What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5441308?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5441308?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5441308?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5441308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13220487-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5441308?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5441308?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5441308?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5441308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13220487-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 3, 20 Hume Street, Sydenham, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5441308 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Niven and Ms Woodward represented the landlord. Background
The tenancy started on 5 April 2025. It was a fixed term tenancy ending on 4 January 2026.
Without authorisation from the owners of the premises, Wolfbrook Property Management Limited (WPML), their agent, extended the term of the tenancy so it now ends on 31 January 2027.
The owners of the property are landlords by virtue of the definition of ‘landlord’ in section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The grantors of the tenancy were Aaron and Catherine Lindsay through their agent WPML. That the property is owned by their company Lindsay Family Properties Limited does not mean that the company is the landlord. Both are directors of the company; they as individuals are the landlord as is their agent.
The landlord wants to reduce thew term of the tenancy and vary the terms of the tenancy so that it becomes a periodic tenancy, giving them the option to sell the property and to end the tenancy on notice.
The owners (as landlord) are facing a large increase in their mortgage interest from 27 May 2026; the interest rate on their loan will Increase from 2.99% to
79%. As well, one of the owners was made redundant in November 2025, so there has been a reduction in their income.

When can the Tribunal reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy?

Section 66 RTA allows either party to apply for an order reducing the term of a fixed term tenancy (and make such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term) where it is satisfied that: 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.
Usually, these applications are made by tenants wanting an early release from their fixed term tenancy, but a landlord can also apply. Discussion
The first consideration is whether there has been an unforeseen change in the landlord’s circumstances. The change in interest rate that applies to the company’s loan is not an unforeseen change in circumstances. Although the landlord’s representative was unsure when the loan commenced, given the interest rate was 2.99%, it is probable that the loan was fixed about 5 or so years ago. When banks advance funds secured by mortgage, it is well known that they ‘stress test’ the borrower’s ability to pay a higher interest rate.
A prudent borrower would recognise that an interest rate of 2.99% would likely increase by the end of the term.
The increase in the interest cannot be considered an unforeseen chance in circumstances; it was predictable probably even certain more so given that this is a commercial arrangement involving a company whose activity is property investment.
The landlord also relies on the fact of redundancy as an unforeseen change in circumstances. The notice of likely redundance and the fact of it all preceded the signing of the extension of the tenancy agreement on 1 December 2025. It cannot be seen as an unforeseen change in circumstances since it did not occur after the extended fixed term tenancy had commenced.
The landlord’s application does not clear the first statutory hurdle – an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances.
Though I need not assess the competing hardships, I would not have been persuaded that the landlord’s severe hardship would be greater than the tenant’s (ordinary) hardship.
The landlord has provided a list of expenses and income for the rental property. Annualised, it shows net income of $25,496.64, with expenses of $24,357.00 with the interest rate at 2.99% and expenses of $38,077.00 with the interest rate at 5.79%.
The loan interest increases from $14,651.00 to $28,371.00 on an annualised basis. For the 8-month period from the start of the higher interest rate until the tenancy ends, the increased interest will be $18,914.00, roughly $4,300.00 more than the annual interest when the interest rate was 2.99%. That equates to $537.50 per month.
The landlord’s personal expenses (separate from their business expenses as directors of the company that owns the investment property) show personal expenses of $15,000.00 and entertainment (eating out etc) of $4,000.00. Annualised those expenses alone total $19,000.00. The increase for the 8- month period of $537.50 should be able to be accommodated without severe hardship.
For the tenant, moving to another tenancy affects his proximity to his children, an important factor following a relationship breakdown.
The landlord wants the flexibility to sell the property to relieve their financial stress. They still have that option, selling subject to the tenancy. The Tribunal was informed that an investor had viewed the property last week and the landlord was awaiting an update.
That WPML has made compensation offers to the tenant which seemed quite generous to the Tribunal does not assist the landlord’s position. If the statutory criteria are not met, the application cannot succeed. The tenant is entitled to rely on the contract. He does not wish to move.
As application to reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy is an application of high threshold. The Tribunal does not lightly interfere with contracts. In this case, the landlord has failed to persuade the Tribunal that there are grounds to reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy. Result
The application is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenant did not seek name suppression. The landlord sought, but is not entitled to, name suppression as the application is unsuccessful 1 .

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Niven and Ms Woodward represented the landlord. Background
The tenancy started on 5 April 2025. It was a fixed term tenancy ending on 4 January 2026.
Without authorisation from the owners of the premises, Wolfbrook Property Management Limited (WPML), their agent, extended the term of the tenancy so it now ends on 31 January 2027.
The owners of the property are landlords by virtue of the definition of ‘landlord’ in section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The grantors of the tenancy were Aaron and Catherine Lindsay through their agent WPML. That the property is owned by their company Lindsay Family Properties Limited does not mean that the company is the landlord. Both are directors of the company; they as individuals are the landlord as is their agent.
The landlord wants to reduce thew term of the tenancy and vary the terms of the tenancy so that it becomes a periodic tenancy, giving them the option to sell the property and to end the tenancy on notice.
The owners (as landlord) are facing a large increase in their mortgage interest from 27 May 2026; the interest rate on their loan will Increase from 2.99% to
79%. As well, one of the owners was made redundant in November 2025, so there has been a reduction in their income.

When can the Tribunal reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy?

Section 66 RTA allows either party to apply for an order reducing the term of a fixed term tenancy (and make such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term) where it is satisfied that: 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.
Usually, these applications are made by tenants wanting an early release from their fixed term tenancy, but a landlord can also apply. Discussion
The first consideration is whether there has been an unforeseen change in the landlord’s circumstances. The change in interest rate that applies to the company’s loan is not an unforeseen change in circumstances. Although the landlord’s representative was unsure when the loan commenced, given the interest rate was 2.99%, it is probable that the loan was fixed about 5 or so years ago. When banks advance funds secured by mortgage, it is well known that they ‘stress test’ the borrower’s ability to pay a higher interest rate.
A prudent borrower would recognise that an interest rate of 2.99% would likely increase by the end of the term.
The increase in the interest cannot be considered an unforeseen chance in circumstances; it was predictable probably even certain more so given that this is a commercial arrangement involving a company whose activity is property investment.
The landlord also relies on the fact of redundancy as an unforeseen change in circumstances. The notice of likely redundance and the fact of it all preceded the signing of the extension of the tenancy agreement on 1 December 2025. It cannot be seen as an unforeseen change in circumstances since it did not occur after the extended fixed term tenancy had commenced.
The landlord’s application does not clear the first statutory hurdle – an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances.
Though I need not assess the competing hardships, I would not have been persuaded that the landlord’s severe hardship would be greater than the tenant’s (ordinary) hardship.
The landlord has provided a list of expenses and income for the rental property. Annualised, it shows net income of $25,496.64, with expenses of $24,357.00 with the interest rate at 2.99% and expenses of $38,077.00 with the interest rate at 5.79%.
The loan interest increases from $14,651.00 to $28,371.00 on an annualised basis. For the 8-month period from the start of the higher interest rate until the tenancy ends, the increased interest will be $18,914.00, roughly $4,300.00 more than the annual interest when the interest rate was 2.99%. That equates to $537.50 per month.
The landlord’s personal expenses (separate from their business expenses as directors of the company that owns the investment property) show personal expenses of $15,000.00 and entertainment (eating out etc) of $4,000.00. Annualised those expenses alone total $19,000.00. The increase for the 8- month period of $537.50 should be able to be accommodated without severe hardship.
For the tenant, moving to another tenancy affects his proximity to his children, an important factor following a relationship breakdown.
The landlord wants the flexibility to sell the property to relieve their financial stress. They still have that option, selling subject to the tenancy. The Tribunal was informed that an investor had viewed the property last week and the landlord was awaiting an update.
That WPML has made compensation offers to the tenant which seemed quite generous to the Tribunal does not assist the landlord’s position. If the statutory criteria are not met, the application cannot succeed. The tenant is entitled to rely on the contract. He does not wish to move.
As application to reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy is an application of high threshold. The Tribunal does not lightly interfere with contracts. In this case, the landlord has failed to persuade the Tribunal that there are grounds to reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy. Result
The application is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenant did not seek name suppression. The landlord sought, but is not entitled to, name suppression as the application is unsuccessful 1 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5441308 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 20 Hume Street, Sydenham, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5441308 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 20 Hume Street, Sydenham, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When can the Tribunal reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

When can the Tribunal reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions