How much money was awarded in case 5341679?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341679?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12766557-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5341679?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341679?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12766557-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341679 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341679 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
The Tribunal approves the assignment of the tenancy.
The subletting agreement which commenced on 30 August 2025 will now be an assignment agreement instead commencing on 24 November 2025.
The subtenant will pay all rent from now on directly to the landlord and be responsible to the landlord.
The landlord is now responsible for the assigned tenancy.
The assignment has the effect of releasing the tenant from all responsibilities under the tenancy effective immediately.
Any change of landlord forms must be completed by 25 November 2025 and provided to the Bond Centre.
The landlord must pay the tenant $28 immediately which is reimbursement of the application fling fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its directors.
The parties signed a fixed term tenancy agreement, due to end next year. The tenant said he needed to move cities. He approached the landlord about leaving and asked advice on the process to follow. The landlord said it would consider a subtenancy. The tenant looked at the Tenancy Services website and asked about an assignment. The landlord said an assignment would not be considered. A subtenant was found quickly and a subletting agreement was approved by the landlord and signed.
The tenant continued to express concern that an assignment was the better option. Eventually the tenant filed an application asking the Tribunal to decide if the landlord withheld consent for an assignment unreasonably. He does not think it is fair that he will effectively be responsible for the tenancy until 15 February 2026.
The landlord said consent for an assignment was not withheld unreasonably. She said she expressed a preference for a subletting agreement because of a previous experience. Also, the landlord wanted to tenant to remain responsible until the end of the fixed term.
Section 43B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out that:
Subsection (1) makes it clear the tenant may assign a tenancy “at any time during the tenancy”. The landlord must agree, subject to any reasonable conditions. Subsection (6) provides that the landlord must not withhold consent unreasonably.
I was provided with the email correspondence between the parties. On 22 August 2025 at 3.03 the tenant asked if an assignment was an option and referred the landlord to the Tenancy Services website by providing a link. At
22 the landlord replied:
The landlord submitted that she was opposed to the prospective replacement tenant and this is why she preferred to have a subtenancy agreement. However this cannot be correct because she said “not keen’ before she had even spoken with the proposed tenant, or checked references.
The landlord also submitted that “not keen’ did not mean she was saying no to an assignment. However, it seems most likely to me from the email exchange the landlord rejected assignment as an option. I find it was reasonable for the tenant to take from this that subletting was his only option. I also find the landlord withheld consent to the assignment process unreasonably.
Section 77(2)(p) RTA allows me:
I find this section allows me to make an order there should have been an assignment rather than subletting. The intention is that the tenancy continues with the subtenant, but the legal status of that tenancy is an assignment. This also means the landlord is fully responsible for the assigned tenancy and the tenant’s responsibility ends completely. In making the orders I am assuming the subtenant is still living at the house. Other orders
Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The parties have made applications for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.
I have used my discretion to allow suppression for both parties. The tenant has been wholly successful with his claim. While the landlord did act unreasonably in not allowing an assignment of the tenancy, I am not persuaded there is public interest in the company’s name. See section 95A RTA.
The parties must complete whatever paperwork is required to make sure the Bond Centre has all the correct information.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.

The Tribunal approves the assignment of the tenancy.

The subletting agreement which commenced on 30 August 2025 will now be an assignment agreement instead commencing on 24 November 2025.

The subtenant will pay all rent from now on directly to the landlord and be responsible to the landlord.

The landlord is now responsible for the assigned tenancy.

The assignment has the effect of releasing the tenant from all responsibilities under the tenancy effective immediately.

Any change of landlord forms must be completed by 25 November 2025 and provided to the Bond Centre.

The landlord must pay the tenant $28 immediately which is reimbursement of the application fling fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its directors.

The parties signed a fixed term tenancy agreement, due to end next year. The tenant said he needed to move cities. He approached the landlord about leaving and asked advice on the process to follow. The landlord said it would consider a subtenancy. The tenant looked at the Tenancy Services website and asked about an assignment. The landlord said an assignment would not be considered. A subtenant was found quickly and a subletting agreement was approved by the landlord and signed.

The tenant continued to express concern that an assignment was the better option. Eventually the tenant filed an application asking the Tribunal to decide if the landlord withheld consent for an assignment unreasonably. He does not think it is fair that he will effectively be responsible for the tenancy until 15 February 2026.

The landlord said consent for an assignment was not withheld unreasonably. She said she expressed a preference for a subletting agreement because of a previous experience. Also, the landlord wanted to tenant to remain responsible until the end of the fixed term.

Section 43B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out that:

Subsection (1) makes it clear the tenant may assign a tenancy “at any time during the tenancy”. The landlord must agree, subject to any reasonable conditions. Subsection (6) provides that the landlord must not withhold consent unreasonably.

I was provided with the email correspondence between the parties. On 22 August 2025 at 3.03 the tenant asked if an assignment was an option and referred the landlord to the Tenancy Services website by providing a link. At

22 the landlord replied:

The landlord submitted that she was opposed to the prospective replacement tenant and this is why she preferred to have a subtenancy agreement. However this cannot be correct because she said “not keen’ before she had even spoken with the proposed tenant, or checked references.

The landlord also submitted that “not keen’ did not mean she was saying no to an assignment. However, it seems most likely to me from the email exchange the landlord rejected assignment as an option. I find it was reasonable for the tenant to take from this that subletting was his only option. I also find the landlord withheld consent to the assignment process unreasonably.

Section 77(2)(p) RTA allows me:

I find this section allows me to make an order there should have been an assignment rather than subletting. The intention is that the tenancy continues with the subtenant, but the legal status of that tenancy is an assignment. This also means the landlord is fully responsible for the assigned tenancy and the tenant’s responsibility ends completely. In making the orders I am assuming the subtenant is still living at the house. Other orders

Because the tenant has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The parties have made applications for suppression. The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. See section 95A RTA.

I have used my discretion to allow suppression for both parties. The tenant has been wholly successful with his claim. While the landlord did act unreasonably in not allowing an assignment of the tenancy, I am not persuaded there is public interest in the company’s name. See section 95A RTA.

The parties must complete whatever paperwork is required to make sure the Bond Centre has all the correct information.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341679 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341679 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions