What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5357324 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 10,

How much money was awarded in case 5357324?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5357324?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5357324?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12692009-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5357324 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 10,

How much money was awarded in case 5357324?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5357324?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5357324?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12692009-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 10, 75 Delhi Crescent, Khandallah, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5357324 — Cleanliness

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 10, 75 Delhi Crescent, Khandallah, Wellington 6035 is terminated, and possession is granted to Team Group Realty Limited As Agent For Eriko Honjo & David Viviers Brianna Billing, at a date to be notified by the tenants but with no less than 5 working days ‘notice.

Reasons

The Tribunal has before it, an application from one of three tenants, seeking to either have her name removed from the tenancy agreement or for the tenancy to end. However, it is plain that the other two tenants also want the Tenancy to come to an end, so I will approach this as a joint application from the three tenants. Because the other tenants have a joint interest in the tenancy, they must have a right to be heard.
The background in this case is not particularly involved, and can be summarised as follows: a. The tenancy commenced on 31 January 2025, and is a fixed-term tenancy until 29 January 2026. b. There are three co-tenants, Mr Giles, Ms Miller and Ms Bullen. c. As I understand matters, Mr Giles and Ms Miller are partners, and for reasons that are not relevant, the relationship between them, and Ms Bullen deteriorated, and Ms Bullen moved out. d. Ms Bullen sought to have her name removed from the tenancy agreement, but the two co-tenants did not agree with her removal. e. Mr Giles and Ms Miller requested to end the tenancy early. The landlord confirmed that the tenancy could be assigned, and it is the case that the tenants presented the landlord with at least one replacement tenant (probably two), willing to take over the tenancy. f. The landlord declined to approve the assignment. g. The matter has ended up in the Tribunal, following the application from Ms Bullen. A hearing was conducted by a telephone today, on 10 November 2025. The three tenants were in attendance, as was Ms Billing for the property manager.
I record at this point, that while a range of matters were raised in the application, including issues around the tenancy dwelling, at the hearing, Ms Bullen confirmed that the only orders she was seeking related to her removal from the tenancy agreement, or to have the Tenancy come to an end. Removal of Ms Bullen’s name from the tenancy agreement
As I explained to the parties that the hearing today, the Tribunal does not have an ability to simply remove co-tenants from tenancy agreements, on application. There must be some legal basis in order to do that.
Certainly the Tribunal could amend a tenancy agreement if there was an error in that agreement, or if it had been induced by fraud or misrepresentation, but that is not suggested here.
The approach that needs to be taken is one of a requested variation. To put that another way, Ms Bullen seeks to have the tenancy agreement varied to remove her name from that, leaving only Mr Giles and Ms Miller as the co-tenants. Certainly the Tribunal could order a variation, but it would only do so if the remaining tenants and the landlord agreed to that variation. In this case there is no consent to varying the agreement, so that is not an option open to Ms Bullen.
In the absence of some other legal authority to remove Ms Bullen’s name, that application is declined. Assignment of the tenancy
Again, the primary outcome that Ms Bullen (the applicant) is seeking is to have her responsibility for this Tenancy come to an end. While varying the tenancy agreement is not an option as I have discussed above, the other alternative is to bring the whole Tenancy to an end.
The parties entered into a fixed-term tenancy agreement, and that normally means that the parties have a legal obligation until the end of that fixed-term period.
But that is not to say that the tenancy agreement cannot be ended, certainly there are legal abilities to end the fixed term early. For example, if the tenants do not pay rent, the landlord can apply to end the fixed term early, and the Tribunal is frequently called upon with those sorts of applications. From the tenant’s perspective, if the landlord breaches some obligation to them, or the premises are not inhabitable, or otherwise not meeting required building standards, the Tribunal can also order termination in those sorts of circumstances too.
One of the other ways a tenant’s obligations with a tenancy can come to an end, is if the tenants assign the tenancy to another tenant, or tenants.
Importantly, with an assignment the tenancy agreement (the contract) does not come to an end, it simply transfers to the new tenants. When an assignment occurs, all of the rights and obligations that originally existed transfer to the new tenant, technically known as the assignee. That means the rent stays the same, the date on which the fixed term comes to an end is the same, and any other specific terms or agreements also carry over.
It is also important to recognise that when a tenancy agreement is assigned, it is the tenants who are driving that process – not the landlord. In some cases a landlord may offer a prospective tenant to take over the tenancy by way of assignment, but invariably an assignment is one that the tenants are responsible for and drive by presenting he assignee to the landlord to consent to.
The legal considerations that relate to assignments of tenancies are found in section 43B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Section 43B was a new provision that was inserted into the RTA, on 11 February 2021.
As far as this case is concerned, the following are the relevant provisions from section 43B: 43B Assignment of tenancy by tenant (1) A tenant may, at any time during the tenancy, assign the tenancy— (a) with the prior written consent of the landlord; and (b) in accordance with any reasonable conditions attached to that consent by the landlord. ... (4) If a tenant makes a written request for the landlord’s consent to an assignment and the request identifies, and includes contact details for, the proposed assignee, the landlord must respond in writing to the request within a reasonable period of time. (5) ... (6) The landlord must not— (a) withhold consent unreasonably; or (b) attach any unreasonable conditions to the consent. (7) A landlord’s consent must not be taken to have been withheld unreasonably if, instead of consenting to an assignment, the landlord offers to accept a surrender of the tenancy on reasonable terms. (8)...
In this case, the tenants approached the landlord about an assignment. The file includes an email in reply from the property manager, which states in part: As you are currently in a fixed term lease, we will need to seek permission from the owner first. If the owner agrees to allow you to assign your tenancy, then we can begin the process as per the terms below. You’ll be required to cover all costs which are associated with the assignment of the tenancy.
That is not entirely correct, because the owner does not need to agree to consider an assignment; there is a statutory right the tenants have to assign the tenancy.
The emailing goes on to advise that the tenants would be required to pay rent until the new tenants moved in, they would need to move out five days prior to allow cleaning, 1 and for the incoming tenants to complete an application form. The email states that once that is done, the “usual vetting process” will occur.
Ultimately, the tenants found one, possibly two potential tenants and their details were given to the landlord. The tenants have recorded via email, that one of those tenants at least, was willing to take over the Tenancy. 1 I am not convinced that is a reasonable condition, because with an assignment, the assignee is taking the contract as it is. This is not a situation of the landlord entering into a new tenancy where there are obligations to provide the premises reasonably clean.
At the hearing today, the landlord states that the prospective tenants did not meet their criteria, but no evidence has been presented of that.
I am not persuaded that the landlord has established reasonable grounds to decline consent.
When the tenants requested to assign the tenancy, providing the details of the assignee, there were about 3 to 4 months left on the tenancy agreement.
Returning to section 43B, subsection one confirms that a tenant may at any time during the tenancy assign the tenancy. That requires the consent of the landlord, but critically, the obligation is on the tenant to comply with any reasonable conditions attached to the consent by the landlord. In my view the tenants have done that. The tenants have not disputed that they would be liable for the assignment cost incurred by the landlord, nor have they disputed that they would be liable for the rent payment, and they have also had the potential assignee(s) complete the landlord’s online documentation. Those were the conditions that the tenants needed to meet, and I find they have met them.
What the landlord has in effect then done, is to include additional requirements for an assignment that do not exist in section 43B. That is, provide the landlord ability to vet the tenant as a condition. Again the scheme of the Act places the conditions on the tenant, not the landlord.
Notwithstanding that, the landlord has not provided the tenants with evidence around the vetting process and why they did not accept the proposed assignees, other than what the landlord said at the hearing today. That would be manifestly unfair, because the tenants would be unable to see why the assignment was not consented to.
But that is not the end of the road for the landlord. Of course the landlord does not have to consent to the assignment of the tenancy, but their remedy in section 43B is to accept a surrender of the tenancy as an alternative to consenting to the tenant’s assignment to the assignee.
There are three further points to note.
Firstly, it is clear that Parliament considers that a tenant’s right to assign the tenancy is of significant importance. That is reflected in section 43A which holds: 43A Effect of provision prohibiting assignment by tenant (1) A provision in a tenancy agreement that prohibits the tenant from assigning the tenancy is of no effect.
The importance of tenants being able to assign their tenancy is so important, that Parliament has prohibited landlords from having clauses in the tenancy agreement which may have the effect of stopping tenants assigning.
It should be noted that section 43A was also introduced on 11 February 2021 – the same date that section 43B was introduced. Before that date, a landlord could have clauses in tenancy agreements prohibiting assignment rights. This reflects a deliberate move from Parliament to strengthen tenants’ rights around assignment.
The second point to note, is that if I were to accept that a legitimate condition that the landlord had was a right to vet assignees as a condition on consent, that would have the effect of negating the protections that section 43A and 43B provide. That is because it would not be difficult for a landlord to find a reason why a prospective tenant was not suitable, and therefore negate a tenant being able to assign the tenancy as they have a right to do under section 43B.
The third point, is that the RTA does not provide any express power for the Tenancy Tribunal to review a landlord’s decision not to assign a tenancy. That further supports the conclusion that Parliament did not intend for landlords to be able to vet prospective assignees as a condition within section 43B. Again I note here, that this is not to say that a landlord cannot vet the assignee certainly they can, but if they do not want to consent to the assignment based on that assessment, then their remedy is to accept surrender of the tenancy. If a landlord accepted surrender of the tenancy, they do not need to justify the reason for that to the tenant, and equally, they would not need to present evidence to the Tribunal around confidential matters that would relate to the assignee to justify why they declined consent.
For those reasons, I find that the tenants have complied with the requirements in the RTA to assign the Tenancy to the landlord, and that the reason the assignment has not proceeded was due to the landlord’s failure to agree to consent of the assignment, which was not reasonable. As far as the tenants are concerned, the position that they should be in, is what they would have, had the assignment progressed. That is, their obligations as far as the Tenancy are concerned have come to an end. I therefore direct that the tenancy end, within five working days of the tenants jointly giving notice of the end date to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5357324 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 10, 75 Delhi Crescent, Khandallah, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5357324 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 10, 75 Delhi Crescent, Khandallah, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions