Tenant's Request to Reduce Fixed-Term Tenancy Dismissed
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's request to reduce a fixed-term tenancy. The tenant argued that safety concerns and poor conditions of the property warranted early termination, but the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support these claims.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is not entitled to reduce a fixed-term tenancy without sufficient evidence of unforeseen changes in circumstances causing severe hardship.
📖 What the law says
This rule 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 more severe hardship than the landlord would suffer if the tenancy were shortened. The Tribunal can also change other parts of the tenancy agreement as needed.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the tenant's application to reduce a fixed-term tenancy due to insufficient evidence of unforeseen changes in circumstances.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's application to reduce a fixed-term tenancy due to insufficient evidence of unforeseen changes in circumstances causing severe hardship. The tenant claimed safety concerns and poor condition of the property, but the Tribunal found no grounds to reduce the tenancy term.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5184651 1
[2025] NZTT
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT HAMILTON | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI KIRIKIRIROA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing. Two property managers appeared for the landlord.
2. The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 8 June 2025.
3. 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.
4. 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, [NAME], of $860 plus gst.
5. 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5184651 2
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The tenant said that the property managers at the time, [NAME], failed to respond to her requests so she stopped asking.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. I find that there are no grounds to reduce the term of the fixed term tenancy.
15. The tenant also sought some clarity about the charge for breaking the fixed term tenancy.
16. 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
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5184651 3
expenses from a tenant must first provide an itemised account of the expenses. See section 44A (1),(2).
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. The landlords had not filed across application. As there was no claim before me, I am unable to determine this.
20. This claim is dismissed.
T Harris
01 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5184651 4
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5184651 5
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:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant's safety concerns were not sufficiently supported by evidence.
- The payment of two bonds was considered an expected outcome of starting a new tenancy before the previous one ended.
- The landlord's claim for early termination fees could not be determined because they had not filed their own application.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's belief that there was an agreement to end the tenancy after 28 days' notice was not accepted as a valid reason to reduce the fixed term.
- The tenant's claim about the kitchen needing cleaning and a gap under the door letting in vermin was not considered an unforeseen change in circumstances.
- The landlord's letter claiming an early termination charge was not considered an itemised account as required by law.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenant's application to reduce a fixed-term tenancy.
What was the dispute about?
The tenant requested to reduce their fixed-term tenancy due to safety concerns and poor conditions of the property.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided against the tenant, finding insufficient evidence to support the tenant's claims of unforeseen changes in circumstances.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 66(1) was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was whether the tenant could prove unforeseen changes in circumstances causing severe hardship.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have strong evidence of unforeseen changes in circumstances before applying to reduce a fixed-term tenancy.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs of the kitchen floor showing poor cleaning standards were provided, but there was no evidence to support the tenant's security concerns.