What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340224 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant/Landlord] name and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 5340224?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340224?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340224?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12413880-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340224 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant/Landlord] name and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 5340224?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340224?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340224?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12413880-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5340224 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant/Landlord] name and identifying details.
The application to reduce fixed-term tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted via teleconference, with the tenant, [The tenant/s], and the property manager, [The property manager], in attendance. Introduction
This matter concerns [The tenant/s]’s application under section 66(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) to end the two-year fixed term tenancy ending 23 February 2026 earlier.
[The tenant/s] claims she is unable to continue due to the removal of her five children by Oranga Tamariki, loss of financial support, and domestic violence.
I must consider whether [The tenant/s] has met the legal threshold for early termination. The law
The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, section 66 of the Act allows for the reduction of fixed-term tenancy agreements.
There is a high threshold 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 their circumstances b. the change was unforeseen c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced
Section 66(2) provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage which results from the reduction of the term.
The weighing of relative hardship is a question of fact to be assessed objectively in each case. Facts
On 24 July 2025, [The tenant/s] provided written notice of her intention to vacate the premises on 9 August 2025. She explained her reasons as follows: a. My children getting uplifted by Oranga Tamariki and are residing next door to the premises and due to safety reasons I can not reside at the property. b. Due to my safety I have had no choice but to reside outside of [Town]. c. My WINZ benefit will get stopped because the children ain’t in my care anymore and I can’t afford the rent on my own. d. Due to domestic violence, I have had to leave my ex-partner of 15 years and get him removed from the property for my safety.
Later that morning, [The property manager] replied. He expressed sympathy and outlined the tenant’s rights under section 56B of the Act, which permits withdrawal from a tenancy due to family violence.
[The property manager] then informed [The tenant/s] of the requirements under section 56B of the Act. Section 56B of the Act is a provision that allows a tenant to “withdraw” from the tenancy with a 2-day notice, provided the tenant has qualifying evidence.
Later, [The tenant/s] provided a letter from Oranga Tamariki dated 24 July 2025. After reviewing it, [The property manager] wrote on 24 July 2025 at 2:42pm. “While I absolutely acknowledge and respect the difficult position you’re in... unfortunately the statement from Oranga Tamariki doesn’t currently meet the legal threshold under Section 56B... The Act requires that the evidence clearly confirms that family violence has occurred, and while the letter you’ve supplied acknowledges your wish to move, it does not confirm the presence of family violence in the way the legislation specifies. The wording used ‘We do not require [The tenant/s] to move, however acknowledge and understand her reasoning for wanting to move from [Town]’ — is viewed under the Act as a preference.”
[The property manager] further explained: “If you do vacate on 9 August as indicated, and no lawful withdrawal or transfer has been processed, we would be required to treat the tenancy as abandoned. However, you have the option to find a suitable replacement tenant to take over the tenancy. They would need to meet the usual background and reference checks, and once approved, this could release you from your remaining obligations under the agreement.”
During the hearing, [The tenant/s] did not provide any evidence to establish that she was a victim of domestic violence. This is not to suggest that she is not a victim, but rather that there was no evidence before me to enable consideration of section 56B of the Act.
[The tenant/s] confirmed that she vacated the premises on 9 August 2025. She referred a prospective tenant to [The property manager] to replace her. Unfortunately, the landlord did not accept this prospective tenant due to past tenancy issues.
[The tenant/s] explained that her change in circumstances arose when Oranga Tamariki removed her five children from her care. She stated that the children were placed next door to the tenancy property, and as a result, she considered it better for her to leave the premises. She confirmed that she vacated the property on 9 August 2025.
She said that the loss of her children placed her in financial hardship. Prior to their removal, she was on a sole parent benefit of approximately $1,100 per week, which allowed her to meet the weekly rent of $500. Once the children were taken into Oranga Tamariki’s care, her benefit entitlement reduced to $436 per week, being the standard jobseeker support
[The tenant/s] told me that this drop in income meant there was no way she could continue to afford the rent. She said she therefore gave two weeks’ notice to vacate, as she could not remain in the tenancy.
When asked if there were any other reasons for her application, [The tenant/s] made it clear that her case was based on financial hardship. She told me: “Just financial hardship.”

Has there been a change in their circumstances?

I accept that there has been a change in [The tenant/s]’s circumstances. [The tenant/s]’s evidence was that Oranga Tamariki removed her five children from her care in July 2025. This resulted in her sole parent benefit of approximately $1,100 per week reducing to a jobseeker allowance of $436 per week. The loss of this income meant she could no longer meet the rent of $500 per week.

Was the change unforeseen?

I also accept that the change in circumstances was unforeseen. The tenancy commenced in February 2024 and was intended to run for two years. Approximately one and a half years into the tenancy, Oranga Tamariki removed her five children from her care.
It is not reasonable to expect that [The tenant/s] could have anticipated such an event at the time she entered into the fixed-term tenancy in February 2024.
In my view, the removal of her children was not an anticipated event, and the loss of income support was a direct consequence of losing their care. The loss of care of her five children was therefore an unforeseen development that fundamentally altered her ability to maintain the tenancy. Will the unforeseen change result in severe hardship to [The tenant/s] if the tenancy is not reduced?
[The tenant/s] said that the severe hardship she would suffer was financial. She explained that once her five children were removed from her care, her income dropped from approximately $1,100 per week on a sole parent benefit to $436 per week on jobseeker support. She said this left her unable to afford the weekly rent of $500.
She emphasised to me that there was “no way [she] would be able to afford the rent,” and that this was the reason she vacated the property. Her application was therefore based entirely on financial hardship.
In my view, the unforeseen change in circumstances will not result in “severe” hardship for [The tenant/s]. While the loss of income has made it difficult for her to pay the rent, I do not consider this to amount to “severe” hardship when compared with [The applicant/s] v Dominion Property Management 2014 Limited as agent for Lincoln Barnes [202] NZTT 4389541, 4419080.
In that case, the fixed-term tenancy was reduced on the basis that the tenants would suffer an ongoing fear of intrusion from persons who were able to access the floor of their apartment if they continued to live there. In other words, continuing safety concerns persuaded the Tribunal to reduce the fixed-term tenancy.
[The tenant/s], however, did not raise safety concerns during the hearing, nor was there evidence before me to make such an assessment. Her concern, in her own words, was “just financial hardship.”
Accordingly, I do not accept that the unforeseen removal of her five children would cause [The tenant/s] severe hardship. Will the severe hardship [The tenant/s] suffers if the term is not reduced exceed the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced?
[The property manager] explained that the landlord’s hardship would be financial. He said the landlord faced ongoing mortgage obligations of approximately $1,600 per month, in addition to rates and insurance, bringing the total cost to around $2,000 per month. If the tenancy ended early and no replacement tenant could be found, the landlord would need to cover these costs without rental income.
He also noted that the property had been advertised since mid-August 2025, but no applications had been received. With nearly 30 homes available in [Town] at the time, he said the rental market was quiet and it could take time to secure a new tenant. The landlord therefore risked significant vacancy and financial loss if the fixed-term tenancy were reduced.
In assessing the evidence, I did not accept that the unforeseen removal of her five children would cause her severe hardship. However, section 66 requires me to weigh the severity of hardship suffered by her against that of the landlord if the tenancy were not reduced.
While [The tenant/s] cannot afford the rent on her reduced income, the landlord faces substantial financial obligations, including mortgage repayments, rates, and insurance of around $2,000 per month. The property has been advertised since mid-August 2025 without any applications (except one referral from [The tenant/s] which was declined due to previous tenancy issues), and the rental market in [Town] is slow. In these circumstances, the landlord risks a prolonged vacancy and significant financial loss.
On balance, I am not satisfied that [The tenant/s]’s severe hardship would be greater than the hardship the landlord would suffer if the fixed-term tenancy were not reduced. Accordingly, the threshold under section 66 has not been met. Conclusion
The Tribunal is generally reluctant to interfere with fixed-term tenancies. The usual legal position is that such agreements are strictly enforced, save for limited circumstances where the Act permits the Tribunal to intervene.
[The tenant/s] is required to establish, on the civil standard of proof (the balance of probabilities), that her severe hardship would exceed the hardship suffered by the landlord if the fixed-term tenancy is not reduced.
After careful assessment, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that [The tenant/s] would suffer greater hardship. This is particularly so given that about six months remained on the fixed-term tenancy and, as [The property manager] confirmed, there have been no inquiries about the property since it was placed on the rental market.
Accordingly, [The tenant/s]’s application to reduce the fixed-term tenancy is dismissed. Name suppression
Although [The tenant/s] has not provided evidence to support her claim of domestic violence, I consider it appropriate to exercise caution. To avoid any risk of victimisation if the decision is published, I order suppression of [The tenant/s]’s name and identifying details.
For the same reason, I also order suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details, as publication may lead to the identification of [The tenant/s].

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340224 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340224 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has there been a change in their circumstances?

Was the change unforeseen?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has there been a change in their circumstances?

Was the change unforeseen?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions