Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5416750 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 30 Apr 2026 · Published 30 Apr 2026 · Application 5416750
- Cleanliness
- Rent arrears
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and the Landlord’s name and identifying details including the address of the premises.
- The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and now ends at 11.59 on 15 December 2026.
- [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $2,489.29 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,540.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,489.29 [The tenant/s]: $50.71
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants joined by video conference from [overseas]. [The property manager] from [The property management company], representing the landlord, attended the hearing in person.
- Both parties filed a claim.
- The tenants claimed return of their bond and reduction of the fixed term of the tenancy.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
- The tenancy is a fixed term tenancy which commenced on 3 September 2025 and was due to end on 21 April 2026. Rent was $635.00 a week.
- [The owner] purchased the three bedroomed property around six months before the tenancy commenced and had lived there prior to the tenants moving in. The property had been fully refurbished before he purchased it. During the tenancy [The owner] lived in another property around 500 metres away from the tenancy premises.
Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?
The tenants’ evidence
- On 3 September 2025 the male tenant lost his job. Despite attempts to find another full time job the male tenant had only found occasional part-time work. The tenants’ evidence is that this caused financial hardship and meant they found it difficult to pay the rent.
- On 30 October the tenants delivered mail to [The owner] and told him that they wanted to end their tenancy early due to hardship circumstances and return to [Country]. They also told him they would like to reach an agreement with him to end the tenancy early and that they wanted to leave before December.
- On 5 November [The owner] went to see the tenants and told them he had decided to sell the property. He said he was listing the property on the market that week and assured them it would sell before December. Based on what [The owner] told them the tenants understand they could leave and end the tenancy early.
- Further discussions with [The owner] on 14 and 16 November followed, which confirmed the tenants understanding that the property was to be sold and they would be able to end the tenancy early and in keeping with the timing they had told [The owner]. During the 16 November discussion [The owner] told the tenants to contact the property manager as they “needed to sign something.
- The tenants contacted their property manager who did not know anything about the owner selling the house. On 20 November the tenants were contacted by [The property manager] to arrange for a viewing for a potential buyer. [The property manager] knew the tenants needed to leave due to financial hardship. The tenants had some concerns about the inconsistency of information they received from [The property manager] compared to what [The owner] had said and did not feel confident to purchase flights. On 4 December [The property manager] advised the tenants that the sale of the property was “on hold until January”.
- From December 8 [The property manager] attempted to negotiate an agreement between the tenants and [The owner] to end the tenancy early. By this time neither tenant had a job and they were looking for a clear date on when the tenancy would end so that they could purchase their flights to leave New Zealand.
- However no agreement was reached. The tenants went to the Citizens Advice Bureau and were advised to file a claim with the Tribunal seeking reduction of the fixed term tenancy. The tenants left New Zealand on 12 December 2025.
- The tenants said they initially talked to [The owner] about ending the tenancy early as they had read on the Tenancy Services website that if tenants reach an agreement with the landlord then a fixed term tenancy can end early. The landlord’s evidence
- [The property manager] confirmed that the property manager/[The property management company] only knew the tenants wanted to leave the tenancy early after they had told the owner. [The property manager/s] said [The owner] told him that he had told the tenants he may have a buyer, but that after viewing the property the person decided not to purchase the property. [The property manager/s] said [The owner] had also received tax advice not to sell the property within the first 12 months of purchase. For these reasons [The property manager] understood [The owner] decided not to put the property on the market and that apart from the one potential buyer, the property was not in any other way listed for sale or on the market.
- [The property manager] says after he learned the tenants and the owner had been discussing the potential early end to the fixed term, he told the tenants not to discuss the matter with the owner any further and that all discussions were to be with the property manager/[The property management company].
- [The property manager] agreed that he had facilitated attempts for the owner and the tenants to reach an agreement regarding the early end to the tenancy but that no agreement was reached. [The property manager] said it is more difficult to tenant properties before Christmas than it is at other times of the year. Because of that he asked the tenants if they could stay longer but they told him they could not afford to. The keys were handed back to [The property management company] on Monday 15 December. The relevant law
- The tenants have applied for reduction of their fixed-term tenancy. The usual legal position with a fixed term tenancy contract is that the term of the contract is strictly applied and can only be broken by agreement between the parties or by an order from the Tribunal.
