What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5492077 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited $7,979.93

How much money was awarded in case 5492077?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,951.93 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5492077?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5492077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13841130-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5492077 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited $7,979.93

How much money was awarded in case 5492077?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,951.93 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5492077?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5492077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13841130-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Hope Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5492077 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5492077 — net $7,979.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 10 June 2026	$7,951.93	Rent arrears (to 10 June 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,979.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,979.93

Order

[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited $7,979.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (to 10 June 2026)$7,951.93 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$7,979.93 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$7,979.93
The application for early termination of a fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to the date of hearing. Rent has been awarded to that date but will continue to accrue.
The tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 21 December 2026.
This is a joint tenancy. Each of the tenants is individually and as a collective, liable for all of the tenant obligations under the agreement. The tenants signed the tenancy agreement in September 2025, for a tenancy to start on 5 January 2026.
By January, Chiara had decided not to move in. Her reasons for that were unclear to me, other than she wanted a cheaper flat, closer to her work. Put simply, there was no evidence of any change in any of the tenant’s circumstances which explain or justify that decision. Circumstances that exist at the outset are not changes in the applicant’s circumstances.
Chiara’s decision not to move in (and meet her share of the rent obligation), put pressure on the other three tenants.
When the landlord was advised of Chiara’s decision, it clearly and accurately explained that the tenancy was for a fixed term and could not be terminated. The landlord suggested that the remaining tenants attempt to provide a replacement for Chiara. It is well established that there is no obligation on a landlord to respond to a tenant’s request to terminate a fixed term tenancy within particular period and there is no obligation on landlord to agree to end tenancy early. See Dmitrovic and Miles v FH 2018 Limited [2021] NZTT 4288277.
Sarah undertook the role of finding a replacement. That exercise was not successful. Sarah believed that she had found a suitable person as was in discussions with the replacement tenant and the landlord. The landlord attended the premises and provided a key to the replacement, but he was not added to the tenancy. All the remaining tenants were present at the time. The replacement moved out, at the remaining tenant’s request, after two weeks.
The remaining tenants now claim that the landlord has acted in bad faith by providing the replacement tenant with a key and that, somehow, gives them grounds to terminate the fixed term tenancy.
A tenancy agreement is a contract. When parties enter contracts, they are bound by the terms that they have agreed to. That is because the other party may make changes to their position in reliance of the other party fulfilling the promises that they have made in the contract.
The usual legal position with fixed term contracts, is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it will only be in limited circumstances, that a decision maker like the Tribunal would interfere with that term.
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.
While I accept that the remaining tenants are suffering financial hardship. That has been caused by Ciara’s decision not to move into the premises. That is not an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances.
Unforeseen means unexpected, without warning, or the reverse of “foreseen”, not liable to result, unlikely not a serious possibility, not a real risk. 1
It is well established that disputes between flatmates are not unforeseen circumstances. 2 It has also been held that there are no unforeseen circumstances where one tenant fails to pay rent and leaves the premises 3
The Tribunal has also held: 4 The severe hardship, having to pay two rents is not unforeseen. The tenants should have known at the time that they were entering into new fixed term tenancy before being released from the other then they were taking a significant risk.
The tenant’s reference to the replacement tenant is something of a distraction. On the one hand they say that the landlord should not have provided a key to the replacement, and on the other they say that they could not afford the rent without a replacement for Chiara. The replacement moved out within 2 t o3 weeks, at the remaining tenant’s request. His occupation did not materially alter the position of the tenants. The real reason they are in this position is that Chiara decided not to move in and they have been unable to find a suitable replacement.
I find that there has not been an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances, so the application must be dismissed.
While accept that the remaining tenants are suffering financial hardship, they did not put forward any evidence to establish “severe hardship”. That is more than ordinary hardship and has been described as rigorous, harsh and not negligible.
The remaining tenants covered (most of) the rent until 19 April. They could not afford to continue doing so and moved back to their parent’s. They have stopped paying rent. 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand, Thomson Reuters [2018]. 2 Buchanan v Burrow TT Dunedin TT487/06, 20 July 2006 3 Cowdy & Co Ltd v Crosby DC Christchurch TT2717/97, 12 March 1998 4 Tenant v Landlord [2024] NZTT 4925973
Although it is not under any obligation to do so, the landlord has been endeavouring to find replacement tenants but has not been successful. Rent will continue to accrue until the end of the tenancy (either the expiry of the fixed term or until a new tenant is found).
As the landlord was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee.
The tenants applied for suppression of their details but were not the successful party so the mandatory suppression under s95A does not apply. See Alexis Mitzel v A1 Property Managers Ltd [2026] NZDC 6894. The tenants did not put forward any evidence to support suppression being granted on any other grounds. The landlord did not apply for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5492077 — net $7,979.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 10 June 2026	$7,951.93	Rent arrears (to 10 June 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,979.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,979.93

Order

[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited $7,979.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (to 10 June 2026)$7,951.93 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$7,979.93 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$7,979.93
The application for early termination of a fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to the date of hearing. Rent has been awarded to that date but will continue to accrue.
The tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 21 December 2026.
This is a joint tenancy. Each of the tenants is individually and as a collective, liable for all of the tenant obligations under the agreement. The tenants signed the tenancy agreement in September 2025, for a tenancy to start on 5 January 2026.
By January, Chiara had decided not to move in. Her reasons for that were unclear to me, other than she wanted a cheaper flat, closer to her work. Put simply, there was no evidence of any change in any of the tenant’s circumstances which explain or justify that decision. Circumstances that exist at the outset are not changes in the applicant’s circumstances.
Chiara’s decision not to move in (and meet her share of the rent obligation), put pressure on the other three tenants.
When the landlord was advised of Chiara’s decision, it clearly and accurately explained that the tenancy was for a fixed term and could not be terminated. The landlord suggested that the remaining tenants attempt to provide a replacement for Chiara. It is well established that there is no obligation on a landlord to respond to a tenant’s request to terminate a fixed term tenancy within particular period and there is no obligation on landlord to agree to end tenancy early. See Dmitrovic and Miles v FH 2018 Limited [2021] NZTT 4288277.
Sarah undertook the role of finding a replacement. That exercise was not successful. Sarah believed that she had found a suitable person as was in discussions with the replacement tenant and the landlord. The landlord attended the premises and provided a key to the replacement, but he was not added to the tenancy. All the remaining tenants were present at the time. The replacement moved out, at the remaining tenant’s request, after two weeks.
The remaining tenants now claim that the landlord has acted in bad faith by providing the replacement tenant with a key and that, somehow, gives them grounds to terminate the fixed term tenancy.
A tenancy agreement is a contract. When parties enter contracts, they are bound by the terms that they have agreed to. That is because the other party may make changes to their position in reliance of the other party fulfilling the promises that they have made in the contract.
The usual legal position with fixed term contracts, is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it will only be in limited circumstances, that a decision maker like the Tribunal would interfere with that term.
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.
While I accept that the remaining tenants are suffering financial hardship. That has been caused by Ciara’s decision not to move into the premises. That is not an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances.
Unforeseen means unexpected, without warning, or the reverse of “foreseen”, not liable to result, unlikely not a serious possibility, not a real risk. 1
It is well established that disputes between flatmates are not unforeseen circumstances. 2 It has also been held that there are no unforeseen circumstances where one tenant fails to pay rent and leaves the premises 3
The Tribunal has also held: 4 The severe hardship, having to pay two rents is not unforeseen. The tenants should have known at the time that they were entering into new fixed term tenancy before being released from the other then they were taking a significant risk.
The tenant’s reference to the replacement tenant is something of a distraction. On the one hand they say that the landlord should not have provided a key to the replacement, and on the other they say that they could not afford the rent without a replacement for Chiara. The replacement moved out within 2 t o3 weeks, at the remaining tenant’s request. His occupation did not materially alter the position of the tenants. The real reason they are in this position is that Chiara decided not to move in and they have been unable to find a suitable replacement.
I find that there has not been an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances, so the application must be dismissed.
While accept that the remaining tenants are suffering financial hardship, they did not put forward any evidence to establish “severe hardship”. That is more than ordinary hardship and has been described as rigorous, harsh and not negligible.
The remaining tenants covered (most of) the rent until 19 April. They could not afford to continue doing so and moved back to their parent’s. They have stopped paying rent. 1 Stewart Benson Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand, Thomson Reuters [2018]. 2 Buchanan v Burrow TT Dunedin TT487/06, 20 July 2006 3 Cowdy & Co Ltd v Crosby DC Christchurch TT2717/97, 12 March 1998 4 Tenant v Landlord [2024] NZTT 4925973
Although it is not under any obligation to do so, the landlord has been endeavouring to find replacement tenants but has not been successful. Rent will continue to accrue until the end of the tenancy (either the expiry of the fixed term or until a new tenant is found).
As the landlord was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee.
The tenants applied for suppression of their details but were not the successful party so the mandatory suppression under s95A does not apply. See Alexis Mitzel v A1 Property Managers Ltd [2026] NZDC 6894. The tenants did not put forward any evidence to support suppression being granted on any other grounds. The landlord did not apply for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5492077 — Rent arrears at 19 Hope Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5492077 — Rent arrears at 19 Hope Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

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