What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4676374 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4676374?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4676374?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4676374?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9532082-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4676374 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4676374?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4676374?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4676374?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9532082-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4676374 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
[The respondent/s] is to reimburse the filing fee of $20.44 to [The applicant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [redacted] represented the landlord.
[redacted] has applied for refund of his bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond for rent arrears, however has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Accordingly, because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim, the bond must be refunded in full to [redacted].
[redacted] also seeks reimbursement of some of the costs he paid the landlord as his break lease fee. This is because his tenancy was contracted for a fixed term (December 2022 until December 2023). When he sought to be released early in August, his landlord sought payment of $608.35 as the break lease fee. They have broken down this fee into an itemised invoice which was provided to [redacted] before he paid it.
[redacted] considers this amount unreasonable for several reasons. Firstly, he says they used dated photographs in their advertising therefore should not be charging $100 to take new photos. Secondly, the tenancy was only ending a matter of months before it was due to end (September rather than December), therefore the landlord would have incurred the costs anyway. Further, he has always been a good tenant and was providing the landlord with sufficient notice.
[redacted]’s submission is that the costs were itemised and in fact were reduced from the actual amount it cost them to undertake this process early for [redacted]. She says they worked with [redacted] to assist him to break the contract and do not consider it reasonable for the owner to suffer financially for his decision to leave early.
Fixed term tenancies are legal contracts parties entered into to provide surety for both parties. Both parties rely, and are entitled to rely, on the terms as contracted for. Therefore, there are only two ways in which such a contract can be amended; either by agreement, or Tribunal order. In the former situation, as here, when the tenant seeks to break the lease and the landlord accepts the repudiation, then the tenancy ends on the terms agreed. In such a situation of surrender the landlord does not have to agree and can stipulate terms provided they are reasonable.
In particular, the requirements around recovery of expenses incurred by a landlord when agreeing to end a fixed term tenancy early are set out in section 44A of the RTA. S44A states that a landlord is entitled to recover from an outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the agreement. However, they must provide an itemised account to the tenant of those expenses incurred before they seek recovery of same. This section was designed to end the practice of landlords charging tenants set break lease fees and rather be reimbursed for the actual costs incurred.
It has been established here that the landlord did provide an itemised account of the expenses before [redacted] was to pay them. I am also satisfied that they were reasonably charged. The times allocated for tenant screening, background checking and dealing with the documentation was capped. Therefore, [redacted] actually paid for less than the time incurred. The photos referenced on the invoice were the exit inspection photos which did reasonably need to be taken.
I do not accept [redacted}’s submission that the costs were incurred in such close time proximity to when they would have been anyway thereby rendering them unreasonable. The costs were incurred in August, at least four months prior to the earliest time the tenancy could end by way of the contract. Further, the end date of the fixed term did not definitively provide an end to the tenancy for the landlord. Had [redacted] wished to continue the tenancy after that date, it would have continued. Accordingly, I find it reasonable for the landlord to be reimbursed this cost which they incurred as a result of [redacted’s] wish to break his fixed term tenancy. This claim is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee; see s102(4)(b) of the RTA.
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful. This includes being successful in their application or in their defence to an application. As I consider [redacted] successful substantially in his application to have his bond refunded and the landlord successful in defending the claim against the break lease fee, I approve both their applications for suppression.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
[The respondent/s] is to reimburse the filing fee of $20.44 to [The applicant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [redacted] represented the landlord.
[redacted] has applied for refund of his bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond for rent arrears, however has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Accordingly, because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim, the bond must be refunded in full to [redacted].
[redacted] also seeks reimbursement of some of the costs he paid the landlord as his break lease fee. This is because his tenancy was contracted for a fixed term (December 2022 until December 2023). When he sought to be released early in August, his landlord sought payment of $608.35 as the break lease fee. They have broken down this fee into an itemised invoice which was provided to [redacted] before he paid it.
[redacted] considers this amount unreasonable for several reasons. Firstly, he says they used dated photographs in their advertising therefore should not be charging $100 to take new photos. Secondly, the tenancy was only ending a matter of months before it was due to end (September rather than December), therefore the landlord would have incurred the costs anyway. Further, he has always been a good tenant and was providing the landlord with sufficient notice.
[redacted]’s submission is that the costs were itemised and in fact were reduced from the actual amount it cost them to undertake this process early for [redacted]. She says they worked with [redacted] to assist him to break the contract and do not consider it reasonable for the owner to suffer financially for his decision to leave early.
Fixed term tenancies are legal contracts parties entered into to provide surety for both parties. Both parties rely, and are entitled to rely, on the terms as contracted for. Therefore, there are only two ways in which such a contract can be amended; either by agreement, or Tribunal order. In the former situation, as here, when the tenant seeks to break the lease and the landlord accepts the repudiation, then the tenancy ends on the terms agreed. In such a situation of surrender the landlord does not have to agree and can stipulate terms provided they are reasonable.
In particular, the requirements around recovery of expenses incurred by a landlord when agreeing to end a fixed term tenancy early are set out in section 44A of the RTA. S44A states that a landlord is entitled to recover from an outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the agreement. However, they must provide an itemised account to the tenant of those expenses incurred before they seek recovery of same. This section was designed to end the practice of landlords charging tenants set break lease fees and rather be reimbursed for the actual costs incurred.
It has been established here that the landlord did provide an itemised account of the expenses before [redacted] was to pay them. I am also satisfied that they were reasonably charged. The times allocated for tenant screening, background checking and dealing with the documentation was capped. Therefore, [redacted] actually paid for less than the time incurred. The photos referenced on the invoice were the exit inspection photos which did reasonably need to be taken.
I do not accept [redacted}’s submission that the costs were incurred in such close time proximity to when they would have been anyway thereby rendering them unreasonable. The costs were incurred in August, at least four months prior to the earliest time the tenancy could end by way of the contract. Further, the end date of the fixed term did not definitively provide an end to the tenancy for the landlord. Had [redacted] wished to continue the tenancy after that date, it would have continued. Accordingly, I find it reasonable for the landlord to be reimbursed this cost which they incurred as a result of [redacted’s] wish to break his fixed term tenancy. This claim is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee; see s102(4)(b) of the RTA.
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful. This includes being successful in their application or in their defence to an application. As I consider [redacted] successful substantially in his application to have his bond refunded and the landlord successful in defending the claim against the break lease fee, I approve both their applications for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4676374 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4676374 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions