What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5271222?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5271222?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5271222?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5271222?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12001007-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5271222?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5271222?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5271222?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5271222?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12001007-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 189A England Street, Linwood, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5271222 — Cleanliness

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Dellaway represented the tenants. Ms Staines represented the landlord.
The tenants have applied for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 13 July 2025 (but which ended on 12 June 2025 by the landlord agreeing to accept 28 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy).
The tenants want to be released as of 3 May 2025 when they vacated the tenancy. They gave written notice to terminate the tenancy after that, on 14 May 2025. Law
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy under section 66(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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. Discussion
Ms Dellaway explained that Mr Michie moved to Christchurch to take a job that did not eventuate which required him to obtain a work and income benefit. As a result, she was left to pay for Mr Michie’s costs and her debts.
Ms Dellaway said that Mr Michie paid $275.00 towards the rent, and she paid the same amount, but on top she helped support him. She said she moved to a new tenancy after she vacated on 3 May 2025 where she pays rent of $480.00 per week. Mr Michie has moved home.
The Tribunal does not lightly interfere with contracts. Only when the quite onerous requirements under section 66(1) RTA are met will it reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy. And even when it does, it will compensate the landlord under section 66(2) RTA for the loss of the contact by awarding compensation often equivalent to 4 weeks’ rent.
Though critical of the landlord for not helping her and Mr Michie, in fact the landlord accepted their 28-day notice to terminate the tenancy, which the landlord was not obliged to do. A fixed term tenancy cannot be ended by notice. An unsympathetic landlord could have done nothing and charged rent to the end of the fixed term, relying on the contract.
Objectively viewed, Ms Dellaway went from a situation where she was paying rent of $275.00 (her share, Mr Michie paying the balance) to paying $480.00 per week in her new tenancy. Her decision to support Mr Michie in paying his other costs was a choice she made.
Had she stayed in the tenancy and paid the equivalent rent she now pays, Mr Michie’s share would have reduced to $70.00 per week. That would have been achievable for the final weeks of the tenancy.
I find that the first statutory criterion – an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances – is not met. Financial hardship is not an unforeseen change in circumstances. It often happens to people for a variety of reasons. But even if it were, the severe hardship criterion is not met on the facts here.
That the landlord accepted 4 weeks’ notice to end the tenancy equates to what the Tribunal would have likely awarded the landlord had it ended the tenancy early. The tenants cannot reasonably expect to have the tenancy ended on 3 May 2025 when they vacated, which was before the notice period the landlord accepted.
The tenants have not proved on the balance of probabilities that due to an unforeseen change in their circumstances, their severe hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship so as to justify the Tribunal ending the fixed term tenancy as of 3 May 2025 when they vacated. They have correctly continued to pay rent until the end of the notice period, although there appears to be a dispute about 1 days’ rent.
There is no landlord application before the Tribunal. The landlord has a carpet cleaning claim together with a rent claim of $78.58. If the parties cannot resolve that, the landlord can make an application for those costs to be paid from the bond. Result
The application is dismissed. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenants sought name suppression. The Tribunal makes no name suppression order as their application is unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Dellaway represented the tenants. Ms Staines represented the landlord.
The tenants have applied for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 13 July 2025 (but which ended on 12 June 2025 by the landlord agreeing to accept 28 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy).
The tenants want to be released as of 3 May 2025 when they vacated the tenancy. They gave written notice to terminate the tenancy after that, on 14 May 2025. Law
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy under section 66(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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. Discussion
Ms Dellaway explained that Mr Michie moved to Christchurch to take a job that did not eventuate which required him to obtain a work and income benefit. As a result, she was left to pay for Mr Michie’s costs and her debts.
Ms Dellaway said that Mr Michie paid $275.00 towards the rent, and she paid the same amount, but on top she helped support him. She said she moved to a new tenancy after she vacated on 3 May 2025 where she pays rent of $480.00 per week. Mr Michie has moved home.
The Tribunal does not lightly interfere with contracts. Only when the quite onerous requirements under section 66(1) RTA are met will it reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy. And even when it does, it will compensate the landlord under section 66(2) RTA for the loss of the contact by awarding compensation often equivalent to 4 weeks’ rent.
Though critical of the landlord for not helping her and Mr Michie, in fact the landlord accepted their 28-day notice to terminate the tenancy, which the landlord was not obliged to do. A fixed term tenancy cannot be ended by notice. An unsympathetic landlord could have done nothing and charged rent to the end of the fixed term, relying on the contract.
Objectively viewed, Ms Dellaway went from a situation where she was paying rent of $275.00 (her share, Mr Michie paying the balance) to paying $480.00 per week in her new tenancy. Her decision to support Mr Michie in paying his other costs was a choice she made.
Had she stayed in the tenancy and paid the equivalent rent she now pays, Mr Michie’s share would have reduced to $70.00 per week. That would have been achievable for the final weeks of the tenancy.
I find that the first statutory criterion – an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances – is not met. Financial hardship is not an unforeseen change in circumstances. It often happens to people for a variety of reasons. But even if it were, the severe hardship criterion is not met on the facts here.
That the landlord accepted 4 weeks’ notice to end the tenancy equates to what the Tribunal would have likely awarded the landlord had it ended the tenancy early. The tenants cannot reasonably expect to have the tenancy ended on 3 May 2025 when they vacated, which was before the notice period the landlord accepted.
The tenants have not proved on the balance of probabilities that due to an unforeseen change in their circumstances, their severe hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship so as to justify the Tribunal ending the fixed term tenancy as of 3 May 2025 when they vacated. They have correctly continued to pay rent until the end of the notice period, although there appears to be a dispute about 1 days’ rent.
There is no landlord application before the Tribunal. The landlord has a carpet cleaning claim together with a rent claim of $78.58. If the parties cannot resolve that, the landlord can make an application for those costs to be paid from the bond. Result
The application is dismissed. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenants sought name suppression. The Tribunal makes no name suppression order as their application is unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5271222 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 5, 189A England Street, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5271222 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 5, 189A England Street, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions