What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5091188?

The tribunal order states: The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Hao Ting Yong and Siew Lee Yeo at 9

How much money was awarded in case 5091188?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5091188?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5091188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11246717-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5091188?

The tribunal order states: The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Hao Ting Yong and Siew Lee Yeo at 9

How much money was awarded in case 5091188?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5091188?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5091188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11246717-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Ilkley Place, Ilam, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5091188 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Hao Ting Yong and Siew Lee Yeo at 9 Ilkley Place, Ilam, Christchurch 8041 is reduced and now ends at 11.59pm on 7 January 2025 with the consent of the landlord.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants attended by telephone.
Mr Toa and Ms Hooper attended for the landlord.
The tenants’ claim for maintenance, gardening and other expenses was withdrawn at the hearing.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 7 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 Act).
None of the circumstances above apply in this case.
The tenants claim that the landlord unreasonably withheld consent to an assignment of the remainder of the tenancy as from 6 December 2024.
The tenants claim that the tenancy should be terminated as from that date and any rent paid from that date should be refunded to the tenants. Background
The tenant purchased a property in September 2024 and advised the landlord that they wished to end the tenancy on 9 November 2024. They asked what the requirements for this were.
The landlord responded the next day saying that the owner did not consent to ending the tenancy early as the remaining term was only about three months, and the property was to be used by a family member from the end date, so the short remaining period presented a difficulty in terms of finding a replacement tenant.
The landlord suggested that the tenant might try to find someone to take over the property for the remaining period. A link was attached through which a prospective tenant could apply to the property management company in the usual way.
Information as to the cost to the tenant was attached and it was made clear that if a new tenant was not found, the tenants would be liable for the rent to the end of the fixed term.
An application was received in early October, but it was for a longer period and, when that was not possible, the prospective tenant withdrew the application. The landlord advised the tenants of this on 2 October and asked what the tenants’ plans were.
The tenants replied that they would continue to try to find someone to take over the tenancy but, if that was not possible, they would pay rent to the end of the tenancy. This was acknowledged by the landlord.
On 7 November following a telephone conversation, the landlord emailed the tenant to confirm that the owner’s family member no longer required the property from 7 February 2025, so a lease break was now acceptable to the landlord, and a new tenant could sign up for a full 12-month term.
The landlord asked for the advertising costs upfront ($280.00) and advised that the property would be advertised, and viewings held to find a new tenant.
There was further correspondence about the overall costs of the process (estimated at $930.00). A link to lease break information was included but the tenants decided they would continue to find a new tenant to take over their remaining tenancy instead of using the lease break process offered.
On 25 November they advised that they had found a group to take over from 6 December 2024 and asked that the application be assessed promptly.
The landlord advised that the application was not complete and could not be processed. The landlord again suggested that a lease break would be a more efficient process.
On 29 November 2024, the tenants emailed for an update and the landlord replied to say the application had not been accepted.
In the hearing the landlord confirmed that they run the same checks on all prospective tenants. These applicants were not of the same standard as the existing tenants and the landlord did not approve them on the basis of the credit checks and references.
The tenant then asked if they could sublet to the same group as this was permitted in the tenancy agreement with the landlord’s written consent. The landlord declined consent.
The landlord eventually asked the property owner to pay the required advertising costs and managed to find a suitable tenant for the property. The landlord agreed to end the current tenancy on 7 January 2025.
The final cost for this process was the $930.00 initially estimated.
The tenant claims that they should not be liable for rent from 6 December 2024 as they had a group ready to move in and the landlord unreasonably withheld consent.
Consent cannot be taken to have been withheld unreasonably if, instead of consenting to an assignment, the landlord offers to accept surrender of the lease on reasonable terms under s43B (7) of the Act.
The landlord had, from 7 November 2024, accepted a surrender of the tenancy on reasonable terms.
The tenants had opportunity to take advantage of the landlord’s offer to break the tenancy early. They did not take up the offer.
The landlord has made no claim for the costs to end the tenancy early and indicated that it may do so at a later date.
At the hearing, the landlord offered to forfeit its right to claim for those costs on the basis that the tenants agree to pay rent to the new end date (7 January 2025).
The tenant did not accept this offer and maintained the position that they should only have to pay rent to 6 December 2024 and that they should not be liable for any break lease costs.
I consider that the landlord took all reasonable steps to assist the tenant to find a solution to their problem and did, eventually find a new tenant and agree to end the tenancy a month early.
There is no application before me in relation to the break lease costs so I can make no order in that regard.
The landlord agreed to end the tenancy on 7 January 2025 and this order confirms that is now the end date of the tenancy agreement.
Rent is to be paid by the tenants to that date.
As the applicant was not successful, there is no order for costs.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5091188 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Ilkley Place, Ilam, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5091188 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Ilkley Place, Ilam, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions