An example of how the Tenancy Tribunal weighs up a landlord’s and a tenant’s respective hardship in determining the merits of an application for early termination (of a fixed-term tenancy)

 

RE: Ayaz v Rentex Ltd [2020] NZTT North Shore 4278514

 

Facts
  • The tenant and his family moved to New Zealand in May 2020 and took out a one-year fixed-term tenancy from 20th June 2020 to 18th June 2021;
  • Tenant is a cybersecurity specialist with disabled children;
  • Despite planning to settle in Auckland (for a variety of reasons including support for his disabled son), the tenant had been unable to find a job;
  • In August 2020 the tenant found a job in Wellington and sought to terminate the tenancy with 4 week’s notice assuring the landlord that a friend would
    replace him and take over the tenancy;
  • Relying on the promise of a replacement, the landlord did not advertise for new tenants; 
  • In late September the proposed replacement fell through; 
  • The tenant paid rent to the landlord up until 8th October despite having relocated to Wellington in late September; 
  • The landlord had since re-let the property but is charging $20 less rent per week than the original tenancy; and
  • The landlord quantified a total of $3,808.57 lost in rent due to the lag between tenancies.
The law

 

s66(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act deals with
an order for early termination. The adjudicator outlines the three key requirements for such an order:

  1. there is an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and
  2. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and
  3. the applicant’s hardship if the term is not reduced would be greater than the...