What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342383 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5342383?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Reletting Costs: $747.50 awarded to landlord; Rent: $5,120.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342383?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342383?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12589492-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342383 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5342383?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Reletting Costs: $747.50 awarded to landlord; Rent: $5,120.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342383?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342383?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12589492-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5342383 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5342383 — net $3,335.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 09 October 2025	$5,120.00	Rent to 09 October 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Reletting costs	$747.50	Reletting costs
Net award	$3,335.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,335.50

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5342383 — net $3,335.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 09 October 2025	$5,120.00	Rent to 09 October 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Reletting costs	$747.50	Reletting costs
Net award	$3,335.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,335.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,335.50 immediately.
The application to reduce the fixed term and that the landlord harassed the tenant are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant appeared and was supported by [ redacted support person]. [ redacted] appeared for the landlord.
The tenancy commenced on 13 June 2025 for a fixed term to end on 11 June 2026.
On 7 July 2025, the parties entered into an agreement to end the fixed term before its expiry. The terms of the agreement were that the tenant would remain liable for rent until a replacement tenant was found, and for the reasonable costs of re-letting the property.
The first viewing with prospective tenants was conducted on 14 July 2025.
On 12 August 2025, the tenant vacated the property for Tauranga, leaving the keys under some stones. The tenant notified the landlord, who stated that they recovered the keys, copied a set, and then returned them to the same place the next day. The tenant states that they sent their mother-in-law (their children’s grandmother) to collect the keys, but they could not be found.
The last rent payment made by the tenant was on 5 August 2025. On 25 August 2025, the landlord issued the tenant with a 14-day notice for rent arrears.
On 4 September 2025, the landlord offered a resolution, proposing that the tenant surrender the bond to cover the rent arrears and any future rent obligation. The tenant declined to engage with the landlord.
On 8 September 2025, the tenant filed a claim seeking to reduce the fixed term, including an allegation that the landlord had interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, amounting to harassment. On 9 September 2025, the landlord filed a counterclaim for rent arrears and reasonable costs associated with re-letting the property.
The tenant has two young children, aged 7 and 5. The tenant states that they had previously been residing in Tauranga with their mother. The tenant further states that their Tauranga landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy on the basis that the property was to be sold. The tenant then contacted the landlord, who they had previously rented from in Hamilton, and asked if there were any suitable properties available in Hamilton. The tenant explained that they wished to move to Hamilton because their children’s grandparents resided there and could offer support.
The tenant stated that the landlord then encouraged them to move. Shortly after the tenant moved, their relationship with the children’s grandparents deteriorated. The tenant stated that their children became unsettled. The tenant also stated that they experienced a mental health breakdown and were admitted to hospital. The tenant explained that they had spoken with members of the mental health crisis team and had been advised to speak with their GP. The tenant was not admitted for compulsory assessment or treatment. The tenant stated that, as familial supports were no longer available, they moved back to Tauranga to reside with their mother in another rental. The tenant considered that the delay in finding a replacement tenant was unreasonable and had caused stress. The tenant produced a letter from their GP dated 28 August 2025, confirming that the tenant was residing in Tauranga and that the matter was causing stress, and suggesting that a timely resolution would be beneficial.
The landlord stated that this was not the first time the tenant had made an application to end a fixed term. They explained that in 2023, the tenant had moved from Tauranga to Hamilton, entered into a fixed-term tenancy, and then sought to end it and return to Tauranga. The landlord stated that the tenant changed their mind, and the tenancy ran its course. The landlord denied that they had pressured the tenant to move from Tauranga to Hamilton. The landlord further stated that when they received an inquiry from the tenant advising that they wished to return to Hamilton, they questioned whether it was wise, but the tenant advised that it would be different this time as they had support.
The landlord stated that they agreed to end the fixed term on the condition that the tenant meet the reasonable costs of reletting, and that the tenant remain liable for rent until a replacement tenant had been found. Both are standard terms in such agreements.
The landlord states that from 14 July 2025 until they entered into a new agreement on 9 October 2025, they conducted 10 viewings. The tenant stated that they also invited 183 people to view the landlord’s listing on Trade Me and to make an application. The tenant does not know how many actually did so or approached the landlord, apart from one person who advised that their application had been declined.
The landlord stated that, in the current rental climate, the 10 weeks it took to find a replacement tenant was not unreasonable. They noted that not everyone who viewed the property made an offer, some had unsatisfactory references, and others failed a credit check. The landlord stated that they are obliged to conduct due diligence before entering into a new agreement.
The tenant argues that there rent liability should end on the date they returned the keys. Law
The usual legal position with a fixed-term agreement is that the term will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“Act”), which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
Section 66(1) of the Act states: 66 Reduction of fixed-term tenancy (1) 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.
An unforeseen change in circumstances is one that was not reasonably foreseeable at the time the tenancy agreement was entered.
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.
A fixed term tenancy cannot be terminated by unilateral notice. Section 50(1)(d) of the Act provides that parties to a tenancy, periodic or fixed term, may bring a tenancy to an end where the tenant surrenders the tenancy or offers up vacant possession with the landlord’s written consent.
Section 44A of the Act states that if a tenancy is terminated under section 50(1)(d) the landlord is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant reasonable costs associated with termination and finding a new tenant.
It is open to a tenant who agrees terms to end a fixed term under section 50(1)(d) and 44A, to nevertheless then apply to the Tribunal seeking an order ending the fixed term for an unforeseen change in circumstances. Analysis and decision
The issue in this case is whether there was an unforeseen change of circumstances prior to the parties agreeing to end the fixed term on 1 July 2025, and subsequently, from when the tenant vacated the property on 12 August 2025 until the landlord entered into a new tenancy agreement on 9 October 2025.
While I accept that the deterioration in the tenant’s familial relationship with the grandparents of their children has resulted in stress, I am not satisfied that there has been an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances. The circumstances surrounding the tenant’s wish to end the tenancy appear to be similar to those in 2023. I accept the landlord’s evidence that they queried whether the tenant had the necessary supports to return to Hamilton. The tenant assured the landlord that they did, but it now appears that they may not have. I am not satisfied that the deterioration in the familial relationship was unforeseen, as it is something that could have been reasonably anticipated at the material time.
Liability for rent until a replacement tenant is found is a standard term of any break lease agreement. This liability is likely to result in a degree of stress for the tenant. On this basis, I am not satisfied that such stress would not have been reasonably foreseeable when the agreement was entered into. I also accept the landlord’s submission that, in the current rental climate, ten weeks is not an unreasonable amount of time to find a replacement tenant, and that the landlord has an obligation to conduct due diligence.
The application to reduce the fixed term is dismissed.
Turning to the matter of the costs associated with reletting, having considered these, I find they are reasonable.
I therefore award rent to 9 October 2025 and the reletting costs claimed. Harassment
The tenant stated that after they vacated the property on 12 August 2025, they avoided contact with the landlord. The tenant stated they wished to avoid further stress. The tenant stated that the landlord attempted to call them, but they didn’t return their calls. On 25 August 2025, the tenant received a text message from the landlord asking them to make contact.
On 27 August 2025, the landlord sent the tenant another message about resolving the matter. Again, the tenant ignored the message.
On 3 September 2025, the landlord called the grandmother of the children, who had been listed in the tenancy agreement as an emergency contact.
The tenant has produced a text message sent to them by the children’s grandmother, which states: “Not sure on what he said they have a solution they don’t want it to go to court might pay to talk can’t hurt and let him say what the solution is he said it will save you money as well.”
The tenant stated that they had spoken with the grandmother, who elaborated that the landlord said if the tenant wanted to avoid the stigma associated with losing in the Tribunal, they should accept the offer.
The tenant argues that the landlord’s conduct amounts to harassment.
The landlord denies that they have harassed the tenant. The landlord states that their offer to resolve the matter was, in the circumstances, generous and would have avoided the rent liability currently faced by the tenant, making it a better option than litigation. However, once the tenant filed their claim, the landlord felt it prudent not to discuss the matter further. Law
Under section 38(2) of the Act, a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
In Smith v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated: “Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents”.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See s 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person" (MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010).
Black’s Law Dictionary defines harassment as: “Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.”
Parties to a tenancy agreement are entitled to exercise their rights under the agreement and the Act. However, while a landlord may be entitled to exercise their rights, they may be found to have done so in manner constituting an interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
Whether interference has occurred will depend on the facts and an objective assessment of whether the act in question exceeds what a tenant could reasonably be expected to endure under the circumstances. Analysis and decision
Although the tenant claims that they were pressured and harassed by the landlord, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. The landlord was entitled to offer a resolution, and there is nothing before me to suggest that they did so inappropriately. There is no evidence of incessant unsolicited calls or messages from the landlord. Having had previous experience with the tenant, I find that, in the circumstances, the one-off call to the emergency contact, who is listed in the agreement as the “ Kids grandmother”, was not inappropriate.
The claim is dismissed. Costs
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the parties name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
I accept that the matter has caused significant stress and has had a negative impact of the tenant’s emotional wellbeing. While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the tenant. I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and to exercise the discretion in subsection 95A (4). Accordingly, the Tribunal also orders suppression of the tenant’s name. Other matter
At the conclusion of the hearing, [ support person] addressed the Tribunal, stating that he had spoken to the tenant’s mother-in-law and that the landlord had not been truthful. I have not considered this as evidence. [ support person] was introduced as a support person, was not a representative, and was not called as a witness during the hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342383 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342383 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions