How much money was awarded in case 5375085?

Letting fee: 6 hours associated rele…: $285.00 awarded to landlord; Letting fee: Advertising costs x 19/…: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Letting fee: One week vacancy x 19/2…: $752.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375085?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375085?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12967023-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5375085?

Letting fee: 6 hours associated rele…: $285.00 awarded to landlord; Letting fee: Advertising costs x 19/…: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Letting fee: One week vacancy x 19/2…: $752.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375085?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375085?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12967023-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

38A Mansfield Avenue, St Albans, Christchurch 8014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5375085 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375085 about?

The tribunal order states: The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 38A Mansfield Avenue,

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5375085 — net $1,187.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Letting fee: One week vacancy x 19/24	$752.00	Letting fee: One week vacancy x 19/24
Letting fee: Advertising costs x 19/24	$150.00	Letting fee: Advertising costs x 19/24
Letting fee: 6 hours associated reletting x 19/24	$285.00	Letting fee: 6 hours associated reletting x 19/24
Net award	$1,187.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,187.00

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 38A Mansfield Avenue, St Albans, Christchurch 8014 is reduced and now ends at 11.59 pm on Sunday 15 February 2026.

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Perfect Stays Limited As Agent For Carolyn Hughes $1,187.00 immediately.

The tenant’s claim for $7,200.00 for medical expenses and hardship is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference. Katie O’Brien appeared for the landlord.

The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 23 August 2027, and for $7,200.00 for medical expenses and hardship.

Section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) allows the Tribunal to reduce a fixed term tenancy where there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, and there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced, and the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. Has there been a change in the applicant’s circumstances?

The tenant said there have been unforeseen changes in her circumstances. She said that since moving into this address she has suffered physical problems that don't pre-date the tenancy and which were not foreseeable at the beginning of the tenancy. The physical problems are not unsubstantial. They include a gluteal tear, chronic gluteal pain, and gluteal bursitis. The pain has affected the tenant’s sleep. The tenant has had several appointments with a General Practice doctor and specialists about these problems.

The tenant said the problems arose due to the nature of the beds that were supplied in the fully furnished premises. There has been negotiation between the parties regarding the beds. These include negotiation around mattress toppers being supplied, and new mattresses or new beds being supplied. No agreeable solution was found.

The tenant said she has incurred between $3,500.00 and $4,000.00 in medical bills as a result of the physical problems that have developed during this tenancy.

The landlord said the solution to the tenant’s problem can still be resolved by the landlord supplying the correct mattress topper. The tenant disagrees that this will solve the problem.

The tenant is now asking for the fixed term tenancy to be terminated early.

The landlord did not dispute the tenant has developed the physical problems she raised.

I accept the tenant has developed the physical problems she described during the hearing. I do not consider it has been proved what the cause of the problems is, bu I consider the cause of the problems is of little relevance. Of relevance is whether the problems can be adequately alleviated by a change in mattresses or beds or mattress topper that the landlord could supply. The tenant has made it clear what could work for her, and what won’t work for her. The landlord has made it clear that she is not prepared to provide to the tenant what the tenant says she needs. This is effectively an impasse.

Ultimately I am satisfied there has been a change in the tenant’s circumstances and there would be hardship to the tenant if the tenant was required to continue with the tenancy, and the tenancy was not reduced. Would the hardship be greater to the tenant if the term was not reduced, than it would be to the landlord if the term was reduced?

There are a number of possible solutions to the health problems raised by the tenant. These could include the tenant buying her own bed. This could cost several thousand dollars. However the tenant would then have the value of her money in a commodity. There would be no loss to the landlord. The tenant would then have to negotiate with the landlord about storage of the existing beds. This might also incur costs and on the basis of the negotiations between the parties so far, might not be easily resolved. A second option would be for the tenant to move into a different premises and continue paying rent on her existing premises as per the terms of the contract she has signed with the landlord. This also would incur significant costs. There would be significant hardship to the tenant and little to the landlord. Other solutions not including terminating the tenancy could be found.

The tenant has entered into a binding contract for two years with the landlord. The tenant is not in a position where the landlord has breached the contract. As such the tenant has no right to cancel the contract. If the contract is to be cancelled I consider it important that the landlord is fairly compensated. This is what is required under the RTA.

Ultimately I am inclined to bring a common sense approach to this claim. The tenants want only one outcome; the early release from their tenancy. The landlord could accommodate this but is not inclined to pay the tenant’s claim of $7,200.00 for medical expenses and hardship. The landlord would also incur costs in setting up a new contract and wants to be fairly compensated for this. This is anticipated and allowed under the RTA.

I am persuaded that if the tenancy were to continue, the hardship would be greater to the tenant than the hardship would be to the landlord if the tenancy were reduced. In stating this I take into consideration that the landlord can be adequately compensated for any financial loss.

Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord said that as a property manager they usually charge the owner one week’s rent for finding a tenant. This is common practice in the industry. This amount covers advertising, viewings, and administrative matters. It is also reasonable to expect that it will include some profit for what is a commercial enterprise.

When asked to break down the costs, the landlord said advertising $150.00 + $40.00 per month for Trademe, office time and viewing time at $60.00 per hour, and office expenses.

The landlord said the tenants are excellent tenants and they keep the premises immaculate. On the basis of this comment, I am not expecting there to be any impediment to the landlord marketing the premises while the tenants are still living there. If there were impediments and it became impossible for the landlord to market the property until the tenants had left, the landlord could seek compensation for this.

I have allowed for six hours at $60.00 per hour. This is an estimate on my behalf. I consider it generous and sufficient to include any associated sundry office or travel costs.

There is usually a week’s vacancy between tenancies, and I consider it reasonable for the landlord to be compensated for this.

Because five months of the twenty-four month tenancy has passed, I have reduced these awards by five twenty-fourths.

The tenant has sought $7,200.00 for medical expenses and hardship. For this to be awarded I would want to be satisfied, as a start, on the balance of probabilities that the tenant’s medical problems have been caused exclusively by conditions at the tenancy, and that the tenant had little control over the factors affecting her. That has not been done in the course of this hearing.

Alternatively, if I awarded this, the landlord could possibly make a complimentary claim so that they are not disadvantaged by the cancellation of the contract.

However, in the first instance I determine this claim is not proved.

Because reimbursement of the filing fee would be a cost against the landlord for which compensation could be sought, I let the filing costs lie where they have fallen.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5375085 — net $1,187.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Letting fee: One week vacancy x 19/24	$752.00	Letting fee: One week vacancy x 19/24
Letting fee: Advertising costs x 19/24	$150.00	Letting fee: Advertising costs x 19/24
Letting fee: 6 hours associated reletting x 19/24	$285.00	Letting fee: 6 hours associated reletting x 19/24
Net award	$1,187.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,187.00