What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4851140?

The tribunal order states: The application for a reduction of the term of the fixed-term tenancy of Tom

How much money was awarded in case 4851140?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4851140?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4851140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10303320-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4851140?

The tribunal order states: The application for a reduction of the term of the fixed-term tenancy of Tom

How much money was awarded in case 4851140?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4851140?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4851140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10303320-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

115 Bishop Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4851140 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for a reduction of the term of the fixed-term tenancy of Tom Morgan and Aliah Franklyn at 115 Bishop Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I held by phone. Ms Flanagan represented the landlord.
The tenants have applied for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy which was due to end on 13 February 2025.
The tenancy started on 9 February 2024. The tenants vacated after 2 weeks. The premises were re-tenanted on 12 April 2024. The tenants seek to be released from the tenancy as of 15 March 2024.
A tenancy agreement is a contract. The Tribunal does not lightly interfere with contracts. But section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) enables it to reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy in some situations.
There is no obligation on a landlord to respond to a tenant’s request to terminate a fixed term tenancy within a particular period nor to agree to end a tenancy early – see Dmitrovic and Miles v FH 2018 Limited [2021] NZTT 4288277.
And where the parties agree to end a tenancy early the landlord can charge rent until a new tenancy starts and costs that relate to finding new tenants (sometimes called a break lease fee) unless there is clear evidence that the landlord waives those costs – see Manaena v Positive Asset Management Ltd CIV-2021-085-148, Wellington District Court 31 May 2021.
Here, there is no landlord application for costs from the tenant, although a demand has been made. Without a landlord application for costs, the Tribunal cannot make an order. The hearing today was limited to the issue of whether (or when) the tenants should be released from the fixed term tenancy.
The tenants gave evidence that they sold their former home. Because they could not extend the settlement date, they ‘locked in’ this rental property. They said they were ‘cruising’ not specifically looking for another property. However, they then attended an auction and successfully bid on a property which they purchased.
The tenants said they had no intentions of purchasing a property during the year but were ‘leisurely looking’.
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) RTA.
Section 66(1) RTA is a test of high threshold. I do not find that deciding to purchase a property, when the tenants had sold their previous property but without a specific intention to buy again, is an unforeseen change in circumstances. That the tenants were ‘leisurely looking’ means that they were open to purchasing a property, which is what they did, even if earlier than they anticipated.
To find otherwise would mean that any tenant could sell their property, enter a fixed term tenancy, and then expect to be released from it on their terms whenever they decided to buy. That is against the principles of contract law generally and does not meet the section 66(1) RTA threshold.
Without an established unforeseen change in circumstances, the application cannot succeed. I need not consider the competing hardships of the parties because the application does not clear the first hurdle.
Even where the Tribunal does reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy it usually compensates the landlord for the loss of the contract, which section 66 RTA also provides for. Often the Tribunal will award the landlord the bond as compensation for that loss.
Should the parties not be able to agree on the costs that follow the tenants breaking their fixed term tenancy (taking into account the case law to which I have referred) the landlord will need to make an application for those costs.
Pending an agreement (or an application) the bond will remain at the Bond Centre.
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Order

The application for a reduction of the term of the fixed-term tenancy of Tom Morgan and Aliah Franklyn at 115 Bishop Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I held by phone. Ms Flanagan represented the landlord.
The tenants have applied for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy which was due to end on 13 February 2025.
The tenancy started on 9 February 2024. The tenants vacated after 2 weeks. The premises were re-tenanted on 12 April 2024. The tenants seek to be released from the tenancy as of 15 March 2024.
A tenancy agreement is a contract. The Tribunal does not lightly interfere with contracts. But section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) enables it to reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy in some situations.
There is no obligation on a landlord to respond to a tenant’s request to terminate a fixed term tenancy within a particular period nor to agree to end a tenancy early – see Dmitrovic and Miles v FH 2018 Limited [2021] NZTT 4288277.
And where the parties agree to end a tenancy early the landlord can charge rent until a new tenancy starts and costs that relate to finding new tenants (sometimes called a break lease fee) unless there is clear evidence that the landlord waives those costs – see Manaena v Positive Asset Management Ltd CIV-2021-085-148, Wellington District Court 31 May 2021.
Here, there is no landlord application for costs from the tenant, although a demand has been made. Without a landlord application for costs, the Tribunal cannot make an order. The hearing today was limited to the issue of whether (or when) the tenants should be released from the fixed term tenancy.
The tenants gave evidence that they sold their former home. Because they could not extend the settlement date, they ‘locked in’ this rental property. They said they were ‘cruising’ not specifically looking for another property. However, they then attended an auction and successfully bid on a property which they purchased.
The tenants said they had no intentions of purchasing a property during the year but were ‘leisurely looking’.
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) RTA.
Section 66(1) RTA is a test of high threshold. I do not find that deciding to purchase a property, when the tenants had sold their previous property but without a specific intention to buy again, is an unforeseen change in circumstances. That the tenants were ‘leisurely looking’ means that they were open to purchasing a property, which is what they did, even if earlier than they anticipated.
To find otherwise would mean that any tenant could sell their property, enter a fixed term tenancy, and then expect to be released from it on their terms whenever they decided to buy. That is against the principles of contract law generally and does not meet the section 66(1) RTA threshold.
Without an established unforeseen change in circumstances, the application cannot succeed. I need not consider the competing hardships of the parties because the application does not clear the first hurdle.
Even where the Tribunal does reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy it usually compensates the landlord for the loss of the contract, which section 66 RTA also provides for. Often the Tribunal will award the landlord the bond as compensation for that loss.
Should the parties not be able to agree on the costs that follow the tenants breaking their fixed term tenancy (taking into account the case law to which I have referred) the landlord will need to make an application for those costs.
Pending an agreement (or an application) the bond will remain at the Bond Centre.
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4851140 — Tenancy dispute at 115 Bishop Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4851140 — Tenancy dispute at 115 Bishop Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions