Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5370661 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 18 Feb 2026 · Published 18 Feb 2026 · Application 5370661
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
J Greene
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
- By consent, the tenancy agreement between the parties will be varied so that [tenant 2] will become the sole tenant from 25 March 2026 Provided However that the variation will take effect sooner if [tenant 2] finds a flatmate or flatmates to replace [tenant 1] before 25 March 2026.
- [tenant 1] must remove all his possessions from the premises within 48 hours of [tenant 2] advising him in writing that he has found a flatmate, and the variation of the tenancy agreement will take effect before 25 March 2026.
- If the variation of the tenancy agreement does not take effect before 25 March 2026 [tenant 1] must remove all his possessions from the premises by 11.59pm on 25 March 2026.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing which I held by video today.
- One of the joint tenants has applied to end the tenancy because the relationship between the two tenants has broken down irretrievably. Each is willing to become the sole tenant.
- The application raised jurisdictional issues because it is a dispute between tenants and part of the application raised financial losses.
- I explained to the parties that the Tribunal does not adjudicate disputes between tenants, only between landlords and tenants.
- The applicant tenant has also lodged an application in the Disputes Tribunal. That application has been adjourned pending the outcome of this hearing.
- The parties reached an agreement about a variation of the tenancy agreement such that one tenant will become the sole tenant, and the other tenant will be removed. The Tribunal can make a consent order in this case to formalise that agreement.
- The variation of the tenancy agreement will take effect on 25 March 2026. However, the tenant remaining in the tenancy has undertaken to advertise for a flatmate(s) as soon as possible so it is possible that the departing tenant might be replaced by a flatmate of the remaining tenant before 25 March 2026.
- If that happens, the remaining tenant has undertaken to advise the departing tenant in which case the variation to the tenancy agreement will take effect earlier.
- To be clear, the departing tenant’s liability under the tenancy agreement will end no later than 25 March 2026 if it does not end earlier.
- The remaining tenant expressed concerns about the departing tenant’s goods remaining at the premises. So long as the departing tenant is paying rent (which he is) he is entitled to use the premises. If the remaining tenant advises him that he has found a suitable flatmate and the variation of the tenancy will take effect sooner, the departing tenant must remove all his possessions from the premises within 48 hours of being advised of that.
- The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the financial dispute between the parties about what has happened to chattels. That part of the dispute properly remains before the Disputes Tribunal.
- The landlord’s representative confirmed the landlord’s acceptance of the variation of the tenancy agreement since none of the other terms such as the amount of rent is varied. The variation only changes the tenancy from a joint tenancy to a sole tenancy from the stated dates.
- The tenants should advise the landlord in writing if the variation is to take effect earlier than 25 March 2026 so it can be formally recorded.
- Because this is a consent order and the agreement is akin to one reached at mediation, which is a confidential process, I have suppressed the names and identifying details of both parties. There is no public interest that requires publication in this case.