What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5184651?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5184651?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5184651?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5184651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11657412-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5184651?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5184651?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5184651?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5184651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11657412-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 191 Ulster Street, Whitiora, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5184651 — Cleanliness

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Two property managers appeared for the landlord.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 8 June 2025.
The tenant communicated with the original landlord about ending the fixed term tenancy and was advised that there would be costs estimated at $550.00 plus gst.
The tenant moved out of the premises on 24 March 2025, and believed that there was an agreement to end the tenancy after giving 28 days’ notice. She has paid rent to 24 March 2025 but questioned the early termination charge quoted by the new landlord, Te Kohao Health, of $860 plus gst.
Of concern to the tenant was the landlord’s stipulation on 27 February 2025 that, “... we can agree to four weeks (28 days’ notice) plus the above early termination fees. Once the above costs are paid in full, we can acknowledge your new end date, which would be 24th March 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.
There tenant claims that there has been an unforeseen change in circumstances because when she moved into the premises, the kitchen need cleaning and there was a gap under the door that she believed let bugs and vermin in. She had a young child and they spent time of the floor which she believed caused them to be unwell. The tenant had found a rat dead under the oven. Photographs were provided.
The tenant said that the property managers at the time, At Home Property Management, failed to respond to her requests so she stopped asking.
The tenant said that she had safety concerns for her and her family because people were jumping over the fence and exchanging items on the shared driveway area. She said that she had told the new property manager when she met them, but there was no further communication about this.
The property manger agreed that she was told about people on the joint area, but had no further complaints or issues from other tenants in the complex.
The photographs provided of the kitchen floor show that it was not cleaned to a reasonable standard. There was no evidence provided to support the tenant’s security concerns.
The tenant also raised that she had now to pay two bonds and cannot afford to pay the costs to break the fixed term contract.
I do not find that these incidents amount to an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. The actions of the previous landlord may be a breach of the landlords’ duties, and there was not enough evidence provided to determine any safety concerns. The payment of two bonds is an expected result from starting another tenancy before a previous one had ended.
I find that there are no grounds to reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy.
The tenant also sought some clarity about the charge for breaking the fixed term tenancy.
A Landlord who consents to parting with possession of the premises, under section 44, is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord. A landlord who seeks to recover these expenses from a tenant must first provide an itemised account of the expenses. See section 44A (1),(2).
The tenant received a letter on 27 February claiming payment of a charge of $860 plus gst. It listed what the charge included but it was not an itemised account. The tenant said that she had not received an itemised account of the expenses.
The landlords discovered in the hearing that they had not forwarded an itemised account of the charges to the tenant. The premises are not currently tenanted, have not been advertised, and no official viewings have been had.
The landlords had not filed across application. As there was no claim before me, I am unable to determine this.
This claim is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Two property managers appeared for the landlord.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 8 June 2025.
The tenant communicated with the original landlord about ending the fixed term tenancy and was advised that there would be costs estimated at $550.00 plus gst.
The tenant moved out of the premises on 24 March 2025, and believed that there was an agreement to end the tenancy after giving 28 days’ notice. She has paid rent to 24 March 2025 but questioned the early termination charge quoted by the new landlord, Te Kohao Health, of $860 plus gst.
Of concern to the tenant was the landlord’s stipulation on 27 February 2025 that, “... we can agree to four weeks (28 days’ notice) plus the above early termination fees. Once the above costs are paid in full, we can acknowledge your new end date, which would be 24th March 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.
There tenant claims that there has been an unforeseen change in circumstances because when she moved into the premises, the kitchen need cleaning and there was a gap under the door that she believed let bugs and vermin in. She had a young child and they spent time of the floor which she believed caused them to be unwell. The tenant had found a rat dead under the oven. Photographs were provided.
The tenant said that the property managers at the time, At Home Property Management, failed to respond to her requests so she stopped asking.
The tenant said that she had safety concerns for her and her family because people were jumping over the fence and exchanging items on the shared driveway area. She said that she had told the new property manager when she met them, but there was no further communication about this.
The property manger agreed that she was told about people on the joint area, but had no further complaints or issues from other tenants in the complex.
The photographs provided of the kitchen floor show that it was not cleaned to a reasonable standard. There was no evidence provided to support the tenant’s security concerns.
The tenant also raised that she had now to pay two bonds and cannot afford to pay the costs to break the fixed term contract.
I do not find that these incidents amount to an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. The actions of the previous landlord may be a breach of the landlords’ duties, and there was not enough evidence provided to determine any safety concerns. The payment of two bonds is an expected result from starting another tenancy before a previous one had ended.
I find that there are no grounds to reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy.
The tenant also sought some clarity about the charge for breaking the fixed term tenancy.
A Landlord who consents to parting with possession of the premises, under section 44, is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord. A landlord who seeks to recover these expenses from a tenant must first provide an itemised account of the expenses. See section 44A (1),(2).
The tenant received a letter on 27 February claiming payment of a charge of $860 plus gst. It listed what the charge included but it was not an itemised account. The tenant said that she had not received an itemised account of the expenses.
The landlords discovered in the hearing that they had not forwarded an itemised account of the charges to the tenant. The premises are not currently tenanted, have not been advertised, and no official viewings have been had.
The landlords had not filed across application. As there was no claim before me, I am unable to determine this.
This claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5184651 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 3, 191 Ulster Street, Whitiora, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5184651 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 3, 191 Ulster Street, Whitiora, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions