Sally Lindsay
A woman’s attempt to end a fixed-term tenancy early on family violence grounds failed at the Tenancy Tribunal when she could not produce any evidence to back up her claim.
It transpired that the woman raised the family violence issue only after trying to break the tenancy because she thought the rent was too expensive.
Section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) enables a tenant with a fixed-term or periodic tenancy agreement who has suffered family violence to withdraw from the tenancy by giving at least two days’ notice to the landlord.
Notice must be given in the approved form, with qualifying evidence.
No authorisation
The landlord, who has name suppression, told Ashleigh-Maree and Mariah-Paige Shadrock on 28 August last year that they could not end their fixed-term tenancy early, unless a new tenant could be found.
The tenants were not happy about this and five days later Ashleigh-Maree Shadrock gave a two-day termination notice, claiming family violence.
She completed the approved form, saying she would provide a written statement from a prescribed person that there were reasonable grounds to suspect she had been a victim of family violence during the tenancy.
The landlord was given copies of text exchanges between Shadrock and a friend who worked at Te Rau Ora as a support worker/administrator.
The texts were not specific and did not state the support worker had reasonable grounds to suspect the tenant or dependant had been a victim of family violence during the tenancy.
Shadrock claimed this was a written statement from a prescribed person employed or engaged to carry out work for an organisation that receives funding from a Whanau Ora commissioning agency to provide services and support to whanau.
According to the landlord, the message made no sense. He called Te Rau Ora to try and establish whether the tenant’s friend was a person prescribed under the family violence provisions of the RTA.
He was told by the Te Rau Ora project manager that the organisation could not sign authorisations in relation to tenancy withdrawal. A copy of the email and advice about other qualified agencies that could help the tenant was given to her.
Water damage
During the tribunal hearing Shadrock was offered time to contact other parties who could support her or provide the required supporting information.
But she failed to provide any further written statements to support her withdrawal on the grounds of family violence and told adjudicator T Harris she tried to end the tenancy because it was too expensive and as that did not work, she tried the family violence application.
Harris said the tenancy could not be terminated by using the family violence provisions under s 56B of the RTA because the tenant did not provide a statement from a prescribed person.
He found Shadrock was liable for the rent arrears of $2071.43 to 19 September when the landlord was given possession of the flat after she left and a relative removed her belongings.
While Shadrock was gathering evidence for the family violence application, the landlord tried to find a new tenant, but Shadrock was reluctant to agree to him holding viewings.
When the landlord finally got access to the flat on 5 September, it smelt damp and was extensively damaged by water. The floor tiles were cracked and lifting after a hot water tap was left running and the kitchen sink overflowed.
Claiming the damage was limited to the kitchen area and cupboards, Shadrock told the tribunal she did not believe it was a big problem as it was cleaned it up immediately. She did not think she was obliged to tell the landlord.
Further damage was caused in the hallway from a washing machine overflowing and flooding from the shower.
Harris said the sink overflowing was careless damage as Shadrock did not take reasonable care and forgot it was filling, but the shower flooding was not intentional.
“Her inattention to the overflowing sink resulted in damage to the kitchen floors. The insurance assessor’s photographs showed excess water readings, grout damage and areas where the water had spread, costing $34,076.75 to fix.”
The property could not be relet until the damage was fixed.
Landlord’s claim
Subsequently, the landlord filed a claim in the tribunal for rent arrears, an insurance excess of $2000 and other minor amounts for cleaning, gardening, window repairs and lock/key replacement.
Shadrock admitted to the tribunal she did not clean the premises before leaving. A nominal amount of $100 was awarded to the landlord because the cleaning had not been completed by the time of the tribunal hearing.
A guarantor signed the tenancy agreement specifying they would be liable for any breach of the tenants’ obligations and indemnify the landlord for any liability or loss.
Harris ordered the guarantor to pay $2,086.02 to the landlord for the breaches – rent arrears, insurance excess, lock/key replacement, cleaning, lawns and garden work and window repairs – which were all matters covered by the guarantee.
The total was $4,416.02 but the bond of $2,320.00 was offset against that amount.
Previous appearances
According to tribunal records, Ashleigh-Maree Shadrock made two other appearances before it last year.
Cambridge landlords David and Lisa Roigard were awarded $495 on 15 September 2025 for replacement of stained carpet in a bedroom, which Shadrock admitted causing during a two-month tenancy.
On 24 June last year, she forfeited a $2,400 bond to a landlord for rent arrears, water rates, removal of a security camera, cleaning and rubbish removal, leaving $856.65 owing to the landlord who was awarded $3256.65 in total.
Read the tribunal’s order here Shadrock – order
0 Comments