Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5351242 — Rent arrears at 30C Rata Road, Raumati Beach, Paraparaumu 5032
Decided 18 Dec 2025 · Published 18 Dec 2025 · Application 5351242
- Rent arrears
Order
AMENDING THE BOND AMOUNT
- This order amends and replaces the order dated 17 December 2025. The bond is $3,040.00.
- [The party] and [The party] must pay [The party] and [The party] $4,261.32 immediately.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 (6374660-009) to [The party] and [The party] immediately.
- The amount to pay is calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlords Rent arrears to termination of the tenancy$7,208.57 Advertising 25%$64.75 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$7,301.32 Less Bond$3,040.00 Total payable by Tenants to Landlords$4,261.32
Reasons
- All parties attended the hearing.
- The tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy to the date when they were unable to enter the property. The landlords have applied for rent arrears to the date when new tenants occupied the property.
Should the fixed term be reduced?
- The background is as follows. The tenancy was for a fixed term ending 5 January 2026. In July this year the parties agreed that the fixed term could end if the tenants purchased a property. The tenancy would end when new tenants occupied 30C Rata Road.
- The tenants vacated the property on 6 September, prior to a new tenant being found. The parties did a walk-through inspection on 8 September. The tenants requested the landlords to show prospective tenants through the property and gave the landlords a key.
- On or about 14 September the landlords entered the premises without notice to the tenants. They removed the toilet seat to purchase a comparable new one. They did this to improve the look of the premises.
- There were two locks on the premises door the landlords had a key for. One lock was a push button from the inside. The landlords pushed the button and locked the other lock with the key. The landlords assumed that the key unlocked both locks. The landlords informed the tenants that there was an unusual noise when using the insinkerator.
- On or about 17 September the tenants attempted to enter the property to check the insinkerator. They could not open the door because their key did not unlock the push button lock. The tenants said that they had not used the push button lock during the tenancy. The tenants did not contact the landlords to ask for assistance when they could not get into the premises.
- The tenants then informed the landlords that because they had been locked out of the premises and because the landlords had entered the premises without notice, their tenancy had been terminated by the landlords and no further rent payments would be made. The landlords disputed that point of view.
- The tenants want the Tribunal to reduce the fixed term to 18 September. The landlords request an order for rent arrears to the end of the fixed term.
- 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 tenants claim that being locked out of the premises and having to pay rent after being locked out was an unforeseen change of circumstances. Analysis
- The landlords made a mistake about the key being for both locks. This affected the tenants on the day they returned to the premises. The tenants made no effort to sort the problem by calling the landlords or a locksmith. The tenants could have accessed the premises had they requested help. It is clear that the inability to enter the premises was a temporary inconvenience that day. A temporary inconvenience is not the same as a change in a person’s/persons’ circumstances. The inability to unlock a door does not meet the test for a reduction in the fixed term.
- In addition, the failure to gain entry was not a ‘severe hardship’. The Cambridge dictionary defines ‘severe’ as; ‘causing very great pain, difficulty, worry, damage, etc.; very serious’. ‘Hardship’ is defined as; ‘Severe suffering, difficulty, or deprivation, a condition that's hard to endure’. The tenants’ inability to enter a door fails to meet the test of ‘severe hardship’.
- It also goes without saying that the landlords’ entry into the premises, that the tenants were not occupying, is not a change in the tenants’ circumstances or a sever hardship.
Are there rent arrears?
- The landlord has claimed rent from the date the tenants stopped paying to the date the new tenants occupied the property. That rent is owing because a fixed term tenancy was in place and the tenants agreed to pay rent to the date a new tenant was found. The rent owing to the date the new tenants began their tenancy is $7,041.43.
- The landlord has claimed $45.00 per week from the date the new tenants occupied the property to the end of the fixed term on 5 January 2026. The tenants believe they should not be liable for that rent because they were not consulted about a rent reduction for the new tenants.
- The tenants are correct. The landlord should have consulted them about a rent reduction. Is it therefore reasonable that the tenants pay the $45.00 per week?
- The landlord reduced the rent to attract tenants. The landlords and tenants did not have another prospective tenant who would pay full rent. The $45.00 reduction in rent charged is one 15 th of normal rent. Fifteen payments of $45.00 equals $675.00. The cost to the tenants, by renting at the lower rate, is $167.14 to today and potentially $289.29 to the end of the fixed term. That means that if the landlord had not been able to find a tenant within three days of the new tenants’ occupation date, the tenants would have ended being liable for more than $289.29. It was sensible for the landlord to reduce the rent and almost certainly save the tenants money. Landlords have a duty to mitigate tenants’ losses. I am satisfied that the landlord mitigated the tenants’ liability by not waiting to find a tenant who would pay $675.00 per week. The landlord’s claim for the extra $45.00 per week is reasonable.
- The tenants are liable for the rent shortfall of $167.14 to today’s date. The Tribunal will only order rent arrears to the date of the hearing. That is because circumstances may change resulting in a change in liability. Advertising cost
- The landlord has claimed the cost of readvertising the property. That claim is reasonable however I have ordered 25% of the charge for the following reason. The tenancy was almost two thirds the way through fixed term. The landlord would most likely have incurred the advertising cost in November/December to find new tenants. The advertising has resulted in a new tenancy until November 2026. It is unreasonable for the tenants to pay the full cost when the landlord will not need to readvertise again for about nine months after the fixed term of 5 January 2026.
- The tenants’ contribution to the $259.00 advertising is $64.75 Filing fees
- Because the landlords have been mostly successful with their claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant.
- Because tenants have been unsuccessful with their claim the filing fee of $28.00 is not ordered to be paid by the landlord. Suppression
- The tenants have applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- The tenants have not substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is not granted.