What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4677430?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4677430?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677430?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677430?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9613975-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4677430?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4677430?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677430?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677430?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9613975-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

290A Ohiro Road, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4677430 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by phone. Ms Billing represented the landlord.
The tenant has a fixed term tenancy until 23 January 2024.
The tenant asked the landlord to be released from the tenancy. By that, she meant that she wished to assign the tenancy to a new tenant. The landlord initially understood her to mean that she wanted to ‘break the lease’ in other words to have the term of the fixed term tenancy reduced.
That misunderstanding has meant that no replacement tenant has been found. The tenancy ends in about ten weeks’ time. Relevant law
The starting point is that tenancy agreements are contracts that are subject both to the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and to the general law of contract.
There are two routes by which a tenant can be released from a fixed term tenancy.
Section 43B RTA allows a tenant to assign a tenancy with the prior written consent of the landlord and subject to any reasonable conditions attached to that consent. Those conditions can include charges for credit checks and other administrative costs.
A landlord cannot unreasonably withhold consent or attach any unreasonable conditions to the consent.
Section 66 RTA allows a party to a fixed term tenancy to apply to reduce the term of the tenancy.
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.

What happened?

In this case there was initial confusion between the parties – the tenant thought she had made it clear that she was seeking to assign the tenancy; the landlord thought she was seeking to be released from the fixed term tenancy.
Separate processes apply depending on what course of action is being sought.
Because the rent on the tenancy had not increased since the start of the tenancy in 2022, the landlord advised the tenant that the rent would increase when a new tenant was found.
The tenant thought there would be an immediate rent increase (as there would have been if the tenant were released from the fixed term tenancy and a new tenancy commenced). The landlord later clarified that notice of a rent increase would have to be given in terms of the tenancy agreement and the RTA were the tenancy to be assigned.
Ms Billing set that out quite clearly in her email to the tenant dated 11 September 2023.
The tenant found a possible replacement tenant but when she advised him of the rent increase he decided not to take up the tenancy. The tenant has not been successful in finding a new tenant to assign the tenancy to.
The tenant feels aggrieved by what she feels was bad communication from the landlord and as a result considers that she should be released from the tenancy. Findings
The tenant’s application to be released from the tenancy cannot succeed.
First, there was a genuine misunderstanding when the tenant first asked to be released from the tenancy. She was requesting to assign the tenancy; the landlord understood her to want the term of the tenancy reduced.
There were deficiencies in communications both ways. But Ms Billing’s email dated 11 September 2023 was clear about the process and how a rent increase would apply.
Second, once the landlord realised that the tenant was asking to assign the tenancy, it did not oppose that nor impose any unreasonable conditions. Advising that there would be a notified rent increase was prudent given that the tenant was trying to find a replacement tenant.
Third, while the tenant was not seeking a reduction of the term of the tenancy then, she is now. So, the Tribunal has to consider whether the section 66 RTA criteria are met.
The tenant gave evidence about her health and employment situations. I will not record the details here.
The threshold to be released from a fixed term tenancy is high as it amounts to the Tribunal setting aside a contract. Generally, parties are bound by the terms of contracts they enter.
The tenant’s evidence about changes in her life do not meet the threshold to be released from the fixed term tenancy. There has been no unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The changes that occurred are ones that would be considered reasonably foreseeable.
And even if that criterion were met, the Tribunal has to weigh the parties’ respective hardships – severe hardship for the tenant, (ordinary) hardship for the landlord.
The tenant did not establish anything that would amount to severe hardship. The landlord only has to show hardship. Ms Billing referred to the owner of the premises not being prepared to consider a change to the contract (an early release from the tenancy) because the owner would face hardship due to increased mortgage interest costs and no rental income for a period until a replacement tenant were found.
The tenant still has the option of trying to find a replacement tenant for the remaining term of the tenancy (about 10 weeks) though that is probably unrealistic. The landlord still does not oppose the assignment of the tenancy.
That the tenant has chosen to try and find a replacement tenant herself rather than elect to have the landlord company do so for her (due to cost) has probably hindered her. But that is not an issue for the Tribunal.
The tenant has failed to establish either that the landlord unreasonably withheld its consent to assign the tenancy, nor that it imposed any unreasonable condition on the assignment.
The tenant has not established that the section 66 RTA criteria are met such that the Tribunal should intervene and release her from the fixed term tenancy. Result
The application is dismissed. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry neither party sought a name suppression order.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by phone. Ms Billing represented the landlord.
The tenant has a fixed term tenancy until 23 January 2024.
The tenant asked the landlord to be released from the tenancy. By that, she meant that she wished to assign the tenancy to a new tenant. The landlord initially understood her to mean that she wanted to ‘break the lease’ in other words to have the term of the fixed term tenancy reduced.
That misunderstanding has meant that no replacement tenant has been found. The tenancy ends in about ten weeks’ time. Relevant law
The starting point is that tenancy agreements are contracts that are subject both to the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and to the general law of contract.
There are two routes by which a tenant can be released from a fixed term tenancy.
Section 43B RTA allows a tenant to assign a tenancy with the prior written consent of the landlord and subject to any reasonable conditions attached to that consent. Those conditions can include charges for credit checks and other administrative costs.
A landlord cannot unreasonably withhold consent or attach any unreasonable conditions to the consent.
Section 66 RTA allows a party to a fixed term tenancy to apply to reduce the term of the tenancy.
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.

What happened?

In this case there was initial confusion between the parties – the tenant thought she had made it clear that she was seeking to assign the tenancy; the landlord thought she was seeking to be released from the fixed term tenancy.
Separate processes apply depending on what course of action is being sought.
Because the rent on the tenancy had not increased since the start of the tenancy in 2022, the landlord advised the tenant that the rent would increase when a new tenant was found.
The tenant thought there would be an immediate rent increase (as there would have been if the tenant were released from the fixed term tenancy and a new tenancy commenced). The landlord later clarified that notice of a rent increase would have to be given in terms of the tenancy agreement and the RTA were the tenancy to be assigned.
Ms Billing set that out quite clearly in her email to the tenant dated 11 September 2023.
The tenant found a possible replacement tenant but when she advised him of the rent increase he decided not to take up the tenancy. The tenant has not been successful in finding a new tenant to assign the tenancy to.
The tenant feels aggrieved by what she feels was bad communication from the landlord and as a result considers that she should be released from the tenancy. Findings
The tenant’s application to be released from the tenancy cannot succeed.
First, there was a genuine misunderstanding when the tenant first asked to be released from the tenancy. She was requesting to assign the tenancy; the landlord understood her to want the term of the tenancy reduced.
There were deficiencies in communications both ways. But Ms Billing’s email dated 11 September 2023 was clear about the process and how a rent increase would apply.
Second, once the landlord realised that the tenant was asking to assign the tenancy, it did not oppose that nor impose any unreasonable conditions. Advising that there would be a notified rent increase was prudent given that the tenant was trying to find a replacement tenant.
Third, while the tenant was not seeking a reduction of the term of the tenancy then, she is now. So, the Tribunal has to consider whether the section 66 RTA criteria are met.
The tenant gave evidence about her health and employment situations. I will not record the details here.
The threshold to be released from a fixed term tenancy is high as it amounts to the Tribunal setting aside a contract. Generally, parties are bound by the terms of contracts they enter.
The tenant’s evidence about changes in her life do not meet the threshold to be released from the fixed term tenancy. There has been no unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The changes that occurred are ones that would be considered reasonably foreseeable.
And even if that criterion were met, the Tribunal has to weigh the parties’ respective hardships – severe hardship for the tenant, (ordinary) hardship for the landlord.
The tenant did not establish anything that would amount to severe hardship. The landlord only has to show hardship. Ms Billing referred to the owner of the premises not being prepared to consider a change to the contract (an early release from the tenancy) because the owner would face hardship due to increased mortgage interest costs and no rental income for a period until a replacement tenant were found.
The tenant still has the option of trying to find a replacement tenant for the remaining term of the tenancy (about 10 weeks) though that is probably unrealistic. The landlord still does not oppose the assignment of the tenancy.
That the tenant has chosen to try and find a replacement tenant herself rather than elect to have the landlord company do so for her (due to cost) has probably hindered her. But that is not an issue for the Tribunal.
The tenant has failed to establish either that the landlord unreasonably withheld its consent to assign the tenancy, nor that it imposed any unreasonable condition on the assignment.
The tenant has not established that the section 66 RTA criteria are met such that the Tribunal should intervene and release her from the fixed term tenancy. Result
The application is dismissed. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677430 — Tenancy dispute at 290A Ohiro Road, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677430 — Tenancy dispute at 290A Ohiro Road, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What happened?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

What happened?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions