What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5007376?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5007376?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5007376?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5007376?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10910759-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5007376?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5007376?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5007376?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5007376?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10910759-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12A Lyttelton Street, Lincoln, Lincoln 7608 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5007376 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant sought a reduction in the fixed term tenancy. Background
The tenancy began on 1 May 2024 and was for a fixed term ending on 31 October 2024.The landlord intended to return to live at the premises and gave the property manager instructions to give the tenant 90 days’ notice, ending the tenancy on 9 December.
The notice was given on 9 September 2024 where the property manager stated. “The owner has advised that she would like to move back into her property but understands that she should of given us three months’ notice sooner. The owner is prepared to work with us all to find a way forward. I hereby give the required 90 day notice of the owner wishing to move back into 12A Littleton St. Lincoln, this date will be 9 December 2024. All fixed term presidential tendencies one month prior to the expiry date revert to ‘periodic tenancy’ which means if you wish to vacate sooner tenants are required to give one months written notice in writing.’
The tenant replied on 13 September 2024, ‘I understand from our conversation on the phone that the correct notice would have been 63 days for the owner moving back in. This notice was given during the fixed term tenancy and therefore supersedes the fixed term tenancy and reverts to a periodic tenancy on the day which you provided the notice. As a result, we are able to give 28 days notice on that tenancy. If she wanted to end the tenancy on 31st October as you suggest (at the end of the fixed term) then the correct thing to do would have been to let the fixed term expire and not renew. We hereby give 28 days notice on the periodic tenancy from today Friday 13 September therefore our last day of tenancy will be Friday 11 October 2024’.
The tenant has signed a new fixed term tenancy agreement starting on 5 October 2024 believing that the communication from the property manager in the 9 September email caused the fixed term tenancy to revert to periodic and therefore a tenancy that could be terminated by notice. She seeks the fixed term to be reduced so that she can afford the deposit for a new premises. She said that she cannot afford to pay to weekly rents.
The tenant agreed that she found a property sooner than she thought and had to take it as she wanted to stay in the same school zone and had a dog and these two factors made it hard to find a rental property.
The landlord said that she had tried to find a middle ground for the parties, but the landlord was unable to move into her premises earlier than 31 October due to a work contract and the costs to relocate from the North Island. She would suffer financial consequences if the tenancy was reduced. The law Section 66(1) RTA provides: Reduction or termination of fixed-term tenancy On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.
Section 66(1) RTA is a test of a high threshold. A tenant must first establish that there was an unforeseen change in their circumstances.
Both parties have not understood the law in relation to fixed and periodic tenancies correctly. A fixed term tenancy cannot be terminated by notice and only continues as a periodic tenancy on expiry of the fixed term. See section 60A(1), RTA. I do not find that by giving the tenant 90 days’ notice to end the tenancy that this converts the tenancy to periodic and the 90 day notice, even if it had been valid, would take the end of the tenancy to 9 December which would not be any aid to the tenant.
The landlord has, since the issuing the notice on 9 September, agreed to the tenancy ending on 31 October 2024 and this was confirmed by email.
The tenant claims that due to the wrong notice given and the owner being ‘prepared to work with us all to find a way forward’ she believed that the tenancy was periodic. She relied on the landlord’s statement that they would work together’ so signed a new fixed term agreement and gave notice. She said that the email was confusing and misleading. The tenant states that this was an unforeseen change in their circumstances.
I do not agree. The ending of the fixed term tenancy on 31 October 2024 was not unforeseen as this was recorded in the signed tenancy agreement and signing of a new tenancy was not unforeseen as the tenant sought this. I find that the tenant as incorrect to assume that a new tenancy could be signed ending a fixed term tenancy early based on the statement by the landlord in the email about ‘working to find a way forward’.
The confusing email from the landlord is not an unforeseen change. The landlord said that they were trying to give the tenant plenty of time to see the school year out and find a new property. The unforeseen element was rather how quickly the tenant was able to secure a satisfactory new rental property.
I find that the tenant has not proven that there was an unforeseen change in their circumstance. I accept that the email was confusing, but this did not mount to an unforeseen change.
In the absence of finding that there has been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances, the Tribunal cannot order a reduction of the fixed term.
The doctrine of equitable was considered. Estoppel arises where one party has acted in reliance on the other party’s promise to their detriment, and so it would be inequitable or unconscionable to allow that party not to be bound by such promise or assurance.
I find that the tenant could have no realist expectation that the fixed tenancy had become periodic because the landlord said that ‘The owner is prepared to work with us all to find a way forward’. This is not an express or clear representation that the tenant could reasonably rely on.
The application for a reduction of a fixed term tenancy is therefore dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant sought a reduction in the fixed term tenancy. Background
The tenancy began on 1 May 2024 and was for a fixed term ending on 31 October 2024.The landlord intended to return to live at the premises and gave the property manager instructions to give the tenant 90 days’ notice, ending the tenancy on 9 December.
The notice was given on 9 September 2024 where the property manager stated. “The owner has advised that she would like to move back into her property but understands that she should of given us three months’ notice sooner. The owner is prepared to work with us all to find a way forward. I hereby give the required 90 day notice of the owner wishing to move back into 12A Littleton St. Lincoln, this date will be 9 December 2024. All fixed term presidential tendencies one month prior to the expiry date revert to ‘periodic tenancy’ which means if you wish to vacate sooner tenants are required to give one months written notice in writing.’
The tenant replied on 13 September 2024, ‘I understand from our conversation on the phone that the correct notice would have been 63 days for the owner moving back in. This notice was given during the fixed term tenancy and therefore supersedes the fixed term tenancy and reverts to a periodic tenancy on the day which you provided the notice. As a result, we are able to give 28 days notice on that tenancy. If she wanted to end the tenancy on 31st October as you suggest (at the end of the fixed term) then the correct thing to do would have been to let the fixed term expire and not renew. We hereby give 28 days notice on the periodic tenancy from today Friday 13 September therefore our last day of tenancy will be Friday 11 October 2024’.
The tenant has signed a new fixed term tenancy agreement starting on 5 October 2024 believing that the communication from the property manager in the 9 September email caused the fixed term tenancy to revert to periodic and therefore a tenancy that could be terminated by notice. She seeks the fixed term to be reduced so that she can afford the deposit for a new premises. She said that she cannot afford to pay to weekly rents.
The tenant agreed that she found a property sooner than she thought and had to take it as she wanted to stay in the same school zone and had a dog and these two factors made it hard to find a rental property.
The landlord said that she had tried to find a middle ground for the parties, but the landlord was unable to move into her premises earlier than 31 October due to a work contract and the costs to relocate from the North Island. She would suffer financial consequences if the tenancy was reduced. The law Section 66(1) RTA provides: Reduction or termination of fixed-term tenancy On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.
Section 66(1) RTA is a test of a high threshold. A tenant must first establish that there was an unforeseen change in their circumstances.
Both parties have not understood the law in relation to fixed and periodic tenancies correctly. A fixed term tenancy cannot be terminated by notice and only continues as a periodic tenancy on expiry of the fixed term. See section 60A(1), RTA. I do not find that by giving the tenant 90 days’ notice to end the tenancy that this converts the tenancy to periodic and the 90 day notice, even if it had been valid, would take the end of the tenancy to 9 December which would not be any aid to the tenant.
The landlord has, since the issuing the notice on 9 September, agreed to the tenancy ending on 31 October 2024 and this was confirmed by email.
The tenant claims that due to the wrong notice given and the owner being ‘prepared to work with us all to find a way forward’ she believed that the tenancy was periodic. She relied on the landlord’s statement that they would work together’ so signed a new fixed term agreement and gave notice. She said that the email was confusing and misleading. The tenant states that this was an unforeseen change in their circumstances.
I do not agree. The ending of the fixed term tenancy on 31 October 2024 was not unforeseen as this was recorded in the signed tenancy agreement and signing of a new tenancy was not unforeseen as the tenant sought this. I find that the tenant as incorrect to assume that a new tenancy could be signed ending a fixed term tenancy early based on the statement by the landlord in the email about ‘working to find a way forward’.
The confusing email from the landlord is not an unforeseen change. The landlord said that they were trying to give the tenant plenty of time to see the school year out and find a new property. The unforeseen element was rather how quickly the tenant was able to secure a satisfactory new rental property.
I find that the tenant has not proven that there was an unforeseen change in their circumstance. I accept that the email was confusing, but this did not mount to an unforeseen change.
In the absence of finding that there has been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances, the Tribunal cannot order a reduction of the fixed term.
The doctrine of equitable was considered. Estoppel arises where one party has acted in reliance on the other party’s promise to their detriment, and so it would be inequitable or unconscionable to allow that party not to be bound by such promise or assurance.
I find that the tenant could have no realist expectation that the fixed tenancy had become periodic because the landlord said that ‘The owner is prepared to work with us all to find a way forward’. This is not an express or clear representation that the tenant could reasonably rely on.
The application for a reduction of a fixed term tenancy is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5007376 — Tenancy dispute at 12A Lyttelton Street, Lincoln, Lincoln 7608

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5007376 — Tenancy dispute at 12A Lyttelton Street, Lincoln, Lincoln 7608

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions