What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5166434?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5166434?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5166434?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5166434?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11759692-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5166434?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5166434?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5166434?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5166434?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11759692-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3A Virginia Grove, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5166434 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 4 February 2026.
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. Background
Mr Hudson-West and a co-tenant originally rented the premises for a fixed term. Prior to expiry of the term, the parties agreed to enter a further fixed term commencing on 6 February 2025 and ending on 4 February 2026 . Ms Fisher prepared and signed a new tenancy agreement on 2 January 2025 and emailed it to the tenants for signing on 3 January 2025.
On 4 January 2025, before signing the new tenancy agreement, Mr Hudson- West sent Ms Fisher an email on behalf of his co-tenant. He explained that the co-tenant was unable to access emails nor a printer and would not be able to sign the tenancy agreement before returning from a holiday. Mr Hudson-West also asked on behalf of his co-tenant: “If circumstances change during this 2 nd tenancy, are we able to get a new tenant to sign on and take over the tenancy?” Ms Fisher replied the same day saying: “Yes you can find someone to take over if you wish during your tenancy.” She also requested that the co-tenant send an email agreeing to the new tenancy for 2025 and that the signed papers be returned immediately otherwise she would need to bring prospective tenants through. Mr Hudson-West signed the tenancy agreement on 5 January 2025. The co-tenant did not sign the tenancy agreement.
Ms Fisher sent several emails to the co-tenant throughout January, requesting that he sign the tenancy agreement immediately, noting that Mr Hudson-West had already signed. On 28 January 2025, the co-tenant sent Ms Fisher an email stating: “...unfortunately due to foreseen circumstances I will not be able to continue with the new tenancy agreement.”
It appears that after this, Ms Fisher has crossed out the co-tenant’s name on the tenancy agreement and holds Mr Hudson-West liable for the obligations in the tenancy agreement.
Mr Hudson-West explained that his co-tenant had found a job in another Region and decided to pull out of the tenancy. Mr Hudson West says that he contacted Ms Fisher and asked if he could also exit the tenancy agreement, but she did not consent and insists that he is liable under the tenancy agreement he signed. Mr Hudson-West has remained in the premises. However, he applied to the Tribunal on 14 February 2025 for an order terminating the tenancy under s66 RTA.
Mr Hudson-West says that he has attempted to find other tenants for the premises without success. Ms Fisher has confirmed that she is happy to let Mr Hudson-West out of the tenancy provided he finds replacement tenants. She notes that it is not her responsibility to find replacement tenants.
I emphasize that Mr Hudson-West’s application is for termination of the tenancy under s66, which predicates that there is an existing and binding fixed term tenancy agreement. This Tribunal is not being asked to consider other issues that might potentially arise such as: whether there was a valid tenancy agreement given that one of the tenants never signed the tenancy agreement; whether the co-tenant is still liable under the terms of the tenancy agreement notwithstanding that he did not sign it; whether Mr Hudson-West could simply terminate the tenancy by giving 21 days’ notice on the basis that the fixed term tenancy agreement is not valid and the tenancy has continued as a periodic tenancy. I also make no findings on any of those issues and nor can I comment on whether those claims would succeed. Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances
Mr Hudson-West says that he wishes to end the tenancy because he wants to go and live with his father to provide him with support. He says that his father has had a medical condition for 25 years and ongoing health issues that have become worse over the last 4 years. It is unnecessary to document his exact health condition in this decision. However, I record that his father lives alone in a one-bedroom unit. He is working 20 hours/week which covers rent, and Mr Hudson-West helps him with expenses. The intention is that Mr Hudson-West and his father will find a new home to rent together. He will then be able to provide his father with emotional and financial support and assist him with daily living activities.
There was no evidence produced to suggest that Mr Hudson-Wests’ father cannot medically live alone or needs assistance to the extent that the tenant needs to provide him with support immediately. There is also no evidence to suggest that these circumstances have changed since the tenancy agreement was signed. It is of course admirable that the tenant wishes to provide his father with support but there is no change in the tenant’s circumstances as existed before the tenancy was signed, other than his voluntary wish to help his father now. Mr Hudson-West also stated that if the Tribunal was to make an order terminating the tenancy, he would need some time before he could vacate the premises as he has not taken any steps yet to find an alternative home for him and his father to rent.
I find that the situation described by Mr Hudson-West is not “an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances” because there is no evidence that the situation has changed since the tenancy agreement was signed. Because I have found that the “first hurdle” for making an order under s66 has not been proved, it is not necessary to consider the other matters in s 66. The application must be dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 4 February 2026.
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. Background
Mr Hudson-West and a co-tenant originally rented the premises for a fixed term. Prior to expiry of the term, the parties agreed to enter a further fixed term commencing on 6 February 2025 and ending on 4 February 2026 . Ms Fisher prepared and signed a new tenancy agreement on 2 January 2025 and emailed it to the tenants for signing on 3 January 2025.
On 4 January 2025, before signing the new tenancy agreement, Mr Hudson- West sent Ms Fisher an email on behalf of his co-tenant. He explained that the co-tenant was unable to access emails nor a printer and would not be able to sign the tenancy agreement before returning from a holiday. Mr Hudson-West also asked on behalf of his co-tenant: “If circumstances change during this 2 nd tenancy, are we able to get a new tenant to sign on and take over the tenancy?” Ms Fisher replied the same day saying: “Yes you can find someone to take over if you wish during your tenancy.” She also requested that the co-tenant send an email agreeing to the new tenancy for 2025 and that the signed papers be returned immediately otherwise she would need to bring prospective tenants through. Mr Hudson-West signed the tenancy agreement on 5 January 2025. The co-tenant did not sign the tenancy agreement.
Ms Fisher sent several emails to the co-tenant throughout January, requesting that he sign the tenancy agreement immediately, noting that Mr Hudson-West had already signed. On 28 January 2025, the co-tenant sent Ms Fisher an email stating: “...unfortunately due to foreseen circumstances I will not be able to continue with the new tenancy agreement.”
It appears that after this, Ms Fisher has crossed out the co-tenant’s name on the tenancy agreement and holds Mr Hudson-West liable for the obligations in the tenancy agreement.
Mr Hudson-West explained that his co-tenant had found a job in another Region and decided to pull out of the tenancy. Mr Hudson West says that he contacted Ms Fisher and asked if he could also exit the tenancy agreement, but she did not consent and insists that he is liable under the tenancy agreement he signed. Mr Hudson-West has remained in the premises. However, he applied to the Tribunal on 14 February 2025 for an order terminating the tenancy under s66 RTA.
Mr Hudson-West says that he has attempted to find other tenants for the premises without success. Ms Fisher has confirmed that she is happy to let Mr Hudson-West out of the tenancy provided he finds replacement tenants. She notes that it is not her responsibility to find replacement tenants.
I emphasize that Mr Hudson-West’s application is for termination of the tenancy under s66, which predicates that there is an existing and binding fixed term tenancy agreement. This Tribunal is not being asked to consider other issues that might potentially arise such as: whether there was a valid tenancy agreement given that one of the tenants never signed the tenancy agreement; whether the co-tenant is still liable under the terms of the tenancy agreement notwithstanding that he did not sign it; whether Mr Hudson-West could simply terminate the tenancy by giving 21 days’ notice on the basis that the fixed term tenancy agreement is not valid and the tenancy has continued as a periodic tenancy. I also make no findings on any of those issues and nor can I comment on whether those claims would succeed. Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances
Mr Hudson-West says that he wishes to end the tenancy because he wants to go and live with his father to provide him with support. He says that his father has had a medical condition for 25 years and ongoing health issues that have become worse over the last 4 years. It is unnecessary to document his exact health condition in this decision. However, I record that his father lives alone in a one-bedroom unit. He is working 20 hours/week which covers rent, and Mr Hudson-West helps him with expenses. The intention is that Mr Hudson-West and his father will find a new home to rent together. He will then be able to provide his father with emotional and financial support and assist him with daily living activities.
There was no evidence produced to suggest that Mr Hudson-Wests’ father cannot medically live alone or needs assistance to the extent that the tenant needs to provide him with support immediately. There is also no evidence to suggest that these circumstances have changed since the tenancy agreement was signed. It is of course admirable that the tenant wishes to provide his father with support but there is no change in the tenant’s circumstances as existed before the tenancy was signed, other than his voluntary wish to help his father now. Mr Hudson-West also stated that if the Tribunal was to make an order terminating the tenancy, he would need some time before he could vacate the premises as he has not taken any steps yet to find an alternative home for him and his father to rent.
I find that the situation described by Mr Hudson-West is not “an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances” because there is no evidence that the situation has changed since the tenancy agreement was signed. Because I have found that the “first hurdle” for making an order under s66 has not been proved, it is not necessary to consider the other matters in s 66. The application must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5166434 — Tenancy dispute at 3A Virginia Grove, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5166434 — Tenancy dispute at 3A Virginia Grove, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021

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