What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5345047 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5345047?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5345047?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5345047?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13049711-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5345047 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5345047?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5345047?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5345047?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13049711-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 46, 22 Normanby Road, Mount Eden, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5345047 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 January 2026.
The parties signed up to a fixed-term tenancy of 2 years from 25 August 2025 to 22 August 2027. The weekly rent was set at $720.00.
On 15 September 2025, the tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy.
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 tenant claimed that he had to leave due to both his sons aged 14 and aged 10 coughing badly while living at the address due to the smell from the carpet.
By way of background, the carpet was a newly replaced carpet.
However, the tenant had been to the premises 3 times before the tenancy started. He came by himself the first time but second and third times he came together with his wife. He never complained about the carpet smell to the landlord.
Although the tenant claimed that his two sons were coughing due to the carpet, neither the tenant nor his wife seemed to have the same issue.
The tenant provided a statement from an unnamed person saying that there was a “strong and unpleasant odour coming from the carpet” and that “the smell was clearly noticeable and quite irritating.” The tenant could not provide the name of the person who signed this statement on 15 September 2025.
Two friends of the tenant also signed statements of confirmation that there was smell coming from the carpet and that it was noticeable and irritating. They signed their names and signed the same typed out template dated 14 September 2025.
The tenant also provided a medical certificate from Dr Matthew Siu dated 14 September 2025 which stated: [the tenant told] me that they recently moved into a new rental residence 3 weeks ago. Approximately 3 days after this, both children developed dry coughs when at home. The coughs resolve when leaving the house, eg going to school. The coughs return when coming back home. Their father has a video of some prolonged dry coughing of both children. There is not obvious fever, sore throat nor runny nose associated with the cough and no obvious infective findings examination today. I am told that new carpets have recently been installed in the building and there is quite a strong smell. They tell me the family has been in NZ for 1 year and there is no family history of allergies. Whilst it is difficult to definitively say what is causing the coughs, it would seem to be environmental and part of the house they are living in at present. A trial of antihistamine if there is dust allergy has been started today. If it is more of a reaction to any odours, then hopefully these should dissipate with time if the carpets have only recently been installed. If the coughs persist, they may even need to move house.
The doctor is not able to confirm what the cause of the coughs are.
The very next day, before any antihistamine could show effect, or enough time pass for the smell to dissipate from the premises, the tenant applied to the Tribunal for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy.
At the hearing, the tenant confirmed that he and his family had already moved out from the premises and signed up to another fixed-term tenancy for a year. The weekly rent for that rental is $430.00 per week.
I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that his sons’ coughing has been caused by the carpet.
I cannot find that there is any unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances.
Incurring additional weekly rent of $430.00 cannot be an “unforeseen change” in the tenant’s circumstances. He had signed up to another fixed-term tenancy on his own volition. That cannot be termed “unforeseen” so that cannot be taken into account.
If the carpet smell was an issue, the tenant should have gotten the carpet cleaned professionally or asked the landlord to get it cleaned professionally.
The tenant did not try to have the carpet cleaned or look for another tenant to replace him. He went ahead and got himself committed to another fixed-term tenancy.
As I have found that there was no unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances, I dismiss the tenant’s application for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy.
I do not find that the tenant has “abandoned” the premises. Therefore, there is onus on the landlord to put in an effort to find a replacement tenant.
The tenant needs to also try to find a replacement tenant as the tenant is liable for rent until a new replacement tenant has been found.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 January 2026.

The parties signed up to a fixed-term tenancy of 2 years from 25 August 2025 to 22 August 2027. The weekly rent was set at $720.00.

On 15 September 2025, the tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy.

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 tenant claimed that he had to leave due to both his sons aged 14 and aged 10 coughing badly while living at the address due to the smell from the carpet.

By way of background, the carpet was a newly replaced carpet.

However, the tenant had been to the premises 3 times before the tenancy started. He came by himself the first time but second and third times he came together with his wife. He never complained about the carpet smell to the landlord.

Although the tenant claimed that his two sons were coughing due to the carpet, neither the tenant nor his wife seemed to have the same issue.

The tenant provided a statement from an unnamed person saying that there was a “strong and unpleasant odour coming from the carpet” and that “the smell was clearly noticeable and quite irritating.” The tenant could not provide the name of the person who signed this statement on 15 September 2025.

Two friends of the tenant also signed statements of confirmation that there was smell coming from the carpet and that it was noticeable and irritating. They signed their names and signed the same typed out template dated 14 September 2025.

The tenant also provided a medical certificate from Dr Matthew Siu dated 14 September 2025 which stated: [the tenant told] me that they recently moved into a new rental residence 3 weeks ago. Approximately 3 days after this, both children developed dry coughs when at home. The coughs resolve when leaving the house, eg going to school. The coughs return when coming back home. Their father has a video of some prolonged dry coughing of both children. There is not obvious fever, sore throat nor runny nose associated with the cough and no obvious infective findings examination today. I am told that new carpets have recently been installed in the building and there is quite a strong smell. They tell me the family has been in NZ for 1 year and there is no family history of allergies. Whilst it is difficult to definitively say what is causing the coughs, it would seem to be environmental and part of the house they are living in at present. A trial of antihistamine if there is dust allergy has been started today. If it is more of a reaction to any odours, then hopefully these should dissipate with time if the carpets have only recently been installed. If the coughs persist, they may even need to move house.

The doctor is not able to confirm what the cause of the coughs are.

The very next day, before any antihistamine could show effect, or enough time pass for the smell to dissipate from the premises, the tenant applied to the Tribunal for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy.

At the hearing, the tenant confirmed that he and his family had already moved out from the premises and signed up to another fixed-term tenancy for a year. The weekly rent for that rental is $430.00 per week.

I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven that his sons’ coughing has been caused by the carpet.

I cannot find that there is any unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances.

Incurring additional weekly rent of $430.00 cannot be an “unforeseen change” in the tenant’s circumstances. He had signed up to another fixed-term tenancy on his own volition. That cannot be termed “unforeseen” so that cannot be taken into account.

If the carpet smell was an issue, the tenant should have gotten the carpet cleaned professionally or asked the landlord to get it cleaned professionally.

The tenant did not try to have the carpet cleaned or look for another tenant to replace him. He went ahead and got himself committed to another fixed-term tenancy.

As I have found that there was no unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances, I dismiss the tenant’s application for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy.

I do not find that the tenant has “abandoned” the premises. Therefore, there is onus on the landlord to put in an effort to find a replacement tenant.

The tenant needs to also try to find a replacement tenant as the tenant is liable for rent until a new replacement tenant has been found.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5345047 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 46, 22 Normanby Road, Mount Eden, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5345047 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 46, 22 Normanby Road, Mount Eden, Auckland

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