What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5081077?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5081077?

Rent Arrears: $621.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5081077?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5081077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11321591-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5081077?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5081077?

Rent Arrears: $621.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5081077?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5081077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11321591-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 1, 1018 East Coast Road, Fairview Heights, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5081077 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5081077 — net $621.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 07/11/2024	$621.43	Rent arrears to 07/11/2024
Net award	$621.43
Bond	$2,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$621.43

The claim for reduction of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

Johan Edward Pienaar is to pay Crockers Property Management Limited $621.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,900.00 (5866329-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Crockers Property Management Limited: $621.43 Johan Edward Pienaar: $2,278.57

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 7 January 2025.

The tenancy commenced on 23 November 2023 for a fixed term ending on 22 November 2024, with a weekly rent of $725 and a bond of $2,900. On 3 October 2024, the tenant provided notice seeking to end the tenancy earlier, proposing a termination date of 31 October 2024, three weeks before the expiry of the fixed term. The tenant has since filed an application seeking a refund of the bond and a reduction of the fixed term tenancy.

Under section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), the Tribunal may reduce the term of a fixed-term tenancy if it is satisfied there has been an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances such that the tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term were not reduced. The Tribunal must also consider whether the tenant’s hardship outweighs any hardship the landlord would suffer if the term were reduced.

If a landlord consents to an early termination outside the Tribunal’s involvement, they may impose reasonable conditions, including requiring the tenant to cover certain costs, such as advertising or a break fee. Tenants remain obligated to pay rent until the tenancy is formally terminated or the property is re-let, whichever occurs first.

In this case, I find that the tenant has not established grounds for reducing the fixed term. The birth of a child is not an unforeseen change in circumstances but rather a foreseeable life event, particularly within the context of a long-term tenancy. Furthermore, while the tenant raised safety concerns with the stairs and driveway, these conditions were presumably known or discoverable at the time of entering the tenancy. Similarly, issues with mould and maintenance are foreseeable occurrences in any tenancy and do not constitute the threshold of unforeseen changes required under section 66.

The tenant also claimed that the landlord or agent delayed re-letting the property and unreasonably withheld the bond. Under section 19 of the Act, the bond must be refunded at the end of the tenancy unless the landlord can establish a lawful claim against it. In this instance, the landlord claims $621.43 for rent arrears incurred until the property was relet (8 November 2024). The tenant disputes this, arguing they have improved the property and paid rent for the notice period. However, the tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the landlord’s claim is unreasonable or unjustified.

Tenants are obligated to fulfil the terms of a fixed-term tenancy unless the parties mutually agree to an early termination, or the Tribunal grants a reduction under section 66 of the Act. In this case, the tenants have not established sufficient grounds for either outcome. Consequently, the fixed term remains in effect, and the tenant’s claim for an early release is declined.

Regarding the bond, the landlord is entitled to retain any portion reasonably proven to cover outstanding costs, including rent arrears or damages. The landlord claims $621.43 for rent arrears to when the property was relet on 8 November 2024. Although the landlord did not file a cross application for the bond, the tenant consented to the landlord’s claim being addressed as part of the proceedings for efficiency. The landlord provided a rent summary that substantiates the amount outstanding at the end of the tenancy. Based on this evidence, the claim of $621.43 is accepted as reasonable and justified. Suppression order

The tenant sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression to any party who has wholly succeeded in the proceedings. The tenant has not been wholly successful with their claim.

The Tribunal has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest” (section 95A RTA).

In this instance, there are no particular interests of the parties that would justify name suppression. Therefore, I will not grant name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5081077 — net $621.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 07/11/2024	$621.43	Rent arrears to 07/11/2024
Net award	$621.43
Bond	$2,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$621.43

Order

The claim for reduction of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.
Johan Edward Pienaar is to pay Crockers Property Management Limited $621.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,900.00 (5866329-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Crockers Property Management Limited: $621.43 Johan Edward Pienaar: $2,278.57

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 7 January 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 23 November 2023 for a fixed term ending on 22 November 2024, with a weekly rent of $725 and a bond of $2,900. On 3 October 2024, the tenant provided notice seeking to end the tenancy earlier, proposing a termination date of 31 October 2024, three weeks before the expiry of the fixed term. The tenant has since filed an application seeking a refund of the bond and a reduction of the fixed term tenancy.
Under section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), the Tribunal may reduce the term of a fixed-term tenancy if it is satisfied there has been an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances such that the tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term were not reduced. The Tribunal must also consider whether the tenant’s hardship outweighs any hardship the landlord would suffer if the term were reduced.
If a landlord consents to an early termination outside the Tribunal’s involvement, they may impose reasonable conditions, including requiring the tenant to cover certain costs, such as advertising or a break fee. Tenants remain obligated to pay rent until the tenancy is formally terminated or the property is re-let, whichever occurs first.
In this case, I find that the tenant has not established grounds for reducing the fixed term. The birth of a child is not an unforeseen change in circumstances but rather a foreseeable life event, particularly within the context of a long-term tenancy. Furthermore, while the tenant raised safety concerns with the stairs and driveway, these conditions were presumably known or discoverable at the time of entering the tenancy. Similarly, issues with mould and maintenance are foreseeable occurrences in any tenancy and do not constitute the threshold of unforeseen changes required under section 66.
The tenant also claimed that the landlord or agent delayed re-letting the property and unreasonably withheld the bond. Under section 19 of the Act, the bond must be refunded at the end of the tenancy unless the landlord can establish a lawful claim against it. In this instance, the landlord claims $621.43 for rent arrears incurred until the property was relet (8 November 2024). The tenant disputes this, arguing they have improved the property and paid rent for the notice period. However, the tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the landlord’s claim is unreasonable or unjustified.
Tenants are obligated to fulfil the terms of a fixed-term tenancy unless the parties mutually agree to an early termination, or the Tribunal grants a reduction under section 66 of the Act. In this case, the tenants have not established sufficient grounds for either outcome. Consequently, the fixed term remains in effect, and the tenant’s claim for an early release is declined.
Regarding the bond, the landlord is entitled to retain any portion reasonably proven to cover outstanding costs, including rent arrears or damages. The landlord claims $621.43 for rent arrears to when the property was relet on 8 November 2024. Although the landlord did not file a cross application for the bond, the tenant consented to the landlord’s claim being addressed as part of the proceedings for efficiency. The landlord provided a rent summary that substantiates the amount outstanding at the end of the tenancy. Based on this evidence, the claim of $621.43 is accepted as reasonable and justified. Suppression order
The tenant sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression to any party who has wholly succeeded in the proceedings. The tenant has not been wholly successful with their claim.
The Tribunal has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest” (section 95A RTA).
In this instance, there are no particular interests of the parties that would justify name suppression. Therefore, I will not grant name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5081077 — Rent arrears at Flat 1, 1018 East Coast Road, Fairview Heights, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5081077 — Rent arrears at Flat 1, 1018 East Coast Road, Fairview Heights, Auckland

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