various medical complications until late November 2024. He was then discharged and taken home. While at home, the baby was on an oxygen machine and his blood oxygen levels required continued monitoring. In early January 2025, the baby’s oxygen levels dropped without explanation and he was rushed to [City 1] Hospital. He was then urgently transferred to [Hospital] in [City 2] where he remained for the next 4 months. The tenants also relocated to [City 2] for that reason.

Tenant A (the mother) does not work as she is caring fulltime for her baby. Tenant B (the father) is self-employed working as a Personal Trainer. During the four months that they were in [City 2], he could not continue his work in [City 1] and received no income from that business.

After 4 months the family returned to [City 1]. However, due to the baby’s serious medical condition, he has continued to undergo regular medical checks and surgical procedures in [City 2]. The tenants provided evidence of several admissions to [Hospital] between March to September for five cardiac catheterisation surgical procedures requiring the family to travel to [City 2]. Therefore, the tenants decided to relocate to [City 2] so that they would be closer to [Hospital].

The tenants informed the landlord of their situation and on 8 July 2025 emailed the landlord asking to be released from the fixed term tenancy. They proposed that their last day would be 1 September, although they could move sooner if replacement tenants were found. The landlord agreed to the tenancy ending on the basis that the landlord would re-advertise the premises to find replacement tenants. However, she advised the tenants that they would be liable for rent until new tenants were found. The landlord asked the tenants to pay the advertising fee of $241.50 and reference check fee of $35. She stated that once these fees were paid she would proceed with advertising the premises. The tenants paid the fees on 19 July.

The tenants found a property to let in [City 2] and asked the landlord on 22 July to provide a reference which she did. They also asked her whether there was anything else she required them to do before listing the property.

On 1 August, the tenants again contacted the landlord confirming that the lawns had been mowed and asked what else she would like them to do prior to listing.

The tenants became concerned that the landlord was not taking steps to advertise the premises despite them paying the advertising fee on 19 July.

The landlord says that she wanted to wash the outside of the house before advertising. She first advised an intention to do this on 27 July but cancelled because of wet weather. Later she indicated it would be done on the weekend of 2 August but she later told the tenants she was busy that weekend and would wait for the next sunny weekend.

On 4 August, the tenants advised the landlord of a prospective tenant they had found who was able to shift in on 1 September. However, the landlord was not interested because the proposed tenant had a rabbit and a cat and the landlord did not want pets at the premises. On 17 August, the landlord changed her mind and asked the tenants to see if the proposed tenants were still interested. However, they had secured another tenancy.

On 5 August, the tenants messaged the landlord again to ask her when the premises would be listed noting that they were happy for tenants to be shown through any afternoon. The landlord replied stating that before listing the premises, she was waiting for a good weekend day for her and her husband to wash the outside of the house, the conservatory roof and tidy up the garden. They also wanted to make sure everything was clean and presentable inside and outside the house. The landlord stated: “If you are able to take care of all this work, we can proceed with inspection and then move forward with advertising the property.”

The tenants replied on 5 August stating that the property would be clean and presentable for the weekend. They also advised that their expectation was that the listing would have gone up soon after they paid the fee on 19 July. They noted that people could be shown through while they were still living there.

The landlord says the exterior washing could not be completed until 17 August because of weather. She also claims that there was some rubbish in the yard (a rolled-up carpet) that prevented her husband from washing the house. The tenant explained that this was an outside fitness mat and he does not believe it prevented the landlord from washing the house or listing the premises.

The premises were not listed until 17 August 2025, almost 6 weeks after the tenants gave notice and 4 weeks after they paid the advertising fee.

Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances?

I am satisfied on the evidence that there has been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. This is due to their baby’s serious medical condition taking an unexpected turn for the worse, resulting in an emergency transfer to [Hospital] in [City 2] for a period of 4 months. I am also satisfied that since this long period of hospitalisation, the tenants’ baby requires ongoing treatment at [Hospital]. It is not practical for the tenants to remain in [City 1] with frequent trips required to [City 2] for treatment. The tenants understandably wish to ensure that their baby has the necessary and immediate access to the specialist medical services provided by [Hospital]. This has necessitated their move to [City 2].

While the baby was born prematurely and was hospitalised prior to the tenancy starting, there was no indication that he could not be treated in [City 1]. As far as the tenants were concerned, they made a commitment to the fixed term for 2 years and there was nothing to suggest that medical treatment in [City 1] would not be sufficient. Indeed, their baby was discharged from hospital and allowed home in late November 2024. The subsequent medical problems were unforeseen.

Will the tenants suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced?

Severe hardship is not ordinary hardship. It is self-evidently more than ordinary hardship that falls consequent upon an event. Severe hardship, if established, must then be compared with, and be greater than, the hardship that the landlord would suffer if the term of the lease is to be reduced at all.

The tenants advise that they have already borrowed $5,000 from family to fund rent that they continued to pay on this tenancy while they were in [City 2] for 4 months at the start of the year and tenant B was unable to earn any income. Tenant A is caring fulltime for their baby. They have also exhausted the last of any savings investments. They do not own any property aside from a car and the usual household and personal belongings. Tenant B is now back working as a personal trainer and is slowly re-building a client base in [City 2]. The family are receiving assistance from WINZ of approximately $600/week. The rent they pay in [City 2] is $650/week. The rent on these premises is also $650/week which they have stopped paying since 1 September. Tenant B’s income fluctuates but is between $400-$500/week. However, he reports that finances are tight and there is only just enough to cover their rent and living expenses in [City 2]. They simply cannot afford to pay rent on two properties.

In summary, I find that the tenants will suffer severe hardship financially if the tenancy is not terminated.

Will the landlord suffer hardship?

The landlord said that she and her husband both work full time and earn approximately $2,000/week. Their mortgage repayments are approximately $1,000/week. They own three residential properties including these premises and are in the process of building a new house. I have reached the conclusion that they are in a far better position financially than the tenants. Comparison of each party’s position

The financial information provided by each party was given orally and not supported by documentary evidence. Therefore, it invites a fairly crude assessment and comparison of the financial hardship each party would suffer. However, I consider that the severe hardship the tenants would suffer concerning their baby’s health and their financial position would likely be greater than any hardship the landlord will suffer if the tenancy is terminated. For those reasons, I make an order reducing the term of the tenancy and ending it with effect on 1 September 2025.

The landlord also accepted the reasons given by the tenants and was open to termination of the tenancy on 1 September 2025 (when they vacated the premises and handed over the keys). However, the landlord seeks refund of the bond, which is the equivalent of 4 weeks rent to compensate her for the early termination. The tenants do not consent to compensation because they claim the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to relet the premises without delay.

Should the Tribunal order compensation to the landlord?

Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See s 66(2) RTA .

As at the hearing date, the landlord has not been able to relet the premises.

The tenants object to any award of compensation for the landlord because they say she delayed the re-letting process by failing to take reasonable steps to relet the premises sooner. They raise the following factors: a. They gave the landlord 8 weeks’ notice of their intention to end the tenancy so that the landlord would have ample time to find replacement tenants but also made clear that they could move sooner if a tenant was found; b. The landlord agreed to the tenancy ending and to take on responsibility for finding new tenants; c. On 19 July the tenants paid the landlord the advertising costs requested but the landlords did not list the premises until 4 weeks later on 17 August; d. The landlords did not act reasonably by delaying advertising the premises until they washed the exterior of the house and inspected the interior; e. It is reasonable to expect that advertising the premises and conducting viewings for prospective tenants would take place before the tenants vacated; f. The tenants assisted the process by finding a prospective tenant that the landlord would not consider. The tenants also left their washing machine and dryer at the premises with the landlord’s consent to help secure a tenant; g. The tenants made it clear that they were happy to accommodate viewings and ensure the premises were presentable for that purpose; h. The landlord confirmed in communications that she intended to use photos taken the previous year for advertising so there was nothing to prevent her from listing the premises sooner using those photos; i. The landlords failure to list the premises has significantly contributed to the delay in finding new tenants.

The landlord disagrees with the tenants’ arguments and asks the Tribunal to review the email communications between the parties. She emphasized that it was necessary to wash the house and ensure it was presented well inside and out before advertising it for let.

I have reviewed all the communications between the parties including those filed by the landlord and considered the steps taken by the landlord. I also bear in mind section 49 RTA which provides: “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”

I am not persuaded that it was reasonable for the landlord to delay advertising the premises until 17 August, almost 6 weeks after the tenants gave notice and after she had agreed to find replacement tenants. The landlord should have advertised the premises as soon as she received the advertising fee from the tenants on 19 July. At that point, she was obliged to take reasonable steps and mitigate any loss of rent given that she had agreed to end the tenancy and find replacement tenants. It is also reasonable and standard practice to advertise and arrange viewings during a current tenancy.

I do not accept that it was reasonable for the landlord to delay advertising until the exterior house was washed. That could easily be done later between tenancies. In any event, there was no evidence to show that the exterior was not in a reasonable condition. Similarly, the landlord argued that she needed to ensure the interior of the premises was clean, tidy, and well-presented before listing. However, she did not inspect the inside of the premises until 17 August to determine the condition, and there is no evidence that the house was not in a clean and tidy condition. The tenants advised the landlord that they would ensure the premises were presented well for viewings, and it was in their best interests to do so. The landlord did not need to photograph the interior for advertising because she intended to use photos from the previous year. Therefore, this was not a reason for the delayed listing.

The landlord’s failure to take reasonable steps to advertise the premises or make other efforts to find replacement tenants between 19 July and 17 August is a delay of 4 weeks. Coincidentally, the landlord seeks four weeks rent compensation for ending the tenancy on 1 September. However, given that the landlord is responsible for that delay, I find that the award of compensation sought by the landlord is not justified. In ending the tenancy on 1 September, the tenants’ liability to pay rent until that date allows for what I consider to be an appropriate amount of compensation to the landlord for the loss of the fixed term. It follows that the bond is to be refunded to the tenants.

Neither party sought suppression of their names and identifying details. However, I consider that the tenants need to end the tenancy in the first place has come about through no fault of either party. While, I have found that the landlord delayed matters, I am not satisfied that this was deliberate and likely occurred as a result of a failure to understand her obligations to mitigate loss. Therefore, there is no public interest in publishing the names and the personal medical and financial information that each party has had to disclose to the Tribunal. Therefore suppression is granted to both parties. See s95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5337583 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5337583 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances?

Will the tenants suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced?

Will the landlord suffer hardship?

Should the Tribunal order compensation to the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances?

Will the tenants suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced?

Will the landlord suffer hardship?

Should the Tribunal order compensation to the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions