What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4957476?

The tribunal order states: The term of the fixed-term tenancy of James David Hemana Smith and Camille

How much money was awarded in case 4957476?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Overpayment (1: $857.14 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4957476?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4957476?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10730476-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4957476?

The tribunal order states: The term of the fixed-term tenancy of James David Hemana Smith and Camille

How much money was awarded in case 4957476?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Overpayment (1: $857.14 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4957476?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4957476?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10730476-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Pukeko Way, Amberley, Amberley 7410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4957476 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4957476 — net $884.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent overpayment (1 to 10 May 2024	$857.14	Rent overpayment (1 to 10 May 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$884.14
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$884.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4957476 — net $884.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Rent overpayment (1 to 10 May 2024	$857.14	Rent overpayment (1 to 10 May 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$884.14
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$884.14

Order

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of James David Hemana Smith and Camille Yvette Valvoi at 12 Pukeko Way, Amberley, Amberley 7410 is reduced and now ends at 11:59pm on Tuesday 30 April 2024.
Morris And Co Property Management Limited As Agent For Lauren & Clayton Hughes must pay James David Hemana Smith and Camille Yvette Valvoi $884.14 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 25 August 2024 and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord made a cross application for rent arrears to 17 July 2024 and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
The tenants confirmed they entered into a fixed term tenancy for the rental premise commencing 26 August 2023 and ending on 25 August 2024.
The tenants say they were aware the owners lived in England and that the owners were planning to return to live in the rental premise sometime in October 2024. This indicates a willingness by the owners to have a two-month gap between when the tenants’ tenancy ended and when they would return to live in the property.
The tenants provided proof to the Tribunal that at the end of November 2023, the male tenant was made redundant. The tenants say this redundancy was sudden and unexpected and has resulted in the tenants being put under significant financial and emotional duress.
The male tenant confirmed he is the sole income earner for his family, which consists of him, his wife and two children.
The male tenant says he immediately starting to look for work, but it is well known that the job market in New Zealand all but stops at the beginning of December and does not start up again until the beginning of February.
The tenants confirmed they lived off their savings and eventually had to go to WINZ to get assistance as their savings were depleted and they could not afford to feed themselves and pay their other expenses after paying $600.00 rent per week. Family and friends tried to help where they could, but all of the tenants support is in Australia.
The female tenant’s mother came from Australia to help the tenants with childcare while they both looked unsuccessfully for work. The tenants say the female tenant’s mother offered to have them live with her in her two bedroom unit in Australia until they got back on their feet financially and emotionally. The male tenant has provided healthcare information that shows he is suffering from physical, mental and emotional distress as a result of the extreme financial hardship losing his job had resulted in for his family and the embarrassment of having to ask for financial assistance from the New Zealand Government as well as from friends and family.
Out of desperation, the tenants contacted the owners of the property, via WhatsApp on 23 February 2024, to inform them of their plight and that due to financial hardship, the tenant needed to terminate their lease early. This was so they could return to Australia to be closer to family support while the male tenant sought work. The tenants wanted to relocate to Australia to live with the female tenant’s mother until they got back on their feet as they were distraught at not being able to cover their rent and other expenses on the money they received from Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ).
The tenants say they got no response from the owners of the property, so on 23 February 2024, the emailed the property management company that manages the property and informed it of their severe financial hardship and requesting to end their tenancy early.
The tenants proved they continued to follow up their request for early termination of the tenancy every few days, mostly by email requesting their tenancy end in March or earlier if possible.
The tenants produced email evidence that shows the property management company did not confirm that the owners had agreed to release the tenants from the fixed term tenancy early until 12 April 2024, pending a new tenant being found to take over the remainder of the lease. This was 7 weeks after the tenants had alerted the owners and the property management company of the severe financial duress they were experiencing and their need to end the lease early. The tenants were left in a state of uncertainty all this time while they were getting into further debt with rent, they could not afford.
In the intervening period the tenants had requested assistance from the property management company to re-lease the property and had advertised the short-term lease themselves on various Facebook based groups. They were not in a financial position to undertake paid Trade me advertising or the like.
The tenants offered the landlord a viable solution on 9 March 2024, that they subsidise the new tenant’s rent by $150.00 per week to make it easier to find a short-term tenant, by offering them a significantly reduced rent. The landlord refused to accept this offer saying this solution would mean that if the new tenants wanted to extend their short-term lease, the landlord would be unable to increase the rent back to $600.00 per week once the tenants’ rent subsidy ceased. The tenant’s solution would have allowed the landlord to find a short-term lessee on Airbnb, or the like for this lower rent ,as by this time the tenants lease only had
5 months to run. The landlord’s excuse for not taking up the tenants solution was that the new tenant may want to extend their rental term beyond 25 August 2024 when the landlord knew the owners intended to return to live in the property in October 2024 and had planned a gap in between the tenancy ending and them moving back into their home, probably to allow them time to do any necessary maintenance or renovations.
The property management company finally advertised the 6-month lease around 17 March 2023 but did not find any suitable tenants.
The tenants were more successful at finding a potential suitable tenant, who the tenants were informed, by the property manager, had been accepted by the owners. The tenants the kept in touch with the property manager and in late Mach 2024 they negotiated various move in dates for the new tenant and dates the tenants liability for any further rent would cease. The end lease dates given to the tenants by the property manager were 18 April 2024 and then modified to 22 April 2024. Based on these emails the tenants were receiving from the property manager, they were under the reasonable belief by 28 March 2023 that the prospective tenant they found had been approved by the owner, the property managers had finalised her move in date as being 23 April 2024 and their responsibility for the rent ceased on 22 April 2024. Based on this reasonable belief, and their mounting debt, the tenants arranged to leave New Zealand on 2 May 2024 and to move out as soon in April as they could.
On 11 April 2024, the tenants say they spoke with the property manager and found that the landlord knew nothing about the prospective new tenant and hadn’t seen any of the applications from the tenants advertising campaign. In fact, the landlord had not even agreed to allow the tenants to start the break lease process until this date.
The tenants assume the tenant they found got tired of being mucked around and decided not to take the short-term lease.
The property management company confirmed they advertised the property for a second time on 12 April 2024, but mistakenly advertised it for a 12-month fixed term lease. Consequently, the expressions of interest were from a different pool of potential tenants than would be interested in what was by this time a four- month lease. This led to further delays in finding a suitable tenant.
Eventually, the property manager got approval from the owners to let the premise for a 12-month period. On this basis a new tenant moved into the premise on 18 July 2024.
The tenants say they moved out of the premise on 30 April 2024. The exit inspection was completed the same day and the keys handed back. The tenants left New Zealand on 2 May 2024 and have been living in a small two bedroom unit with their 2 children and the female tenant’s mother ever since.
The male tenant confirmed he is still unemployed and is suffering a mental and emotional break down from the ordeal he and his family had suffered in New Zealand. Firstly, because of his redundancy, just before Christmas, and more latterly because of the way the landlord mishandled the break lease situation.
The landlord was under an obligation to try to assist the tenants to get agreement from the owners to end the tenancy early or to reassign their lease to someone else for the remainder of the fixed term. It took longer than is reasonable in the circumstances to do so.
The evidence shows the tenants were proactive from 23 February 2024 at trying to break the lease and trying to find a mutually acceptable solution that allowed them to be able to stop accruing debt that they were not able to repay in their current financial circumstances. They took all reasonably practicable steps to mitigate their loss and any loss to the landlord.
The landlord on the other hand did nothing to assist the tenants to minimise or mitigate its loss. The evidence shows the owners were not communicate with their agent, the agent did not act in a timely manner and the agent made a series of decisions that prolonged finding a new tenant to move into the rental property and relieve the tenants from the $600.00 per week financial burden that was placing them under severe financial and emotional distress.

Should the Tribunal reduce the fix 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.
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The male tenant was made redundant on 23 November 2023, had not been successful at getting new employment and by February 2024 had been through all the family’s savings and was surviving on a government benefit that did not allow the tenants to cover their day to day living costs.
The tenants still have not found employment, are living with the female tenant’s mother (with the two tenants and their two children in one small bedroom) and are receiving a benefit from the Australian government while they try to find a way out of their severe financial, emotional and mental hardship. They say that if the term of the tenancy were not reduced they would have to go without food and other necessities as the benefit they receive is minimal and while they are not paying rent currently, they cannot afford to pay back rent arrears to 17 Juky 2024 and a $27.00 filing fee.
The property manager said the owners would suffer hardship if the term is reduced as they would have to cover the mortgage payments without any rent to do so for the period from 30 April 2024 to 17 July 2024. The property manager that attended the hearing had no other financial information from the owners, despite me having asked for this the day before the hearing.
The tenants say they have no assets and no savings, they took all reasonably practicable steps to find a tenant to take over their lease from late March to 25 August 2024 and but for the landlord’s failure to act in a timely manner lost a prospective tenant that wanted to move in mid to late April 2024. The tenants have proven their dire financial position by providing bank statements and being open about their growing debts with very little income and them living on the charity of friends and family.
The tenants have also provided letters from the male tenant’s healthcare professionals that prove he is suffering physical, mental and emotional ill health as a result of not being able to provide for his family and has been referred to a psychologist because of his fragile state. These health professionals have indicated that the addition of a further $5,255.58 debt would push him over the edge and compromise his health further. This is turn would prolong his ability to find another job and would leave him and his family crammed in a small bedroom at his mother in laws small two-bedroom unit unable to pay for his family’s basis needs.
The evidence shows, the landlords were able to sustain a loss of rent between 25 August 2024 and sometime in October when they planned to move back into the premise. The agent confirmed they own the house, albeit with a mortgage. If making the mortgage payments without rent coming in for up to two months was a struggle for them, they would have rented the house out right up to when they returned to live in it in October 2024.
I find, based on the evidence before me, the tenants’ hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship and I end the fixed term tenancy as at 11:59pm on 30 April 2024.
The parties have confirmed the tenants' paid rent to 10 May 2024. I award the tenants a rent rebate for the 10 days rent they have overpaid.
Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord has not sought any such compensation and expressly stated during the hearing it had waived the break lease fees incurred. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with their claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because Morris And Co Property Management Limited As Agent For Lauren & Clayton Hughes has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claims I dismiss its application for reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4957476 — Tenancy dispute at 12 Pukeko Way, Amberley, Amberley 7410

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4957476 — Tenancy dispute at 12 Pukeko Way, Amberley, Amberley 7410

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal reduce the fix term of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal reduce the fix term of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions