What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5442508 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5442508?

Tenant/S] At [Tenancy Address Suppre…: $2,426.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5442508?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5442508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13437833-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5442508 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5442508?

Tenant/S] At [Tenancy Address Suppre…: $2,426.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5442508?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5442508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13437833-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5442508 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and the address of the tenancy.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and now ends at 11.59pm on 22 February 2026.
[The tenant/s] is to pay $2,426.13 to Wiskay Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management As Agents For Greenroven Investments Ltd immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 6 June 2026. Background
The tenancy commenced on 6 June 2025. Rent was $995.00 a week. The tenancy premises is rural. There are two dwellings on the property. The main house has three bedrooms and a smaller unit has two bedrooms. The tenant and her children moved into the premises, along with the tenant’s mother.
The tenant and her mother shared the rent equally. The tenant’s mother also assisted the tenant by taking the tenant’s children to school each morning and collecting them at the end of the school day.
Before the tenancy commenced the tenant discussed with the property manager that her mother would be residing at the property, and that her mother’s contribution to the rent made it financially manageable for her to be able to tenant the property.
In January 2026 the tenant’s mother advised she was moving out. The tenant contacted the property manager on 15 January, soon after her mother moved out, advising what had happened and told the property manager that without her mother living there she could not afford to stay in the property.
After discussions with the property manager, the tenant sent a written request on 22 January 2026 confirming she wanted to break the fixed term tenancy. The request letter authorised for the premises to be marketed so that replacement tenant/s could be found. The tenant’s written request states that she understands she: a. is responsible to pay fair and reasonable costs incurred in securing a suitable replacement tenant; b. is responsible for continuing to pay rent until a mutually agreed end date. c. will need to vacate the property on a mutually agreed end date.
The landlord commenced marketing the premises. The tenant looked for premises with a lower rent and which were closer to her children’s school. On 2 February 2026 she advised the property manager she had been successful in getting another tenancy elsewhere and gave the landlord three weeks’ notice. The property manager in response reminded her that she was responsible for paying the rent until a new tenant moves in.
On 11 February the tenant filed her application with the Tribunal to have the term of her tenancy reduced. She had been to the Citizens Advice Bureau who advised her to file a claim of this nature.
At the date of the hearing, 27 March 2026, replacement tenant/s had not been found.

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

The usual legal position with a fixed term tenancy contract is that the term of the contract is a binding contract that is strictly applied and can only be ended early by agreement between the parties or by an order from the Tribunal.
In this instance the tenant has made a request to the landlord to break the fixed term early. The landlord’s actions in advertising for replacement tenants confirms it agreed to do so on the terms set out in the tenant’s request dated 22 January.
This agreement is also a binding agreement. The tenant is required to comply with the agreement and pay the compensation she has agreed to under it, unless she can show that she has some other right to end the fixed term tenancy early and the Tribunal orders the reduction of the fixed term under section 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). In that instance a different amount of compensation may be awarded to that agreed between the landlord and the tenant. That is, any agreement reached to end the tenancy early between the landlord and the tenant does not prevent the tenant from making an application under section
Where the Tribunal considers the requirements of section 66 are met and reduces the term, then it is open to the Tribunal to award compensation which can be for a different amount to that under a break of lease agreement reached by the parties 1 .
Section 66(1) provides that the Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; 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. 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” 2 .
In the District Court decision, Bickerton v Lott and Others 3 , Chief Judge R Young stated: “Severe hardship of course is no ordinary hardship. It is self evidently more than ordinary hardship that falls consequent on an event.” 1 See section 11(1) RTA which provides that any agreement that is entered into which is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the RTA is of no effect; and s 11(3) which provides that any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred upon tenants by the RTA is of no effect. 2 Bond v Tang, Invercargill TT, 09/00583/IN, 25 August 2009 3 Bickerton v Lott and Others TT No 756/00, Wellington, 18 December 2000 at [15]
After considering the evidence presented I find there has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances for the following reasons: a. The tenant had discussed with her mother before the tenancy started that they both had to be there for the term of the tenancy for i) the tenant to be able to afford the tenancy and ii) to assist with transport of her children to and from school. Her mother had agreed to pay every second week’s rent, and to take the tenant’s children to school and pick them up as needed. The school was some distance from the property and there was no public transport. b. The tenant had told the property manager before the tenancy started that that her mother’s presence and rental contribution was the reason the tenancy was financially manageable for her. c. The tenant received a phone call from her mother in which her mother told her she was moving out. Her mother left immediately. There were no discussions prior to the phone call that gave the tenant any indication that her mother might leave. Her mother’s actions were totally unexpected.

Would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced?

I find there would be severe hardship to the tenant if the fixed term is not reduced. The tenant’s evidence persuades me she cannot afford to pay all the rent by herself. In addition, without her mother’s assistance to take and collect her children from school, the tenant has been late to work, has had to pay for pre and after school care, and pay for transport (Uber) for her children to get home after school. When an uber driver is not available the tenant has to leave work earlier to collect the children.
The combined effect of the extra rent and the cost associated with getting her children to and from school have increased the outgoings to the tenant. Her income however has reduced as the hours she is able to work are less. The tenant’s evidence is that this has caused her financial hardship. As she does not earn enough to cover the increased costs and meet her other normal living expenses.
I am persuaded by the tenant’s evidence that she simply cannot afford to live at the premises now that her mother has unexpectedly left. Is the tenant’s hardship greater than the Landlord’s hardship?
It is always difficult to make a comparison of financial hardship in situations such as this.
The property manager says the landlord has a mortgage to pay as well as rates and insurances. I accept that is the case, and that a new tenant has not yet been found. However, there is no corroborating evidence supporting the property manager’s description of the landlord/owner’s hardship or how severe any hardship is on the landlord. I have been provided more information about the tenant’s hardship than the landlord’s hardship.
After considering the evidence presented, I find the tenant’s hardship is more severe than the landlord’s hardship, and that she will suffer greater hardship if the tenancy is not reduced than the landlord will suffer if the fixed term is reduced.
Given the above, it follows that the tenants have established there are grounds for the Tribunal 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.
The tenant is seeking for the term to be reduced to the day she moved out of the tenancy. The property manager’s view is that, if the Tribunal reduced the term of the tenancy it should do so with the last day of the tenancy is the date of the hearing.
After careful consideration, I find it is fair that the tenancy ends on 22 February 2026, being the date the tenant moved out. I am particularly persuaded this is fair and reasonable given that the tenant acted quickly to advise the property manager of her change in circumstances and explain that it meant she could not afford to remain tenanting the premises as her mother had unexpectedly left. This was in keeping with the tenant telling the property manager before the tenancy started that she could only afford the rent with help from her mother. The tenant kept the property manager up to date with what was happening and gave three weeks’ notice of when she was moving out.
I find this is a situation where it is appropriate to award compensation under s 66(2). I find an amount equivalent to three weeks’ rent ($2,995.00) is reasonable compensation taking into account the costs incurred to date by the landlord in advertising the premises for rent, viewings and checks completed on potential tenants. I also decline to award the filing fee to the tenant in addition to this sum, as set out below.
The award of compensation acknowledges that a new tenant had not been found before the hearing on 27 March 2026 and balances that with the fact that the tenant told the property manager early of her sudden change in circumstances and that she could not afford to continue renting the property, and therefore of the need to look for new tenants.
The tenant has paid rent to 26 February 2026. That means she has paid $568.57, in rent beyond the end of the reduced term of the tenancy. This leaves a balance of $2,426.13 to be paid in compensation by the tenant. This is the sum ordered. Suppression and filing fee
As the tenant has succeeded with her application she is entitled to suppression of her name. I also suppress the address of the tenancy.
I consider as part of the compensation payable to the landlord under section 66(2) the tenant should bear the filing fee cost for their application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5442508 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5442508 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

Would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

Would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions