What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5406499 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and the Landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5406499?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406499?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406499?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13133673-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5406499 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and the Landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5406499?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406499?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406499?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13133673-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5406499 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and the Landlord’s name and identifying details of the tenancy.
The tenant’s application to reduce the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.
It is declared that the tenants are liable to pay rent to the landlord until and including 15 January 2026.

Reasons

[Tenant 1] attended the hearing. [Tenant 2] was unable to attend and was represented by [Tenant 1]. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord. The hearing was an in-person hearing.
The Tribunal was assisted by a mandarin interpreter. Background
The tenants had a fixed term tenancy from 27 December 2024 to 27 January 2026. Rent was $750.00 a week.
On 14 July 2025 the tenants and the property manager had discussions via wechat about breaking the tenancy early and the consequences of doing that, including break fees and liability for rent.
On 13 August 2025 the tenants advised the landlord they had purchased a house and would be moving out on 19 September. The property was advertised for rent, however new tenants were not found for some time. The new tenancy commenced on 16 January 2026. The tenants’ claim
The tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy, or that they are not liable for all of the rent due to 15 January 2026 which is when a new tenancy commenced.
[The tenant/s], as the applicants, are required to establish the claim, or put another way, must prove their claim. An applicant is required to establish their claim on the balance of probabilities. That means they must show that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Where an applicant does not provide sufficient evidence and reasoning to establish their claim on the balance of probability the claim needs to be dismissed.

Should the Tribunal reduce the fixed term of the tenancy?

The usual legal position with a fixed term tenancy contract is that the term of the contract is strictly applied. A fixed term tenancy can only be broken by agreement between the parties or by an order from the Tribunal. It is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with a fixed term lease contract.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy under s 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular the applicant will need to establish where: a. there has been a change in their circumstances; and b. The change was unforeseen; and c. The unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and d. the severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
"Unforeseen" is not defined in the Act and has a meaning in accordance with its dictionary definition. The term “unforeseen” has a dictionary definition of “unexpected” and “without warning”. In a legal context, it must also be taken as the reverse of what is “foreseen”; that is: “not liable to result”, “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk” 1 .
The Tribunal has previously terminated tenancies for unforeseen circumstances, including on the death of one of the tenants or their immediate family; a tenant having to relocate for cancer treatment; a tenant’s parent becoming terminally unwell requiring the tenant to move to look after the family member. It is clear from the pattern of these cases that they arise from circumstances that are beyond the control of the tenants. There are unfortunate circumstances that have happened to the tenants not of their own making.
In this instance the tenants have purchased a home. [Tenant 1] explained that she was applying for a resident visa and her immigration agent suggested that her application may be processed more quickly if she and her partner had purchased a home together.
The purchase of a home by the tenants is not an unforeseen circumstance. It was a choice that the tenants made. The circumstances are entirely within their control and are of the tenants making. The purchase of the house was not unexpected but was planned.
As the tenants have failed to make out the first element of s 66,being that there was an unforeseen change in their circumstances, their application to reduce the fixed term fails and the application is dismissed. Did the landlord agree to reduce the fixed term tenancy? If so on what basis and are the tenants liable for all rent due until the new tenancy commenced?
When the tenants emailed the landlord on 13 August 2025, advising they had purchased a house and would be moving out on 19 September, the landlord replied: If you wish to end the tenancy early, the following conditions will apply:
Cover the costs of finding new tenants, including advertising, viewings, screening applications, credit checks, preparing the tenancy agreement, and conducting inspections. Our hourly rate is $75 + GST. I've attached a sample of breaking costs for your reference.
Pay rent until the new tenants move in. Please confirm whether you agree to the above conditions and let us know your intended vacate date so we can list the property for rent as soon as possible.
The tenants replied the next day: “Yes thats ok”. 1 Bond v Tang, Invercargill TT, 09/00583/IN, 25 August 2009
Therefore the landlord and tenant agreed the fixed term can be reduced on the basis that the tenants are liable for rent until a new tenancy commences and on payment of costs associated with the early end to the tenancy 2 .
[Tenant 1] said she accepts they breached the agreement by ending the fixed term early and therefore accept liability for some of the rent due after they moved out on 20 September. [Tenant 1] said they brought their claim seeking for the Tribunal to establish what reasonable amount of rent they should be liable to pay as they do not accept that they are liable for all the rent due to 15 January 2026 for the following reasons: a. the property manager would not negotiate an early end to the tenancy after indicating they would; b. the property manager misled them as they were told the fixed term was due to end on 27 December 2025 when it was due to end on 27 January 2026; c. the property manager/landlord did not mitigate their loss. The property manager would not negotiate an early end to the tenancy after indicating they would
From the evidence presented I am satisfied that negotiation occurred between the parties and that the property manager did not promise that any negotiation would result in a particular outcome. In July 2025 the property manager messaged that if the tenants want to move out early “we can negotiate”, followed by a consecutive message “If too early it will be difficult for us to negotiate with the landlord”.
The property manager, in putting forward to the landlord offers made by the tenants, is the agent of the landlord. The property manager’s evidence is that they have put forward options to the landlord suggested by the tenants, including a lower rent with the tenants paying the difference, but that the landlord initially rejected that offer. The property manager’s evidence is that the landlord was slow in coming back to them after they communicated the offers.
The tenants say they anticipated as a result of communication from the property manager about negotiation, that their worst case scenario was that they would pay rent until the end of November, or the end of December when their tenancy ended (see below). However negotiation does not necessarily result in an agreement. 2 Any such agreement is subject to the provisions in s 44A, RTA
The landlord does not have to agree with any offer put forward by the tenants. The tenancy is a fixed term; the landlord has the right to consider the term of the tenancy is certain. The property manager misled the tenants as they were told the fixed term was due to end on 27 December 2025 when it was due to end on 27 January 2026;
The property manager accepted they made a mistake in referring to 27 December 2025 as the end date of the tenancy in the communications with the tenants from 14 July.. On 15 October 2025 they correctly emailed the tenants that the tenancy was due to end on 27 January 2026.
The tenants say that I reliance of what the property said, they thought that if no new tenants were found then they would have to pay rent to 27 December 2025.
[The landlord’s representative] explained that the end date of the tenancy had been wrongly entered into their system on the mistaken belief the fixed term was for one year. He said a longer term was discussed with [Tenant 2] and agreed to at the start of the tenancy, as otherwise the fixed term would have ended 2 days after Christmas.
The tenants both signed the tenancy agreement. At any time they were able to refer to their copy of the agreement to confirm when the fixed term was due to end. I cannot see how that could have had any effect on the tenants given that the agreement clearly states the end date of the fixed term.
The property manager corrected its mistake on realising the error. It is surprising to me that the tenants did not correct the property manager’s belief on when the fixed term ended. The property manager/landlord did not mitigate their loss;
Section 49, RTA provides that where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from the breach.
The tenants are concerned about the time it took to find replacement tenants. They believe the property manager and/or landlord did not mitigate their loss as: •the advertised rent was not reduced until early November, even though the tenants suggested a lower rent from early September and offered to pay the weekly difference •advertising of the tenancy was not sufficiently proactive and the photographs of the tenancy premises were not current and showed shrubs and vegetation/gardens that had been removed •the tenants suggested the landlord took possession of the premises after the tenants vacated to carry out work on the property.
The tenants said there were a lot of viewings but not many then applied to rent the premises. They had understood from the property manager that it would not be difficult to find new tenants, but the premises was not re-tenanted until 17 weeks after they vacated.
I find the landlord advertised the premises in the usual manner they would advertise any rental property they were managing. I concur that the photographs used in the advertising showed hedges and planting at the property that had been removed by the landlord.
However, contrary to the process used in most situations, the tenants undertook to host all viewings. They did this to reduce any costs they may have to pay to the landlord for this work. The house was empty and [Tenant 1] agreed they had not weeded the gardens due to the rainy weather. More significantly, the tenants arranged for the power to be turned off at the property after they moved out. As the tenants were conducting the viewings the landlord had little or no feedback from those people attending the viewings and had to rely on what the tenants told them.
The condition the property was presented in, and that [Tenant 1] was conducting the viewings may well have affected the view those viewing the property had about the property and contributed to the time it took to find new tenants. I consider it likely that the lack of power and the state of the gardens would not have provided a positive image of the property.
The landlord had no obligation to consider taking possession of the property in order to carry out work. It is the landlord’s choice when they do maintenance work unless it is work that is needed for the property to meet standards required by the RTA.
In relation to reducing the rent with the tenant’s paying the difference, I find the landlord did not have to agree to this option. The tenancy agreement already provided certainty that rent would be $750.00 a week to the end of the tenancy.
In any event mitigation of loss is required where a party has committed a breach. Here the parties agreed to the tenants being released early from the tenancy on the condition they paid the rent until a new tenancy commenced and the costs of finding the new tenants (the latter being subject to section 44).
This agreement amounts to a variation of the tenancy agreement. Even if it considered as a breach the landlord has no loss as he is entitled to rent as set out in the tenancy agreement until the new tenancy starts and the reasonable costs associated with finding the new tenant.
For completeness on considering the landlord’s evidence it seems to me that the property manager has acted reasonably in their actions in finding a new tenant. I make this finding taking into consideration all the circumstances, including the market, the advertising and the viewings, and that the time to find a new tenant is longer than the property manager had experienced in the past. Conclusion
For the above reasons I find the tenants have not established that the Tribunal should reduce the term of the tenancy or that they are not liable to pay rent to and including 15 January 2026, being the day before the new tenancy commenced. A declaration is made accordingly. Suppression
Under section 95A, RTA the Tribunal must on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the claim order that the party’s name or identifying details not be published unless it considers publication is in the public interest or justified by the party’s conduct or other circumstances of the case
The tenants have applied for suppression, however they have not been successful in their application.
Regardless the Tribunal on its own initiative orders suppression of the names of both parties. In doing so I have had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest and do not consider there is any public interest in having the names of the parties published. The decision will be published with the parties’ names redacted along with any identifying details.

Reasons

[Tenant 1] attended the hearing. [Tenant 2] was unable to attend and was represented by [Tenant 1]. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord. The hearing was an in-person hearing.

The Tribunal was assisted by a mandarin interpreter. Background

The tenants had a fixed term tenancy from 27 December 2024 to 27 January 2026. Rent was $750.00 a week.

On 14 July 2025 the tenants and the property manager had discussions via wechat about breaking the tenancy early and the consequences of doing that, including break fees and liability for rent.

On 13 August 2025 the tenants advised the landlord they had purchased a house and would be moving out on 19 September. The property was advertised for rent, however new tenants were not found for some time. The new tenancy commenced on 16 January 2026. The tenants’ claim

The tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy, or that they are not liable for all of the rent due to 15 January 2026 which is when a new tenancy commenced.

[The tenant/s], as the applicants, are required to establish the claim, or put another way, must prove their claim. An applicant is required to establish their claim on the balance of probabilities. That means they must show that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Where an applicant does not provide sufficient evidence and reasoning to establish their claim on the balance of probability the claim needs to be dismissed.

Should the Tribunal reduce the fixed term of the tenancy?

The usual legal position with a fixed term tenancy contract is that the term of the contract is strictly applied. A fixed term tenancy can only be broken by agreement between the parties or by an order from the Tribunal. It is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with a fixed term lease contract.

The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy under s 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular the applicant will need to establish where: a. there has been a change in their circumstances; and b. The change was unforeseen; and c. The unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and d. the severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.

"Unforeseen" is not defined in the Act and has a meaning in accordance with its dictionary definition. The term “unforeseen” has a dictionary definition of “unexpected” and “without warning”. In a legal context, it must also be taken as the reverse of what is “foreseen”; that is: “not liable to result”, “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk” 1 .

The Tribunal has previously terminated tenancies for unforeseen circumstances, including on the death of one of the tenants or their immediate family; a tenant having to relocate for cancer treatment; a tenant’s parent becoming terminally unwell requiring the tenant to move to look after the family member. It is clear from the pattern of these cases that they arise from circumstances that are beyond the control of the tenants. There are unfortunate circumstances that have happened to the tenants not of their own making.

In this instance the tenants have purchased a home. [Tenant 1] explained that she was applying for a resident visa and her immigration agent suggested that her application may be processed more quickly if she and her partner had purchased a home together.

The purchase of a home by the tenants is not an unforeseen circumstance. It was a choice that the tenants made. The circumstances are entirely within their control and are of the tenants making. The purchase of the house was not unexpected but was planned.

As the tenants have failed to make out the first element of s 66,being that there was an unforeseen change in their circumstances, their application to reduce the fixed term fails and the application is dismissed. Did the landlord agree to reduce the fixed term tenancy? If so on what basis and are the tenants liable for all rent due until the new tenancy commenced?

When the tenants emailed the landlord on 13 August 2025, advising they had purchased a house and would be moving out on 19 September, the landlord replied: If you wish to end the tenancy early, the following conditions will apply:

Cover the costs of finding new tenants, including advertising, viewings, screening applications, credit checks, preparing the tenancy agreement, and conducting inspections. Our hourly rate is $75 + GST. I've attached a sample of breaking costs for your reference.

Pay rent until the new tenants move in. Please confirm whether you agree to the above conditions and let us know your intended vacate date so we can list the property for rent as soon as possible.

The tenants replied the next day: “Yes thats ok”. 1 Bond v Tang, Invercargill TT, 09/00583/IN, 25 August 2009

Therefore the landlord and tenant agreed the fixed term can be reduced on the basis that the tenants are liable for rent until a new tenancy commences and on payment of costs associated with the early end to the tenancy 2 .

[Tenant 1] said she accepts they breached the agreement by ending the fixed term early and therefore accept liability for some of the rent due after they moved out on 20 September. [Tenant 1] said they brought their claim seeking for the Tribunal to establish what reasonable amount of rent they should be liable to pay as they do not accept that they are liable for all the rent due to 15 January 2026 for the following reasons: a. the property manager would not negotiate an early end to the tenancy after indicating they would; b. the property manager misled them as they were told the fixed term was due to end on 27 December 2025 when it was due to end on 27 January 2026; c. the property manager/landlord did not mitigate their loss. The property manager would not negotiate an early end to the tenancy after indicating they would

From the evidence presented I am satisfied that negotiation occurred between the parties and that the property manager did not promise that any negotiation would result in a particular outcome. In July 2025 the property manager messaged that if the tenants want to move out early “we can negotiate”, followed by a consecutive message “If too early it will be difficult for us to negotiate with the landlord”.

The property manager, in putting forward to the landlord offers made by the tenants, is the agent of the landlord. The property manager’s evidence is that they have put forward options to the landlord suggested by the tenants, including a lower rent with the tenants paying the difference, but that the landlord initially rejected that offer. The property manager’s evidence is that the landlord was slow in coming back to them after they communicated the offers.

The tenants say they anticipated as a result of communication from the property manager about negotiation, that their worst case scenario was that they would pay rent until the end of November, or the end of December when their tenancy ended (see below). However negotiation does not necessarily result in an agreement. 2 Any such agreement is subject to the provisions in s 44A, RTA

The landlord does not have to agree with any offer put forward by the tenants. The tenancy is a fixed term; the landlord has the right to consider the term of the tenancy is certain. The property manager misled the tenants as they were told the fixed term was due to end on 27 December 2025 when it was due to end on 27 January 2026;

The property manager accepted they made a mistake in referring to 27 December 2025 as the end date of the tenancy in the communications with the tenants from 14 July.. On 15 October 2025 they correctly emailed the tenants that the tenancy was due to end on 27 January 2026.

The tenants say that I reliance of what the property said, they thought that if no new tenants were found then they would have to pay rent to 27 December 2025.

[The landlord’s representative] explained that the end date of the tenancy had been wrongly entered into their system on the mistaken belief the fixed term was for one year. He said a longer term was discussed with [Tenant 2] and agreed to at the start of the tenancy, as otherwise the fixed term would have ended 2 days after Christmas.

The tenants both signed the tenancy agreement. At any time they were able to refer to their copy of the agreement to confirm when the fixed term was due to end. I cannot see how that could have had any effect on the tenants given that the agreement clearly states the end date of the fixed term.

The property manager corrected its mistake on realising the error. It is surprising to me that the tenants did not correct the property manager’s belief on when the fixed term ended. The property manager/landlord did not mitigate their loss;

Section 49, RTA provides that where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from the breach.

The tenants are concerned about the time it took to find replacement tenants. They believe the property manager and/or landlord did not mitigate their loss as: •the advertised rent was not reduced until early November, even though the tenants suggested a lower rent from early September and offered to pay the weekly difference •advertising of the tenancy was not sufficiently proactive and the photographs of the tenancy premises were not current and showed shrubs and vegetation/gardens that had been removed •the tenants suggested the landlord took possession of the premises after the tenants vacated to carry out work on the property.

The tenants said there were a lot of viewings but not many then applied to rent the premises. They had understood from the property manager that it would not be difficult to find new tenants, but the premises was not re-tenanted until 17 weeks after they vacated.

I find the landlord advertised the premises in the usual manner they would advertise any rental property they were managing. I concur that the photographs used in the advertising showed hedges and planting at the property that had been removed by the landlord.

However, contrary to the process used in most situations, the tenants undertook to host all viewings. They did this to reduce any costs they may have to pay to the landlord for this work. The house was empty and [Tenant 1] agreed they had not weeded the gardens due to the rainy weather. More significantly, the tenants arranged for the power to be turned off at the property after they moved out. As the tenants were conducting the viewings the landlord had little or no feedback from those people attending the viewings and had to rely on what the tenants told them.

The condition the property was presented in, and that [Tenant 1] was conducting the viewings may well have affected the view those viewing the property had about the property and contributed to the time it took to find new tenants. I consider it likely that the lack of power and the state of the gardens would not have provided a positive image of the property.

The landlord had no obligation to consider taking possession of the property in order to carry out work. It is the landlord’s choice when they do maintenance work unless it is work that is needed for the property to meet standards required by the RTA.

In relation to reducing the rent with the tenant’s paying the difference, I find the landlord did not have to agree to this option. The tenancy agreement already provided certainty that rent would be $750.00 a week to the end of the tenancy.

In any event mitigation of loss is required where a party has committed a breach. Here the parties agreed to the tenants being released early from the tenancy on the condition they paid the rent until a new tenancy commenced and the costs of finding the new tenants (the latter being subject to section 44).

This agreement amounts to a variation of the tenancy agreement. Even if it considered as a breach the landlord has no loss as he is entitled to rent as set out in the tenancy agreement until the new tenancy starts and the reasonable costs associated with finding the new tenant.

For completeness on considering the landlord’s evidence it seems to me that the property manager has acted reasonably in their actions in finding a new tenant. I make this finding taking into consideration all the circumstances, including the market, the advertising and the viewings, and that the time to find a new tenant is longer than the property manager had experienced in the past. Conclusion

For the above reasons I find the tenants have not established that the Tribunal should reduce the term of the tenancy or that they are not liable to pay rent to and including 15 January 2026, being the day before the new tenancy commenced. A declaration is made accordingly. Suppression

Under section 95A, RTA the Tribunal must on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the claim order that the party’s name or identifying details not be published unless it considers publication is in the public interest or justified by the party’s conduct or other circumstances of the case

The tenants have applied for suppression, however they have not been successful in their application.

Regardless the Tribunal on its own initiative orders suppression of the names of both parties. In doing so I have had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest and do not consider there is any public interest in having the names of the parties published. The decision will be published with the parties’ names redacted along with any identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406499 — Tenancy dispute

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406499 — Tenancy dispute

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal reduce the fixed term of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal reduce the fixed term of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions