Tenant Allowed to End Fixed-Term Agreement Early Due to Severe Hardship
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that a tenant could end their fixed-term agreement early because the landlord failed to fix serious issues with the property, causing severe hardship for the tenant.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to terminate a fixed-term agreement early due to severe hardship caused by the landlord's failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
📖 What the law says
This section states that a landlord must provide and maintain the rental property in a reasonable state of repair. This means the property should be kept in good condition, considering its age and type, and how long it is expected to be lived in.
This section allows the Tenancy Tribunal to shorten a fixed-term tenancy if a tenant applies and can show that an unexpected change in their situation would cause them severe hardship if the tenancy continued. The Tribunal will compare the tenant's hardship with any hardship the landlord might face if the tenancy is shortened.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the landlord's claims for rent arrears and fixed-term break fees, finding the landlord breached its obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal allowed a tenant to terminate a fixed-term agreement early due to severe hardship caused by the landlord's failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The Tribunal found that the landlord breached its obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 45(1)(b).
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5129411 1
[2025] NZTT 5129411, 5161054
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted] [NAME]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], Havelock North, Havelock North 4130
ORDER
1. An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
2. The tenancy of [[NAME]] at [ADDRESS], Havelock North, Havelock North 4130 terminated at 11:59pm on 27 August 2024.
3. The landlord’s applications for rent arears and fixed term break fees are dismissed.
4.
Reasons:
5. Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its property manager [NAME].
6. The parties entered into a tenancy agreement on 19 April 2024 for a fixed term from 24 April 2024 to 23 April 2025.
7. The tenant moved out on 27 August 2024.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5129411 2
8. The tenant seeks refund of the bond. The landlord seeks compensation for the tenant breaking the fixed term and for an Order that rent be paid until the point the Owner decided to sell rather than relet the premises.
9. At the date the tenancy began there were issues with the premises that needed to be addressed. They are recorded in an e-mail from [NAME] to the tenant dated 1 May 2024. Those issues are recorded as:
o “quote on bathroom vanity for chips to be repaired or vanity to be replaced
o silicon and repainting of boards around bath
o lights in third bedroom
o hole inside of garage needs to be fixed so it is watertight
o shrub cuttings and rocks to be removed
o replace manhole board as it has a broken corner.”
10. The same day the tenant notified the landlord, “hot water pressure is terrible. Could we please look at this? I have bought a new shower head which I will put in this weekend but it's bad across the house so it won't make a big difference.”
11. After the property manager had arranged for a plumber to visit, the tenant notified the landlord on 6 May 2024, “They were there on Friday. They changed the shower head but a new hot water tank is going to be required. Pretty sure the one that is in there was converted from coal LOL. They said the quote for it should come through to you pretty quickly.”
12. The evidence suggests that the owner declined recommendations from 2 plumbers to replace the hot water cylinder and instead a diverter was installed, which the tenant says did not improve the hot water supply.
13. The time this process took is illustrated by a follow up e-mail from the tenant to the property manager on 1 July 2024, “I was wondering if you had a date for the hot water tank yet?” The property manager replied on the same day, “Frig I thought water cylinder had been sorted, leave with me following up again.”
14. At the property manager’s request, on 16 July 2024, the tenant listed the work that needed to be done to the premises, in order of urgency. That work was noted as:
o “ hot water tank
o chimney check and repair
o area around shed
o roof leak (photo below)
o holes in shed
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5129411 3
o lights in spare rooms
o bathroom vanity.”
15. It is of note that several of those items are those agreed as needing to be addressed at the start of the tendency.
16. The property manager replied to the tenant on the same day setting out the steps intended to remedy those issues.
17. The photograph sent by the tenant to the property manager about the roof leak shows very obvious water damage to the walls of the premises, with what appear to be “blisters” in the wallpaper where water is trapped behind. The tenant’s evidence, supported by photos is that they got worse each time it rained after that.
18. On 1 August 2024 the property manager visited the premises. She and the tenant pulled back some of the wallpaper and a photograph taken at the time shows significant mould indicating historic and ongoing water damage. The only available power points in the affected room was on that wall, which the tenant did not consider safe to use, instead running extension cords from other outlets.
19. On 12 August 2024 the property manager advised the tenant, “Report has only just come through from superior roofing, this has been sent to the owner and he is going to talk to them directly. I'll come back to you ASAP once I know re roof.” The tenant replied, “Thanks it's pretty bad now with the rain everything has gotten worse the wall is completely saturated. If I turn on the heat took too long the house smells like rot with the position of the heat pump. I can't use the plugs because the wall’s so wet.”
20. The tenant and the property manager discussed other rental options.
21. The tenant says that he heard nothing further so decided that he needed to vacate the premises. He gave notice of his intention to do so on 15 August 24 and vacated on 27 August 2024.
22. The tenant’s evidence is that he heard nothing more until 2 days before he moved out, when it was assessed that the roof needed replacing. That work was done after he moved out.
Analysis
23. The starting point is that the parties had entered into an agreement for a one year fixed term. The Tribunal must determine is whether these circumstances entitled the tenant to end the fixed term early.
24. The Tribunal may make an Order ending a fixed term early under s.66 where, “…..because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5129411 4
were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.”
25. The ongoing and unremedied problems with the premises and particularly the effects of the leaking, constitute unforeseen changes in the tenant’s circumstances as occupant of the premises. In my view the hardship caused to the tenant in requiring him to remain in the tenancy with those unremedied issues and while the roof was repaired/ replaced would be potentially hazardous and severe. The landlord on the other hand was able to utilise the tenant’s absence from the premises to undertake necessary repair work following which the owner elected not to relet the premises but to sell them.
26. The evidence satisfies me on balance too, that the landlord breached its obligations to the tenant. The evidence shows that the premises were rented with repair and maintenance issues outstanding which breached the landlord’s obligation under s.45(1)(b) to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Failure to adequately remediate those issues and the other issues that arose during the tenancy (hot water supply and water leaks) also breached that obligation.
27. I understand that some of the delay in in attending to necessary work may have been through unavailability of tradespeople. My view of the evidence is that those breaches were nevertheless sufficiently fundamental to entitle the tenant to cancel the fixed term agreement.
28. I accordingly find that the tenancy should terminate on 27 August 2024, the date the tenant vacated. The tenant does not seek compensation or exemplary damages for the effect of those issues on his use and enjoyment of the premises of the premises, while paying full rent.
29. There is no dispute that the tenant met his obligation to return the premises to the landlord in reasonably clean and tidy condition.
30. It follows that:
a. the landlord’s claim for fixed term break fees and ongoing rent must be dismissed; and
b. the tenant’s bond should be refunded.
31. No Order is made in respect of the filing fee.
[NAME] 28 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5129411 5
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5129411 6
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
1526138565: [COMPANY] is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [[NAME]] immediately.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant was entitled to end the fixed-term agreement early because the ongoing problems with the premises caused severe hardship.
- The landlord breached its obligation to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair due to outstanding maintenance issues.
- The landlord failed to adequately fix issues like the hot water supply and water leaks that arose during the tenancy.
- The landlord's breaches were fundamental enough to allow the tenant to cancel the fixed-term agreement.
- The tenant met the obligation to return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's claim for fixed-term break fees and ongoing rent was dismissed.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal allowed the tenant to terminate the fixed-term agreement early due to severe hardship caused by the landlord's failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant could end the fixed-term agreement early because of severe hardship caused by the landlord's failure to fix issues with the property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant could terminate the agreement early because the landlord's failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair caused severe hardship for the tenant.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 45(1)(b) and 66 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the landlord's failure to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair caused severe hardship for the tenant, allowing the tenant to terminate the fixed-term agreement early.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, if the landlord fails to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, causing severe hardship, the tenant may be entitled to terminate the fixed-term agreement early.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of the issues with the premises and the landlord's failure to address them mattered in this decision.