What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4614652?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4614652?

Compensation: Break Lease Costs: $425.50 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614652?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614652?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9284613-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4614652?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4614652?

Compensation: Break Lease Costs: $425.50 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614652?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614652?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9284613-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 108 Edward Avenue, Edgeware, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4614652 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4614652 — net $425.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Break Lease costs	$425.50	Break Lease costs
Net award	$425.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$425.50

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Whalan And Partners Limited T/As Bayleys Property Management Canterbury As Agent For Joanne Watts Jess must pay Adam John Odering and Zoe Alexandra Barczyk $425.50 immediately.
Whalan And Partners Limited T/As Property Management Canterbury As Agent For Joanne Watts Jess must reimburse Adam John Ordering and Zoe Alexandra Barczyk for all rent that has already been paid by the tenants to the landlord for the period commencing 4 August 2023 and ending 10 September 2023. If the parties are unable to agree on the amount they may apply to the Tribunal for further directions.
I declare that the tenancy ended on 4 August 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference.
The facts of this case are essentially undisputed by the parties.
The premises are at Flat 2, 108 Edward Street, Christchurch (“the premises”).
The fixed term tenancy of the premises commenced on 26 August 2022 and was to end on 10 September 2023.
By email dated 14 June 2023, the tenants advised the landlord that they were considering breaking their fixed term tenancy early and wanted to find out about the process and costs for doing so.
The landlord replied to the tenant by email on 14 June 2023 as follows; “We have received your advice that you wish to end your tenancy prior to the end of the fixed term that expires 10 th September 2023. Following this date your tenancy will be a periodic tenancy. We are prepared to release you from the fixed term tenancy only once suitable replacement tenants have been found, have signed a new tenancy agreement for the property, and paid a deposit. ....As per the Residential Tenancies Act tenants wanting to break their lease are responsible for the costs to do so.”
The tenants completed the break lease forms required by the landlord and returned them on Friday 16 June 2023 at 8.24 am.
Acting on that advice the tenants entered into a new tenancy agreement at another property on 16 June 2023.
On 16 June 2023 at 9.39 am, the landlord sent an email to the tenant recording the need for the landlord to seek approval from the owner prior to listing the property. By “approval”, I assume they meant approval to the breaking of the fixed term.
The owner did not agree to the early termination, leaving the landlord as agents for the owner with the option of attempting to find new tenants for the short period leading up to 10 September 2023.
The tenants say that they have relied on the 14 June 2023 email from the landlord as approval of the early termination of the lease, conditional upon the terms contained in that document.
The tenants moved out of the premises on 7 July 2023 and have since then been paying rent on their new property as well as the premises in question.
Section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that the Tribunal may reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy where because of an unforeseen change in the circumstances of the tenant, the severe hardship which the tenant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced is greater than the hardship which the landlord would suffer if the term were reduced.
Where the Tribunal orders the reduction of a fixed term tenancy it may award reasonable compensation for any loss suffered as a result of the reduction in term.
The tenants said that they wanted to end the term of the tenancy early because the premises were old, single glazed, cold and as a result of a pay increase, they could afford a higher standard of accommodation.
Had there been nothing further to the tenant application, I would not have ordered an early termination to the tenancy, as the grounds for seeking that termination by the tenant were not unforeseen, nor would they result in a severe hardship.
But, in this case, the facts reflect an agreement by the landlord to an early termination subject to certain conditions. Those conditions did not include owner approval.
I find that the landlord has given conditional approval to the early termination. That approval was essentially subject to finding a suitable replacement tenant and the current tenant paying the initial break lease fee of $425.50.
The tenant paid the break lease fee to the landlord.
There was of course no absolute guarantee that the landlord would find a suitable replacement tenant. However the tenants’ evidence was that they put a post of social media regarding the premises and any interest in renting them. They say that they received a large number of replies from interested parties. The landlord did not contradict this in their evidence.
The tenants’ have continued to pay rent on the premises as well as their newly tenanted property.
Having considered all of the evidence, I consider that it would be reasonable to believe that it may have taken a month for the landlord to find suitable tenants, have a tenancy agreement signed and for the new tenants to pay a deposit. The date on which I find that the tenancy should be terminated is 4 August 2023.
Any rent paid by the tenants to the landlord for the period after 4 August 2023 is to be reimbursed to the tenant. I do not have the details of the payments made by the tenants during that period and so will leave that payment to the parties to arrange. If they are unable to reach agreement, they may seek further directions from the Tribunal.
The tenants paid the break lease fee of $425.50 to the landlord. I anticipate that none of the services or costs which the break lease fees are supposed to cover were actually carried out by the landlord. I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant for that payment.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4614652 — net $425.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Break Lease costs	$425.50	Break Lease costs
Net award	$425.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$425.50

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Whalan And Partners Limited T/As Bayleys Property Management Canterbury As Agent For Joanne Watts Jess must pay Adam John Odering and Zoe Alexandra Barczyk $425.50 immediately.
Whalan And Partners Limited T/As Property Management Canterbury As Agent For Joanne Watts Jess must reimburse Adam John Ordering and Zoe Alexandra Barczyk for all rent that has already been paid by the tenants to the landlord for the period commencing 4 August 2023 and ending 10 September 2023. If the parties are unable to agree on the amount they may apply to the Tribunal for further directions.
I declare that the tenancy ended on 4 August 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference.
The facts of this case are essentially undisputed by the parties.
The premises are at Flat 2, 108 Edward Street, Christchurch (“the premises”).
The fixed term tenancy of the premises commenced on 26 August 2022 and was to end on 10 September 2023.
By email dated 14 June 2023, the tenants advised the landlord that they were considering breaking their fixed term tenancy early and wanted to find out about the process and costs for doing so.
The landlord replied to the tenant by email on 14 June 2023 as follows; “We have received your advice that you wish to end your tenancy prior to the end of the fixed term that expires 10 th September 2023. Following this date your tenancy will be a periodic tenancy. We are prepared to release you from the fixed term tenancy only once suitable replacement tenants have been found, have signed a new tenancy agreement for the property, and paid a deposit. ....As per the Residential Tenancies Act tenants wanting to break their lease are responsible for the costs to do so.”
The tenants completed the break lease forms required by the landlord and returned them on Friday 16 June 2023 at 8.24 am.
Acting on that advice the tenants entered into a new tenancy agreement at another property on 16 June 2023.
On 16 June 2023 at 9.39 am, the landlord sent an email to the tenant recording the need for the landlord to seek approval from the owner prior to listing the property. By “approval”, I assume they meant approval to the breaking of the fixed term.
The owner did not agree to the early termination, leaving the landlord as agents for the owner with the option of attempting to find new tenants for the short period leading up to 10 September 2023.
The tenants say that they have relied on the 14 June 2023 email from the landlord as approval of the early termination of the lease, conditional upon the terms contained in that document.
The tenants moved out of the premises on 7 July 2023 and have since then been paying rent on their new property as well as the premises in question.
Section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that the Tribunal may reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy where because of an unforeseen change in the circumstances of the tenant, the severe hardship which the tenant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced is greater than the hardship which the landlord would suffer if the term were reduced.
Where the Tribunal orders the reduction of a fixed term tenancy it may award reasonable compensation for any loss suffered as a result of the reduction in term.
The tenants said that they wanted to end the term of the tenancy early because the premises were old, single glazed, cold and as a result of a pay increase, they could afford a higher standard of accommodation.
Had there been nothing further to the tenant application, I would not have ordered an early termination to the tenancy, as the grounds for seeking that termination by the tenant were not unforeseen, nor would they result in a severe hardship.
But, in this case, the facts reflect an agreement by the landlord to an early termination subject to certain conditions. Those conditions did not include owner approval.
I find that the landlord has given conditional approval to the early termination. That approval was essentially subject to finding a suitable replacement tenant and the current tenant paying the initial break lease fee of $425.50.
The tenant paid the break lease fee to the landlord.
There was of course no absolute guarantee that the landlord would find a suitable replacement tenant. However the tenants’ evidence was that they put a post of social media regarding the premises and any interest in renting them. They say that they received a large number of replies from interested parties. The landlord did not contradict this in their evidence.
The tenants’ have continued to pay rent on the premises as well as their newly tenanted property.
Having considered all of the evidence, I consider that it would be reasonable to believe that it may have taken a month for the landlord to find suitable tenants, have a tenancy agreement signed and for the new tenants to pay a deposit. The date on which I find that the tenancy should be terminated is 4 August 2023.
Any rent paid by the tenants to the landlord for the period after 4 August 2023 is to be reimbursed to the tenant. I do not have the details of the payments made by the tenants during that period and so will leave that payment to the parties to arrange. If they are unable to reach agreement, they may seek further directions from the Tribunal.
The tenants paid the break lease fee of $425.50 to the landlord. I anticipate that none of the services or costs which the break lease fees are supposed to cover were actually carried out by the landlord. I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant for that payment.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4614652 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 108 Edward Avenue, Edgeware, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4614652 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 108 Edward Avenue, Edgeware, Christchurch

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