What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427256 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Occupy Property Management Limited As Agents For

How much money was awarded in case 5427256?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lease Break Fees: $1,558.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,137.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427256?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427256?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13141951-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5427256 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Occupy Property Management Limited As Agents For

How much money was awarded in case 5427256?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lease Break Fees: $1,558.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,137.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5427256?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5427256?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13141951-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 5, 33 Fulford Street, New Plymouth, New Tenancy Tribunal Case 5427256 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5427256 — net $2,424.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24/8/2026 including rent shortfall	$3,137.82	Rent arrears to 24/8/2026 including rent shortfall
Lease break fees	$1,558.25	Lease break fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,424.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,424.07

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Occupy Property Management Limited As Agents For Chad And [The landlord/s] $2,424.07 immediately, as set out below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 (BN-00133196) to Occupy Property Management Limited As Agents For Chad And [The landlord/s] immediately.
The application to reduce the term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 33 Fulford Street, New Plymouth, New Plymouth 4310 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16/2/2026.
On 17 February the landlord advised that there was an error in the Tribunal’s calculation of compensation. The rental shortfall had not been included in the rental calculation and the break lease fees were less than applied for.
This amended order revokes and replaces the order issued on 16 February and corrects the amounts awarded. The reasoning in the decision is not amended in any way as the amendment is simply a calculation amendment to reflect the Tribunal’s reasoning and intention.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and costs associated with the tenant breaking the fixed term agreement and has provided rent records and a breakdown of the costs associated with finding a replacement tenant, which are considered reasonable.
The landlord has therefore proved the amounts ordered.
The tenant has applied for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 24/8/2026.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The property is a 2-bedroom unit. The tenancy started on 21 August and is for a fixed term due to end on 24 August 2026. The rent is $575 per week.
Mr Cooper and his partner both signed the fixed term. At the time they were in a relationship and had previously rented a property together for a fixed term. That term ended early by agreement with the landlord.
Mr Cooper and his partner were initially joint tenants. She left the property when the relationship ended in early December 2025, and she asked to be released as a tenant.
Mr Cooper agreed to her being released as a joint tenant provided she pay her share of the rent for three weeks, as at that time, he was confident, he would find a flatmate/new tenant to pay a share of the rent. The tenancy variation was signed accordingly.
Despite extensive advertising Mr Cooper was unable to find a flatmate/new joint tenant to share the rent with him. He then tried to find new tenants for the entire property by advertising the property on Trade Me and FaceBook. He said he did not even get anyone to come and have a look.
Mr Cooper then advised the landlord on 23/12/2025 that he had been unable to find a flatmate or new tenants and was moving out on 11 January 2026. He applied to the Tribunal on 29/12/2025 for an order ending the fixed term early on the basis that his circumstances had changed as his flatmate had moved out and he was unable to find a new flatmate and could not pay the rent as his part time job had ended.
The landlord went ahead and advertised the property and commenced viewings with applicants on 2 January. Despite having 10 groups through there was no interest.
On 24 January 2026 the property was relisted at a lower rental and a new tenancy commenced on 30 January at a lower rental of $530 per week.
Mr Cooper says his partner leaving the tenancy and his inability to find a new flatmate or tenant or pay the rent on his own, is the unforeseen change in circumstance.
Mr Cooper’s partner asked to be released from the fixed term. He agreed to this provided she paid her share of the rent for three weeks, which she did. He signed the variation of the tenancy agreement as did the landlord. He did this as he was confident, at that time that he would find a new tenant to pay a share of the rent.
Hindsight suggests that it may have been premature for him to agree to her release until he had in fact found a replacement tenant.
The evidence suggests that it is the reduction in the rental market in New Plymouth that is the real reason both for Mr Cooper’s inability to find a replacement tenant and the landlord’s subsequent inability to find new tenants for the property at the fixed term rental.
Very quickly after the property was advertised at a lower rental new tenants were found. The property manager suggests that is a common occurrence currently in New Plymouth where there are a significant number of properties on the market for rent and a corresponding reduction in rental prices.
It is therefore Mr Cooper’s inability to find a new tenant to share the rent or assign the tenancy, that is the reason for him leaving the tenancy and making this application. Associated with that is the change in the rental market conditions.
I am not satisfied that this change in the rental market is an unforeseen change in Mr Cooper's personal circumstances which is the focus of an application to reduce a fixed term under s66. While he submitted that he should not have to pay the cost of this market change the landlord submitted that neither should his property owners, who have a mortgage to pay and relied on the fixed term rental continuing until August to do this.
Section 66(1) requires the Tribunal to find there has been a change in Mr Cooper’s personal circumstances as opposed to a change in rental market conditions before reducing the fixed term. I am not satisfied, based on the evidence provided that it is a change in Mr Copper’s personal circumstances that have led to his application to be released early from the fixed term.
In making this finding I also considered Mr Cooper’s reduced financial means as an unforeseen circumstance, however his evidence that he had relied on a job seeker benefit with accommodation supplement and part time work “on and off” for the past two years suggest his limited income was not a new or unexpected matter. He said he would have been able to pay his share of the rent with a new tenant, so it was the inability to find a replacement tenant that was the real issue here.
Even if I had found the change in the market conditions sufficient to establish unforeseen circumstances and reduced the fixed term, Mr Cooper would have been required to establish severe hardship greater than the landlord’s and be liable to pay reasonable compensation for the landlord’s resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The section confirms that the parties’ contractual arrangements are to be given primacy and will not be lightly set aside.
The landlord’s request for rent arrears, the costs associated with the breaking of the fixed term and the rental shortfall until the end of the tenancy are all costs that flow directly from the tenants breaking of the fixed term contract and are awarded.
As the landlord’s application is successful the tenant is to pay the filing fee.
Neither party applied for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5427256 — net $2,424.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24/8/2026 including rent shortfall	$3,137.82	Rent arrears to 24/8/2026 including rent shortfall
Lease break fees	$1,558.25	Lease break fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,424.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,424.07

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Occupy Property Management Limited As Agents For Chad And [The landlord/s] $2,424.07 immediately, as set out below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 (BN-00133196) to Occupy Property Management Limited As Agents For Chad And [The landlord/s] immediately.
The application to reduce the term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 33 Fulford Street, New Plymouth, New Plymouth 4310 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16/2/2026.
On 17 February the landlord advised that there was an error in the Tribunal’s calculation of compensation. The rental shortfall had not been included in the rental calculation and the break lease fees were less than applied for.
This amended order revokes and replaces the order issued on 16 February and corrects the amounts awarded. The reasoning in the decision is not amended in any way as the amendment is simply a calculation amendment to reflect the Tribunal’s reasoning and intention.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and costs associated with the tenant breaking the fixed term agreement and has provided rent records and a breakdown of the costs associated with finding a replacement tenant, which are considered reasonable.
The landlord has therefore proved the amounts ordered.
The tenant has applied for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 24/8/2026.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The property is a 2-bedroom unit. The tenancy started on 21 August and is for a fixed term due to end on 24 August 2026. The rent is $575 per week.
Mr Cooper and his partner both signed the fixed term. At the time they were in a relationship and had previously rented a property together for a fixed term. That term ended early by agreement with the landlord.
Mr Cooper and his partner were initially joint tenants. She left the property when the relationship ended in early December 2025, and she asked to be released as a tenant.
Mr Cooper agreed to her being released as a joint tenant provided she pay her share of the rent for three weeks, as at that time, he was confident, he would find a flatmate/new tenant to pay a share of the rent. The tenancy variation was signed accordingly.
Despite extensive advertising Mr Cooper was unable to find a flatmate/new joint tenant to share the rent with him. He then tried to find new tenants for the entire property by advertising the property on Trade Me and FaceBook. He said he did not even get anyone to come and have a look.
Mr Cooper then advised the landlord on 23/12/2025 that he had been unable to find a flatmate or new tenants and was moving out on 11 January 2026. He applied to the Tribunal on 29/12/2025 for an order ending the fixed term early on the basis that his circumstances had changed as his flatmate had moved out and he was unable to find a new flatmate and could not pay the rent as his part time job had ended.
The landlord went ahead and advertised the property and commenced viewings with applicants on 2 January. Despite having 10 groups through there was no interest.
On 24 January 2026 the property was relisted at a lower rental and a new tenancy commenced on 30 January at a lower rental of $530 per week.
Mr Cooper says his partner leaving the tenancy and his inability to find a new flatmate or tenant or pay the rent on his own, is the unforeseen change in circumstance.
Mr Cooper’s partner asked to be released from the fixed term. He agreed to this provided she paid her share of the rent for three weeks, which she did. He signed the variation of the tenancy agreement as did the landlord. He did this as he was confident, at that time that he would find a new tenant to pay a share of the rent.
Hindsight suggests that it may have been premature for him to agree to her release until he had in fact found a replacement tenant.
The evidence suggests that it is the reduction in the rental market in New Plymouth that is the real reason both for Mr Cooper’s inability to find a replacement tenant and the landlord’s subsequent inability to find new tenants for the property at the fixed term rental.
Very quickly after the property was advertised at a lower rental new tenants were found. The property manager suggests that is a common occurrence currently in New Plymouth where there are a significant number of properties on the market for rent and a corresponding reduction in rental prices.
It is therefore Mr Cooper’s inability to find a new tenant to share the rent or assign the tenancy, that is the reason for him leaving the tenancy and making this application. Associated with that is the change in the rental market conditions.
I am not satisfied that this change in the rental market is an unforeseen change in Mr Cooper's personal circumstances which is the focus of an application to reduce a fixed term under s66. While he submitted that he should not have to pay the cost of this market change the landlord submitted that neither should his property owners, who have a mortgage to pay and relied on the fixed term rental continuing until August to do this.
Section 66(1) requires the Tribunal to find there has been a change in Mr Cooper’s personal circumstances as opposed to a change in rental market conditions before reducing the fixed term. I am not satisfied, based on the evidence provided that it is a change in Mr Copper’s personal circumstances that have led to his application to be released early from the fixed term.
In making this finding I also considered Mr Cooper’s reduced financial means as an unforeseen circumstance, however his evidence that he had relied on a job seeker benefit with accommodation supplement and part time work “on and off” for the past two years suggest his limited income was not a new or unexpected matter. He said he would have been able to pay his share of the rent with a new tenant, so it was the inability to find a replacement tenant that was the real issue here.
Even if I had found the change in the market conditions sufficient to establish unforeseen circumstances and reduced the fixed term, Mr Cooper would have been required to establish severe hardship greater than the landlord’s and be liable to pay reasonable compensation for the landlord’s resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The section confirms that the parties’ contractual arrangements are to be given primacy and will not be lightly set aside.
The landlord’s request for rent arrears, the costs associated with the breaking of the fixed term and the rental shortfall until the end of the tenancy are all costs that flow directly from the tenants breaking of the fixed term contract and are awarded.
As the landlord’s application is successful the tenant is to pay the filing fee.
Neither party applied for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427256 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 33 Fulford Street, New Plymouth, New

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5427256 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 33 Fulford Street, New Plymouth, New

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions