What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5055930?

The tribunal order states: The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Amandeep Kaur Singh, Amandeep Singh

How much money was awarded in case 5055930?

Compensation: $275.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5055930?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5055930?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11166518-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5055930?

The tribunal order states: The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Amandeep Kaur Singh, Amandeep Singh

How much money was awarded in case 5055930?

Compensation: $275.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5055930?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5055930?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11166518-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

113 Percy Dyett Drive, Karori, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5055930 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5055930 — net $2,975.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 November 2024	$2,700.00	Rent arrears to 14 November 2024
Compensation for fixed term reduction	$275.00	Compensation for fixed term reduction
Net award	$2,975.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,975.00

Order

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Amandeep Kaur Singh, Amandeep Singh and Surjeet Singh at 113 Percy Dyett Drive, Karori, Wellington 6012 is reduced and now ends at 11.59 pm on Wednesday 1 January 2025. Full rent is due up until this date.
Amandeep Kaur Singh, Amandeep Singh and Surjeet Singh must pay Gita Ravji and Rajesh Ravji $2,975.00 immediately as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The landlord’s claims
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and produced a rent summary that is current up until 14 November 2024. The rent summary shows that as of that date, the tenants are in rent arrear by $2,700.00. This amount was not disputed by the tenants. The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord also brought claims for damage to cupboards and for cleaning that they say is required. As the tenancy is still afoot, and the damage to the cupboards has not yet been repaired, I decline to make any award for these claims. These claims can be made if necessary following the end of the tenancy. The tenants’ claims
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 8 February 2025.
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.
The tenancy was originally for Ms Kaur, her husband and child, and two other adult males. During the tenancy one of the adult males has moved out. Ms Kaur now has a second child.
Ms Kaur stated that due to her mother-in-law in India being ill and other family stresses, her husband moved to Australia in July 2024. Since then, Ms Kaur struggled to pay the rent and eventually stopped contributing.
Mr Singh continued to pay the bulk of the rent, although not the full amount.
Ms Kaur stated that in October 2024 she moved to Australia and from Australia she will be moving to India.
Mr Singh stated that he advertised for flatmates on Facebook and Trademe in October 2024 but was unable to find anyone to move in. Mr Singh stated that he is no longer staying at the property, and he would like the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy immediately.
Ms Ravji, the landlord, stated that Ms Kaur raised the possibility of ending the tenancy early in May 2024 so she could move to Australia for work. Ms Ravji stated that in August 2024 Ms Kaur first stated that her mother-in-law was ill. Ms Ravji expressed some scepticism about the truthfulness of Ms Kaur’s claims that her change of circumstances was unforeseen.
A tenancy agreement is a contract between the parties, and in the first instance the standard rules of contract apply. However, as stated above, the Tribunal may reduce the term of the agreement under certain conditions.
I am satisfied there has been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. First, Mr Surjeet Singh’s circumstances have changed in that both his co-tenants have left not only the premises, but also the country. I have no trouble believing that he didn’t foresee this happening at the time he signed the renewal of the tenancy agreement.
I am also satisfied that Ms Kaur did not foresee her husband leaving the country when she signed the renewal of the tenancy agreement. I accept at face value her claim that her mother-in-law in India is unwell, and for this reason she and/or her husband may have to return to India. Again, I have no reason to doubt Ms Kaur’s information that had she anticipated having to move to Australia or India at the beginning of the tenancy, she would not have signed the renewal of the tenancy agreement.
Mr Amandeep Singh did not attend the hearing as he is also in Australia. Again I am not in any doubt that he did not foresee his family moving to Australia when he signed the renewal of the tenancy agreement early in 2024.
Ms Kaur gave information that she has been struggling financially since her husband left.
I accept that the tenants will face severe hardship if they have to pay $805.00 per week rent on a property for a further 9 weeks while none of them are living there.
The landlord stated that they will face financial hardship if the tenancy is terminated early. Ms Ravji stated that the mortgage repayments are approximately $1,000.00 per week. Ms Ravji stated that when the property was advertised at $805.00 per week after Ms Kaur indicated she would be moving out, they received no interest. Ms Ravji then reduced the rent to $795.00 per week and received some interest although no one came to view the property.
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.
Because the landlord’s hardship can be compensated by the tenants “topping up” the rent, I determine the tenants’ hardship in having to pay $805.00 per week rent for a property they are not living at, exceeds the hardship that will be caused to the landlord if the fixed term tenancy is reduced, and the tenants ordered to pay compensation to the landlord.
In paying compensation to the landlord from the early termination date of the tenancy until the end of the fixed term, I consider the tenants will still be better off than if the fixed term tenancy was not terminated and the tenants were liable for the full rent until the end of the fixed term.
Being early December I acknowledge it is an awkward time of year for landlords when tenants terminate a tenancy. Because of this I am ordering a 28-days’ notice period, during which the full rent will be due. This lasts until Wednesday 1 January 2025. From 1 January 2025 until the end of the fixed term tenancy period (8 February 2025) I determine the tenants are liable for $50.00 per week to compensate the landlord for an expected reduction in rent. This amounts to $275.00. The reduction in rent is in anticipation of the rental market having softened and the potential difficulty in finding tenants over the Christmas period.
If the landlord finds a suitable tenant before 1 January 2025, I expect the tenants will accommodate the landlord with an earlier termination in return for a reduction in the rent owed.
I do not make an award for the landlord’s reletting costs as these were to be duly incurred by the landlord in early 2025 in any event.
Because both parties have been partially successful in their claims, I make no award regarding reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5055930 — net $2,975.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 November 2024	$2,700.00	Rent arrears to 14 November 2024
Compensation for fixed term reduction	$275.00	Compensation for fixed term reduction
Net award	$2,975.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,975.00

Order

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Amandeep Kaur Singh, Amandeep Singh and Surjeet Singh at 113 Percy Dyett Drive, Karori, Wellington 6012 is reduced and now ends at 11.59 pm on Wednesday 1 January 2025. Full rent is due up until this date.
Amandeep Kaur Singh, Amandeep Singh and Surjeet Singh must pay Gita Ravji and Rajesh Ravji $2,975.00 immediately as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The landlord’s claims
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and produced a rent summary that is current up until 14 November 2024. The rent summary shows that as of that date, the tenants are in rent arrear by $2,700.00. This amount was not disputed by the tenants. The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord also brought claims for damage to cupboards and for cleaning that they say is required. As the tenancy is still afoot, and the damage to the cupboards has not yet been repaired, I decline to make any award for these claims. These claims can be made if necessary following the end of the tenancy. The tenants’ claims
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 8 February 2025.
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.
The tenancy was originally for Ms Kaur, her husband and child, and two other adult males. During the tenancy one of the adult males has moved out. Ms Kaur now has a second child.
Ms Kaur stated that due to her mother-in-law in India being ill and other family stresses, her husband moved to Australia in July 2024. Since then, Ms Kaur struggled to pay the rent and eventually stopped contributing.
Mr Singh continued to pay the bulk of the rent, although not the full amount.
Ms Kaur stated that in October 2024 she moved to Australia and from Australia she will be moving to India.
Mr Singh stated that he advertised for flatmates on Facebook and Trademe in October 2024 but was unable to find anyone to move in. Mr Singh stated that he is no longer staying at the property, and he would like the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy immediately.
Ms Ravji, the landlord, stated that Ms Kaur raised the possibility of ending the tenancy early in May 2024 so she could move to Australia for work. Ms Ravji stated that in August 2024 Ms Kaur first stated that her mother-in-law was ill. Ms Ravji expressed some scepticism about the truthfulness of Ms Kaur’s claims that her change of circumstances was unforeseen.
A tenancy agreement is a contract between the parties, and in the first instance the standard rules of contract apply. However, as stated above, the Tribunal may reduce the term of the agreement under certain conditions.
I am satisfied there has been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. First, Mr Surjeet Singh’s circumstances have changed in that both his co-tenants have left not only the premises, but also the country. I have no trouble believing that he didn’t foresee this happening at the time he signed the renewal of the tenancy agreement.
I am also satisfied that Ms Kaur did not foresee her husband leaving the country when she signed the renewal of the tenancy agreement. I accept at face value her claim that her mother-in-law in India is unwell, and for this reason she and/or her husband may have to return to India. Again, I have no reason to doubt Ms Kaur’s information that had she anticipated having to move to Australia or India at the beginning of the tenancy, she would not have signed the renewal of the tenancy agreement.
Mr Amandeep Singh did not attend the hearing as he is also in Australia. Again I am not in any doubt that he did not foresee his family moving to Australia when he signed the renewal of the tenancy agreement early in 2024.
Ms Kaur gave information that she has been struggling financially since her husband left.
I accept that the tenants will face severe hardship if they have to pay $805.00 per week rent on a property for a further 9 weeks while none of them are living there.
The landlord stated that they will face financial hardship if the tenancy is terminated early. Ms Ravji stated that the mortgage repayments are approximately $1,000.00 per week. Ms Ravji stated that when the property was advertised at $805.00 per week after Ms Kaur indicated she would be moving out, they received no interest. Ms Ravji then reduced the rent to $795.00 per week and received some interest although no one came to view the property.
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.
Because the landlord’s hardship can be compensated by the tenants “topping up” the rent, I determine the tenants’ hardship in having to pay $805.00 per week rent for a property they are not living at, exceeds the hardship that will be caused to the landlord if the fixed term tenancy is reduced, and the tenants ordered to pay compensation to the landlord.
In paying compensation to the landlord from the early termination date of the tenancy until the end of the fixed term, I consider the tenants will still be better off than if the fixed term tenancy was not terminated and the tenants were liable for the full rent until the end of the fixed term.
Being early December I acknowledge it is an awkward time of year for landlords when tenants terminate a tenancy. Because of this I am ordering a 28-days’ notice period, during which the full rent will be due. This lasts until Wednesday 1 January 2025. From 1 January 2025 until the end of the fixed term tenancy period (8 February 2025) I determine the tenants are liable for $50.00 per week to compensate the landlord for an expected reduction in rent. This amounts to $275.00. The reduction in rent is in anticipation of the rental market having softened and the potential difficulty in finding tenants over the Christmas period.
If the landlord finds a suitable tenant before 1 January 2025, I expect the tenants will accommodate the landlord with an earlier termination in return for a reduction in the rent owed.
I do not make an award for the landlord’s reletting costs as these were to be duly incurred by the landlord in early 2025 in any event.
Because both parties have been partially successful in their claims, I make no award regarding reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5055930 — Rent arrears at 113 Percy Dyett Drive, Karori, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5055930 — Rent arrears at 113 Percy Dyett Drive, Karori, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions