What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5204857?

The tribunal order states: Athira Krishnakumar Nair must pay Kristopher Stuart Ellwyn Mackie and Lucy

How much money was awarded in case 5204857?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5204857?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5204857?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11906015-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5204857?

The tribunal order states: Athira Krishnakumar Nair must pay Kristopher Stuart Ellwyn Mackie and Lucy

How much money was awarded in case 5204857?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5204857?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5204857?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11906015-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 18 Brittan Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5204857 — Rent arrears

Order

Athira Krishnakumar Nair must pay Kristopher Stuart Ellwyn Mackie and Lucy Mackie $2,085.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears (to 11 May 2025)$3,150.00 Repairs: Carpet$300.00 Repairs: Window Frames$1,003.58 Repairs: Paint 231.84 Total award$4,685.42 Bond$2,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,085.42
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6520757-001) to Kristopher Stuart Ellwyn Mackie and Lucy Mackie immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Athira Krishnakumar Nair at Unit/Flat 5, 18 Brittan Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 is reduced and now ends immediately.
The parties other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 18 January 2026. The tenant also claims that the landlord unreasonably withheld consent to her subletting the premises.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reduction of Fixed Term or Subletting?

The tenancy was for a fixed term to 18 January 2026.
The tenant lived at the property with two flatmates but was the sole tenant on the tenancy agreement. The agreement records that a maximum of 4 people can live at the premises.
In January 2025, the tenant was approached regarding a possible employment opportunity in Auckland. The opportunity was for a 6-to-9-month period. The tenant’s evidence was that the offer was desirable in terms career advancement and increased pay.
The tenant approached the landlord in February, advised it of the employment offer and asked whether two others could move into her room while she was away. She intended to remain liable for the tenancy for the fixed term.
The landlord refused that proposal and suggested that the tenant may prefer to end the tenancy completely but would be bound to the fixed term until a new tenant was found.
Both parties worked towards ending the tenancy, but the landlord has had difficulty finding a new tenant and the parties could not agree on when or whether this tenant’s liability should end. The tenant (and her flatmates) have moved out of the premises and returned the keys. The tenant then applied for an order reducing the fixed term.
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 has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The tenant was approached with a desirable career opportunity which required her to move to Auckland. She did not anticipate or foresee that when she entered the fixed term tenancy. However, there is also merit to the landlord’s submission that the change of circumstances was within the tenant’s control in that she accepted an offer and resigned from fulltime employment, in circumstances where she was bound to the fixed term tenancy. The landlord submits that “unforeseen” refers to something which the tenant cannot control such as health issues or redundancy.
Neither party provided full and comprehensive evidence of the hardship they would suffer if the other was successful.
Ultimately, I did not decide whether early termination should be granted under s66 because the landlord has someone else wanting to move into the premises. I have terminated the tenancy to allow that to happen, and to mitigate the loss to both parties.
The issue for me to consider was the date that the tenant should pay rent to. When the tenant became aware of the new job proposal she asked to sublet the tenancy. The proposal was that her two flatmates would stay, and two others would move in instead of her temporarily. She intended to return to Christchurch at the end of her fixed term role and intended to remain liable for the tenancy for the fixed term. The landlord rejected that proposal.
A tenant may only part with possession or sublet the premises with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
It seems that the landlord did not properly consider the tenant’s request and its grounds for refusing the temporary sub-letting are unclear. At the hearing the landlord’s main concern seemed to be around potential parking issues, even though the tenant had told the landlord that neither of the suggested replacements had a vehicle.
I find that the landlord unreasonably withheld consent to a proposed subletting, suggested an early termination instead, but (until recently) has not found a suitable replacement tenant and that has led to the current impasse between the parties. For that reason, I find that the tenant is liable for rent to 11 May 2025; not to the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy.
The landlord claims that gardening work had to be done at the end of the tenancy. Having regard to the photographs, any gardening or lawn mowing was modest. The landlord did not establish that the grounds were not reasonably tidy. This aspect of the claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: carpet in one bedroom has a stain or mark which the landlord described as being melted and exterior aluminium joinery was badly scratched. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Both parties provided photographs and the landlord provided quotes for repairs. Both parties’ photographs show the damage on the carpet, but it is unclear exactly what the issue is, and the landlord has not established the carpet needs to be replaced. I award $300 for the carpet damage recognising the aesthetic impact of the damage.
The aluminium joinery has been extensively scratched by the tenant’s dog. While dogs do scratch at doors, this is beyond any level of reasonable wear and tear (as suggested by the tenant). I award the full repair cost claimed.
The tenant also accepted a claim for a wall repair of $231.84. that amount is included in the orders made above.
Having regard to the parties’ respective degrees of success, I have not awarded reimbursement of either Tribunal application fee and have not granted the tenant’s request for suppression of her details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5204857 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 5, 18 Brittan Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

Tenancy Tribunal case 5204857 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 5, 18 Brittan Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

Order

Reasons

Reduction of Fixed Term or Subletting?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

Reduction of Fixed Term or Subletting?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?