What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4896261?

The tribunal order states: The application for the reduction of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4896261?

Rent Arrears: $4,455.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4896261?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4896261?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10939329-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4896261?

The tribunal order states: The application for the reduction of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4896261?

Rent Arrears: $4,455.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4896261?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4896261?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10939329-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 129 Tasman Street, Mount Cook, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 4896261 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4896261 — net $4,475.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent arrears to 9 October 2024	$4,455.00	Rent arrears to 9 October 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,475.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,475.44

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Cooke and Mr Hudson represented the landlord.

The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end in February 2026. The landlord has applied for rent arrears. The current position is that the tenant moved out on 14 September 2024 and the landlord is actively looking for a replacement tenant.

The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in s 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.

There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular the applicant will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in their circumstances b. the change was unforeseen c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.

This is the tenant’s claim to prove, which means she needed to bring the better evidence to the hearing.

The tenant submitted that there was a change in circumstances because her flat has holes in the walls, gaps around the edge of the floor, black mould, rotting parts of the walls, a rotting front step, rotting balcony posts which are a hazard and make the building unsafe, a family living upstairs making noise, draughts, and a sash window that can’t be opened. The tenant said there were also breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). All of this has made her unwell.

I do not find that there were breaches relating to a ground moisture barrier because one cannot be installed if the flat is on a concrete pad. There is no HHS requirement to insulate walls.

I had an affidavit from the tenant’s father in support of the application. His evidence about the posts and the concrete was helpful. We had break during the hearing to allow the tenant to email photos in support of her claim as well as an action plan from the Sustainability Trust.

The landlord said all the issues raised during the tenancy and in the photos have been addressed, with the exception of the sash window. Mr Cooke said a tradesperson will check the window works properly, and for draughts. They said they raised the issue of noise with the upstairs tenants in July, after it was raised by the tenant.

The tenant replied that the house is still cold, draughty, and mouldy but she did not have any photos showing me the condition when she moved out. The Sustainability Trust’s action plan was from March, so that did not help establish the condition when she moved out. The affidavit states the rotten step, the sash window, some rotten boards by the front door, and the mould have not been resolved.

I have seen a photo of the step and this is not sufficient for me to end the fixed term tenancy. The sash window has not been repaired, but it is unlikely this would be sufficient for me to reduce the term. Without photos of the rotten boards and the mould it is very hard for me to establish if it is unreasonable for the tenant to live in the house. She might have been unwell, but there is no evidence at all connecting her poor health with the condition of the flat. The lack of supporting evidence means the tenant has not proved there was an unforeseen change in circumstances. Her application for the reduction of the fixed term is dismissed.

This means the tenancy continues, and the tenant has an ongoing obligation to pay rent.

The landlord provided a rent summary to the date of the hearing. The tenant agreed she had missed some rent but not as much as shown on the rent summary. It seems most likely to me the landlord has the better evidence about the payment of rent. I find the rent claim is proved.

Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4896261 — net $4,475.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent arrears to 9 October 2024	$4,455.00	Rent arrears to 9 October 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,475.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$4,475.44

Order

The application for the reduction of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.
Melanie Watterson must pay Property Management Wellington Limited $4,475.44 immediately as shown in the table:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Cooke and Mr Hudson represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end in February 2026. The landlord has applied for rent arrears. The current position is that the tenant moved out on 14 September 2024 and the landlord is actively looking for a replacement tenant.
The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in s 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular the applicant will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in their circumstances b. the change was unforeseen c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove, which means she needed to bring the better evidence to the hearing.
The tenant submitted that there was a change in circumstances because her flat has holes in the walls, gaps around the edge of the floor, black mould, rotting parts of the walls, a rotting front step, rotting balcony posts which are a hazard and make the building unsafe, a family living upstairs making noise, draughts, and a sash window that can’t be opened. The tenant said there were also breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). All of this has made her unwell.
I do not find that there were breaches relating to a ground moisture barrier because one cannot be installed if the flat is on a concrete pad. There is no HHS requirement to insulate walls.
I had an affidavit from the tenant’s father in support of the application. His evidence about the posts and the concrete was helpful. We had break during the hearing to allow the tenant to email photos in support of her claim as well as an action plan from the Sustainability Trust.
The landlord said all the issues raised during the tenancy and in the photos have been addressed, with the exception of the sash window. Mr Cooke said a tradesperson will check the window works properly, and for draughts. They said they raised the issue of noise with the upstairs tenants in July, after it was raised by the tenant.
The tenant replied that the house is still cold, draughty, and mouldy but she did not have any photos showing me the condition when she moved out. The Sustainability Trust’s action plan was from March, so that did not help establish the condition when she moved out. The affidavit states the rotten step, the sash window, some rotten boards by the front door, and the mould have not been resolved.
I have seen a photo of the step and this is not sufficient for me to end the fixed term tenancy. The sash window has not been repaired, but it is unlikely this would be sufficient for me to reduce the term. Without photos of the rotten boards and the mould it is very hard for me to establish if it is unreasonable for the tenant to live in the house. She might have been unwell, but there is no evidence at all connecting her poor health with the condition of the flat. The lack of supporting evidence means the tenant has not proved there was an unforeseen change in circumstances. Her application for the reduction of the fixed term is dismissed.
This means the tenancy continues, and the tenant has an ongoing obligation to pay rent.
The landlord provided a rent summary to the date of the hearing. The tenant agreed she had missed some rent but not as much as shown on the rent summary. It seems most likely to me the landlord has the better evidence about the payment of rent. I find the rent claim is proved.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4896261 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 129 Tasman Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4896261 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 129 Tasman Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

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