- In this instance the landlord and the tenant did not reach an agreement on the terms to end the tenancy early. As a result it is open to the tenants to apply to the Tribunal to reduce the term of the tenancy under s 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- The 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) RTA. Has there been an unforeseen change to the tenant’s circumstances?
- "Unforeseen" is not defined in the RTA 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 .
- After considering the evidence I accept that the tenants could no longer afford to continue with the tenancy due to the male tenant losing his job. I find they 1 Bond v Tang, Invercargill TT, 09/00583/IN, 25 August 200job endeavoured to do so for a period while the male tenant attempted to find another job. As he could only find part time work I am satisfied they could not continue to meet their financial obligations on an ongoing basis.
- I am convinced from their evidence that the tenants believed the male tenant’s job was long term and had not foreseen it ending. I find the tenants change in circumstances was unforeseen.
- In making this finding I have considered the financial issues the tenants outlined which occurred before this tenancy started. I find this does not alter my determination that the male tenant losing his job caused an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. Is the tenants’ hardship greater than the landlord’s hardship?
- [The owner] did not give any evidence, direct or by way of a written statement, on the hardship he suffered as a result of the tenancy ending early. [The property manager] said [The owner] was on ACC due to an accident last year and relied on the rent to pay his mortgage.
- As set out above, the tenants say once the male tenant lost his job they found it difficult to pay the rent and have sufficient money to pay their other commitments and living expenses.
- It is always difficult to make a comparison of financial hardship in situations such as this. There is no corroborating evidence supporting [The property manager]’s description of [The owner]’s hardship. I accept what [The property manager] is saying regarding the owner’s medical issues, however based on [The property manager]’s evidence it means that [The owner] purchased the property after he had his accident and while he was on ACC. I say this as [The property manager] said [The owner] had an accident last year and that he had purchased the premises in January. Therefore I can only presume [The owner] had expected to be able to meet his mortgage and other property related commitments while he was on ACC.
- After considering the evidence I find the tenants’ hardship is more severe than the landlord’s hardship, and that they will suffer greater hardship if the tenancy is not reduced than the landlord will suffer if the fixed term is reduced.
- It follows that the tenants have established there are grounds to reduce the fixed term. To what extent should the fixed term be reduced and should the landlord be awarded compensation?
- The date on which the Tribunal orders the tenancy to end is a matter of discretion. 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) RTA.
- I have considered the evidence and submissions of both parties in making my determination. I am persuaded that the tenants stayed longer in the premises and in New Zealand than they would have as they relied on [The owner] telling them that the property would be sold by December and they would be able to leave early. This however did not happen and they were still trying to resolve the early end to the tenancy when they left in mid-December.
- Tenants entering into a tenancy agreement where a property manager is managing the tenancy on behalf of the landlord/owner should always approach the property manager rather than the owner with issues relating to the tenancy. The property manager is the agent acting for the tenant and in this instance, as is usual where a property manager is involved, the address for service provided in the tenancy agreement for any notices or issues relating to the tenancy is the email address for [The property management company].
- Here, the tenants talked to the owner, [The owner], about ending the tenancy early. My view is that it was incumbent on [The owner] at that point, to tell the tenants to contact the property manager directly. He did not do so for two and a half weeks after the tenants first approached him.
- In not doing so I find the matter has taken much longer to resolve than reasonably it should have taken. Said in another way, the owner’s actions have failed to reduce the losses to the tenants and himself and instead have caused greater losses. I say this because [The property manager]’s evidence was that had [The property management company] known the tenants were in financial difficulty earlier, it was likely that new tenants could have been found before Christmas. However new tenants were not found until after Christmas with the new tenancy starting on 19 January 2026.
- After careful consideration, I find it is fair that the tenancy ends on 15 December 2025, being the day the keys were returned. In the circumstances, and particularly given the failure of the owner to direct the tenants to the property manager earlier, I find it is reasonable for the tenants to pay 4 weeks’ rent in compensation.
- Rent has been paid by the tenants until and including 16 December. As I have determined the tenancy ended on 15 December, the rent paid for 16 December is included as part payment of the 4 week’s rent ordered as compensation and therefore a further 3 weeks and 6 days rent is ordered in compensation ($2,449.29). The landlord’s claim for rent and costs for breaking the fixed term
- The landlord’s claim for rent and costs associated with breaking the term of the tenancy do not need to be determined given my determination that the fixed term should be reduced and compensation ordered as above.
Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?
- At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
- The landlord claims $80.00 to clean the carpets and $80.00 to remove rubbish that was left in the rubbish bins at the end of the tenancy. Carpet cleaning
- The landlord claims the carpet was stained in the lounge and the bedroom during the tenancy. The landlord provided entry and move out photographs of the areas concerned and the pre-tenancy inspection report which does not record stains on the carpet.
- The tenants do not believe they caused any stains to the carpet during the tenancy. They noted that the move out photographs were “zoomed in” compared to the entry photographs which were taken a further away distance.
- Further, the tenants say the carpets and curtains smelled strongly of what they thought at the time was cigarette smoke. They raised the issue with the property manager on viewing the premises before the tenancy started and twice within the first two weeks after the tenancy commenced. They asked the property manager for cleaning assistance/products. The property manager did not respond to their emails after the tenancy started and they cleaned the carpets and the curtains at their cost to get rid of the smell.
- The tenants believe it is not fair that they have to pay for cleaning the carpets given that they had to clean the carpets at the start of the tenancy.
- I agree that the move out photographs were taken a lot closer than the entry photographs. I am not satisfied that the entry photographs enable me to see if the stains are there at that time or not, even if I expand the entry photographs digitally. Regardless the entry inspection report, which is signed by the tenants, does not record any stains on the carpet. Therefore I find the stains in the bedroom and lounge occurred during the tenancy.
- The tenants’ evidence is persuasive that the carpet and curtains smelled at the start of the tenancy. [The property manager] said the smell was not cigarette smoke, but incense as [The owner] had burned incense regularly in the property when he lived there.
- I find the tenancy was not provided in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy and that the landlord should have responded to the tenants’ request for cleaning. It is not acceptable for tenants to have to pay for carpet cleaning and curtain cleaning due to a strong smell in tenancy premises. As a result I find the tenants are not liable for the carpet cleaning cost claimed at the end of the tenancy. Rubbish removal
- The landlord claims $80 for removal of rubbish from the recycling bins. The landlord said items left in the yellow recycling bin at the end of the tenancy included items that could not be recycled. Therefore it had to pay for the bin’s contents to be disposed of.
- The tenants said all items in the recycling bin could be recycled. They raised that rubbish and food waste were in the bins at the start of their tenancy and they believed it was unfair that they would be charged $80.00 to empty the recycling bin.
- Having looked closely at the photograph of what was left in the recycling bin I find it more likely than not that it contained items that are not able to be recycled. I say this as the evidence (photo) provided by the landlord shows the lid on one bottle that should have been removed, spiral wire binding on a notepad (or similar stationery item) and a dust pan. While the tenants said the dustpan had the correct recycling code I am not convinced that is the case.
- I find the cost claimed is more than reasonable for the work needed. I have considered that the contractors invoice notes it as a minimum charge, however the landlord is required to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from a breach. I find $40.00 is reasonable for the work required.
- I find the tenants are liable for the cost awarded despite rubbish being left in the bins at the start of the tenancy. I say this as I am persuaded that the claim from the landlord is not based on the fact that rubbish was left in the yellow and red bins but that the yellow bin contained non-recyclable rubbish. Other matters
- Reimbursement of the filing fee: Both parties are awarded reimbursement of their filing fee as the have been fully or partly successful in their claims.
- Suppression: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord’s and the tenants’ names and all identifying details of the tenancy including the tenancy address. In doing so I am satisfied that the decision does not raise any issues of significant interest to the public and that there is no public interest benefit in publishing the parties’ names and details of the tenancy.