What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4966673?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (3012431-018) to Fistro Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4966673?

Break Lease Fee: $645.42 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4966673?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4966673?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11464492-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4966673?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (3012431-018) to Fistro Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4966673?

Break Lease Fee: $645.42 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4966673?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4966673?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11464492-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27A Paraonui Road, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4966673 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4966673 — net $1,452.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears from 20/05/24 to 24/06/24	$2,460.00	Rent arrears from 20/05/24 to 24/06/24
Break lease fee	$645.42	Break lease fee
Filing fee reimbursement for application 4966673	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement for application 4966673
Net award	$1,452.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,452.42

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (3012431-018) to Fistro Limited immediately.
Mark Lester Derecho Gonzales and Juvylyn Repolles Gonzales must pay Fistro Limited $1,452.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 25 November 2024 and 18 February 2025. The tenants were represented by Kelly Kuru at both hearings, and they had a friend Jechrie Lagoni with them at the 18 February 2025 hearing as a support person and a witness.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenants viewed the 2-bedroom rental premise in early January 2024. Jechrie Lagoni confirmed that he was with the tenants at that initial viewing and that the tenants had informed the landlord that they were seeking rental accommodation for 3-6 months as they were waiting for family to arrive and would require more than two bedrooms at that time. The landlord denies being told the tenants that they had family coming and submitted that he would have questioned why they were looking at a two-bedroom house if they would be looking to move again in 3 to 6 months’ time.
After the initial viewings, the tenants completed a pre-tenancy application form each on 8 January 2024. In these pre-tenancy application forms, the tenants indicated they are looking for rental accommodation for between 3 to 12 months. In these pre-tenancy application forms the tenants also confirm their prior tenancies have all been for a year or more. When the landlord undertook a reference check, Mark’s boss confirmed that the tenants had told him they were looking for long term accommodation and based on that assurance and the tenants’ prior rental history, the landlord considered the tenants would commit to a 12-month fixed term tenancy that would give both parties some security for that period.
The landlord says he was not interested in letting the premise for less than 12 months, as the cost of short-term rentals is prohibitive. He submitted that he as Mark had a stable job, that would cover the rent, and Mark had told his boss he was looking for long term accommodation, he made an initial offer of a fixed term tenancy by text message on 10 January 2024 which reads: “Great thank you Mark. We will get the background checks underway and be in touch ASAP”. A rental offer was extended on Jan 11 Weekly rent: $420.00 Bond amount: $1,680.00 Tenancy start date: 15 January 2024 Tenancy end date: 14 January 2025. Congratulations! Everything checked out, we like you and we'd like to offer you 27A. We're in the area until Sunday morning. We'd like to do the move-in inspection and sign the tenancy agreement late Sunday morning if you're free. This means we'd give you the keys a day early. Let us know what you think! Sandra and Aran”.
The parties met on 11 January 2024 and entered a fixed term tenancy for a term from 15 January 2024to 14 January 2025. The tenants’ friend, Jechrie Lagoni, confirmed he was not with the tenants at this signing meeting and says English is not the tenants’ primary language and that they did not understand that the tenancy agreement locked them into a fixed term tenancy for a year that they could not break when their family arrived in New Zealand. Further, the tenants’ submit that the landlord should have known that English was the tenants second language and that the landlord had a legal and moral responsibility to tell the tenants this was not a “normal” tenancy and that it meant the tenants would not be free to move out until the end of the 12 month period, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, and the landlord could hold them liable to pay the full 12 months of rent, even if they moved out early.
Based on the mistaken belief the tenants were in a “normal” tenancy, the tenants wrote to the landlord on 30 April 2024 giving 21 days’ notice to vacate the premise on 10 May 2024. By “normal” they meant a periodic tenancy.
To their surprise, the tenants were informed by the landlord that they were liable for rent up to the date a new tenant took over the remainder of their fixed term tenancy. The tenants refuted they were legally responsible to do so and informed the landlord that they had signed up to a “normal” tenancy that they could terminate with the giving of 21 days written notice.
The tenants submitted they had previously only held rural tenancies in New Zealand, all of which were periodic. They say they were unaware that a tenancy could be for a fixed term and that fixed term meant that they would have to stay in that tenancy for 12 months, unless otherwise agreed by the parties to the tenancy agreement.
The parties could not reach agreement to reduce the fixed term tenancy, and the landlord sought to hold the tenants legally responsible for rent payments to 28 June 2024, because a new tenant did not move into the premise until 29 June 2024 and the landlord had taken reasonable steps to relet the premise.
The tenants paid rent to 19 May 2024, despite them having handed back the keys on 10 May 2024 as they thought that was fair, once they were informed that the statutorily required notice period for a periodic tenancy was 28 days.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears of $2,460.00 from 20 May 2024 to 28 June 2024 and a break lease fee of $645.42. The break lease fee is made up of the costs of advertising the premise ($218.50), viewings ($85.25), credit and reference checks for potential tenants that were shortlisted ($63.25), and an exit methamphetamine test (278.42).

How much is owed for rent?

The tenants claim they made a unilateral contractual mistake when they signed the fixed term tenancy agreement that they believed was periodic with no end date that they could give 21 days’ written notice to end. They submitted that the landlord was aware of their mistake and had an obligation to explain to them that signing the tenancy agreement locked them into the tenancy for 12 months. Further, they submit that the landlord knew they misunderstood this crucial aspect of the tenancy agreement, and the tenancy agreement is unenforceable.
I am satisfied the evidence proves, on the balance of probabilities, the tenancy agreement was binding and enforceable and the tenancy ended on 28 June 2024, the day prior to the new tenant moving into the premise because: a. Even if Jechrie Lagoni informed the landlord, at the first viewing of the premise, the tenants were looking for accommodation for no longer than 3 to 6 months, this alleged conversation occurred prior to the negotiation phase of the contract formation process; b. The landlord states that if Jechrie Lagoni had informed him that the tenants were looking for such a short-term lease, he would not have taken them through to the application stage of the process. This is because the landlord wanted the certainty of income for a year and did not want to incur reletting fees after such a short lease period, when he could have let the premise to another party for a minimum of a 12months. I prefer the landlord’s evidence in this regard as it is an experienced landlord and would have not taken the tenants to the pre-tenancy application stage if they had made it clear they were intending to move out within 3 to 6 months; c. When the landlord made the text-based offer to the tenants of a 12-month fixed term tenancy, with a start date of 15 January 2024 and an end date of 14 January 2025 at a weekly rental of $420.00 and payment of $1,680.00 bond, the tenants could have sought independent legal advice or advice from a friend well versed in written English. They did not. Periodic tenancies never have an end date and had they sought advice this alleged contractual mistake would have been uncovered before they went to sign the tenancy agreement (“Agreement”); d. The tenants then agreed to meet the landlord on 11 January 2024 to sign the 12-month fixed term Agreement. If they were concerned that their English was not good enough to read and understand the Agreement before they signed it, then they could have taken an English-speaking friend with them to assist them to confirm what terms and conditions they were agreeing to before signing a binding and enforceable Agreement; e. The landlord was under no legal obligation to give the tenants legal advice before they signed the Agreement, nor to go through the Agreement with them and explain each term in plain English just in case they had not fully understood any of the terms and conditions contained within it. Tenants are responsible to ensure they fully understand the terms and conditions set out in an Agreement before they sign it, and to seek independent advice if they are unsure prior to signing and returning it to the landlord. The tenants have not provided compelling evidence that supports their contractual mistakes- based defence. While the tenants allege, they held a reasonable belief the Agreement was periodic, and that this belief was fundamental to their decision to enter into the Agreement, they have failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that they had reasonable grounds for their belief. The evidence produced indicates the landlord informed the tenants the offer was for a tenancy that had a start and end date at a fixed weekly rental rate and 4 weeks bond prior to them signing the Agreement. These fundamental terms were made very clear in the 10 January 2024 text message. In addition, there is no evidence that proves the landlord knew the tenants had misunderstood the fixed term nature of the written Agreement he offered to them, especially when he had sent a succinct text message offer the day prior that had a clear start and end date and the tenants had agreed, by reply text, to take the tenancy on those fundamental terms; and f. The tenants confirmed they were not placed under duress to sign the Agreement on 11 January 2024. The landlord also confirmed that had the tenants requested a few days to seek advice on the contents of the Agreement, he would have agreed to give them that time. In addition, he says there was no indication that the tenants did not understand enough English to be able to read and understand the terms and conditions of the tenancy being offered to them.
I dismiss the tenants claim that the tenancy ended on 17 May 2024. The tenants did not provide sufficient evidence to successfully defend the landlord’s claim for rent arrears to 28 June 2024, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants responsible for break lease fees?

The tenants can be ordered to pay reasonable compensation for any loss or damage that has resulted from the reduction in the term of the fixed term tenancy.
The tenants ended the tenancy before the end of the fixed term and the landlord has proven it incurred reasonable costs of $645.42 for break lease advertising fees, viewing fees and credit check fees because of the fixed term lease being ended eight months early.
I have granted the landlord the compensation it has claimed for the costs it directly incurred because of the early unconsented termination of the fixed term tenancy.
The tenant’s stated they should not be liable for the exit inspection methamphetamine test and required the landlord to prove it had carried out and paid for a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test. The landlord proved that it had engaged a specialist to undertake this test, pre and post the tenancy, and that it had incurred a cost of $278.42 for the post tenancy testing that it would not have had to undertake, but for the tenants’ breach of the terms of the Agreement. I am satisfied the tenants should compensate the landlord for the cost of this testing. Reimbursement of filing fees
Because Fistro Limited has substantially succeeded with this claim, I have reimbursed the $27.00 filing fee.
The landlord also made a claim for reimbursement of the filing fee it paid to make application 4892025, which was heard by Adjudicator King on 5 June 2024. Application 4892025 was for termination of the tenancy for abandonment. No order was made for the filing fee, as the abandonment claim failed. Section 102(4) of the RTA provides for the Tribunal to reimburse an applicant’s filing fee only if the applicant’s claim(s) are wholly or substantially successful. The applicant application 4892025 was not successful. Its application for reimbursement of the $20.44 filing fee is therefore dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4966673 — net $1,452.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears from 20/05/24 to 24/06/24	$2,460.00	Rent arrears from 20/05/24 to 24/06/24
Break lease fee	$645.42	Break lease fee
Filing fee reimbursement for application 4966673	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement for application 4966673
Net award	$1,452.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,452.42

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 (3012431-018) to Fistro Limited immediately.
Mark Lester Derecho Gonzales and Juvylyn Repolles Gonzales must pay Fistro Limited $1,452.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings on 25 November 2024 and 18 February 2025. The tenants were represented by Kelly Kuru at both hearings, and they had a friend Jechrie Lagoni with them at the 18 February 2025 hearing as a support person and a witness.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenants viewed the 2-bedroom rental premise in early January 2024. Jechrie Lagoni confirmed that he was with the tenants at that initial viewing and that the tenants had informed the landlord that they were seeking rental accommodation for 3-6 months as they were waiting for family to arrive and would require more than two bedrooms at that time. The landlord denies being told the tenants that they had family coming and submitted that he would have questioned why they were looking at a two-bedroom house if they would be looking to move again in 3 to 6 months’ time.
After the initial viewings, the tenants completed a pre-tenancy application form each on 8 January 2024. In these pre-tenancy application forms, the tenants indicated they are looking for rental accommodation for between 3 to 12 months. In these pre-tenancy application forms the tenants also confirm their prior tenancies have all been for a year or more. When the landlord undertook a reference check, Mark’s boss confirmed that the tenants had told him they were looking for long term accommodation and based on that assurance and the tenants’ prior rental history, the landlord considered the tenants would commit to a 12-month fixed term tenancy that would give both parties some security for that period.
The landlord says he was not interested in letting the premise for less than 12 months, as the cost of short-term rentals is prohibitive. He submitted that he as Mark had a stable job, that would cover the rent, and Mark had told his boss he was looking for long term accommodation, he made an initial offer of a fixed term tenancy by text message on 10 January 2024 which reads: “Great thank you Mark. We will get the background checks underway and be in touch ASAP”. A rental offer was extended on Jan 11 Weekly rent: $420.00 Bond amount: $1,680.00 Tenancy start date: 15 January 2024 Tenancy end date: 14 January 2025. Congratulations! Everything checked out, we like you and we'd like to offer you 27A. We're in the area until Sunday morning. We'd like to do the move-in inspection and sign the tenancy agreement late Sunday morning if you're free. This means we'd give you the keys a day early. Let us know what you think! Sandra and Aran”.
The parties met on 11 January 2024 and entered a fixed term tenancy for a term from 15 January 2024to 14 January 2025. The tenants’ friend, Jechrie Lagoni, confirmed he was not with the tenants at this signing meeting and says English is not the tenants’ primary language and that they did not understand that the tenancy agreement locked them into a fixed term tenancy for a year that they could not break when their family arrived in New Zealand. Further, the tenants’ submit that the landlord should have known that English was the tenants second language and that the landlord had a legal and moral responsibility to tell the tenants this was not a “normal” tenancy and that it meant the tenants would not be free to move out until the end of the 12 month period, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, and the landlord could hold them liable to pay the full 12 months of rent, even if they moved out early.
Based on the mistaken belief the tenants were in a “normal” tenancy, the tenants wrote to the landlord on 30 April 2024 giving 21 days’ notice to vacate the premise on 10 May 2024. By “normal” they meant a periodic tenancy.
To their surprise, the tenants were informed by the landlord that they were liable for rent up to the date a new tenant took over the remainder of their fixed term tenancy. The tenants refuted they were legally responsible to do so and informed the landlord that they had signed up to a “normal” tenancy that they could terminate with the giving of 21 days written notice.
The tenants submitted they had previously only held rural tenancies in New Zealand, all of which were periodic. They say they were unaware that a tenancy could be for a fixed term and that fixed term meant that they would have to stay in that tenancy for 12 months, unless otherwise agreed by the parties to the tenancy agreement.
The parties could not reach agreement to reduce the fixed term tenancy, and the landlord sought to hold the tenants legally responsible for rent payments to 28 June 2024, because a new tenant did not move into the premise until 29 June 2024 and the landlord had taken reasonable steps to relet the premise.
The tenants paid rent to 19 May 2024, despite them having handed back the keys on 10 May 2024 as they thought that was fair, once they were informed that the statutorily required notice period for a periodic tenancy was 28 days.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears of $2,460.00 from 20 May 2024 to 28 June 2024 and a break lease fee of $645.42. The break lease fee is made up of the costs of advertising the premise ($218.50), viewings ($85.25), credit and reference checks for potential tenants that were shortlisted ($63.25), and an exit methamphetamine test (278.42).

How much is owed for rent?

The tenants claim they made a unilateral contractual mistake when they signed the fixed term tenancy agreement that they believed was periodic with no end date that they could give 21 days’ written notice to end. They submitted that the landlord was aware of their mistake and had an obligation to explain to them that signing the tenancy agreement locked them into the tenancy for 12 months. Further, they submit that the landlord knew they misunderstood this crucial aspect of the tenancy agreement, and the tenancy agreement is unenforceable.
I am satisfied the evidence proves, on the balance of probabilities, the tenancy agreement was binding and enforceable and the tenancy ended on 28 June 2024, the day prior to the new tenant moving into the premise because: a. Even if Jechrie Lagoni informed the landlord, at the first viewing of the premise, the tenants were looking for accommodation for no longer than 3 to 6 months, this alleged conversation occurred prior to the negotiation phase of the contract formation process; b. The landlord states that if Jechrie Lagoni had informed him that the tenants were looking for such a short-term lease, he would not have taken them through to the application stage of the process. This is because the landlord wanted the certainty of income for a year and did not want to incur reletting fees after such a short lease period, when he could have let the premise to another party for a minimum of a 12months. I prefer the landlord’s evidence in this regard as it is an experienced landlord and would have not taken the tenants to the pre-tenancy application stage if they had made it clear they were intending to move out within 3 to 6 months; c. When the landlord made the text-based offer to the tenants of a 12-month fixed term tenancy, with a start date of 15 January 2024 and an end date of 14 January 2025 at a weekly rental of $420.00 and payment of $1,680.00 bond, the tenants could have sought independent legal advice or advice from a friend well versed in written English. They did not. Periodic tenancies never have an end date and had they sought advice this alleged contractual mistake would have been uncovered before they went to sign the tenancy agreement (“Agreement”); d. The tenants then agreed to meet the landlord on 11 January 2024 to sign the 12-month fixed term Agreement. If they were concerned that their English was not good enough to read and understand the Agreement before they signed it, then they could have taken an English-speaking friend with them to assist them to confirm what terms and conditions they were agreeing to before signing a binding and enforceable Agreement; e. The landlord was under no legal obligation to give the tenants legal advice before they signed the Agreement, nor to go through the Agreement with them and explain each term in plain English just in case they had not fully understood any of the terms and conditions contained within it. Tenants are responsible to ensure they fully understand the terms and conditions set out in an Agreement before they sign it, and to seek independent advice if they are unsure prior to signing and returning it to the landlord. The tenants have not provided compelling evidence that supports their contractual mistakes- based defence. While the tenants allege, they held a reasonable belief the Agreement was periodic, and that this belief was fundamental to their decision to enter into the Agreement, they have failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that they had reasonable grounds for their belief. The evidence produced indicates the landlord informed the tenants the offer was for a tenancy that had a start and end date at a fixed weekly rental rate and 4 weeks bond prior to them signing the Agreement. These fundamental terms were made very clear in the 10 January 2024 text message. In addition, there is no evidence that proves the landlord knew the tenants had misunderstood the fixed term nature of the written Agreement he offered to them, especially when he had sent a succinct text message offer the day prior that had a clear start and end date and the tenants had agreed, by reply text, to take the tenancy on those fundamental terms; and f. The tenants confirmed they were not placed under duress to sign the Agreement on 11 January 2024. The landlord also confirmed that had the tenants requested a few days to seek advice on the contents of the Agreement, he would have agreed to give them that time. In addition, he says there was no indication that the tenants did not understand enough English to be able to read and understand the terms and conditions of the tenancy being offered to them.
I dismiss the tenants claim that the tenancy ended on 17 May 2024. The tenants did not provide sufficient evidence to successfully defend the landlord’s claim for rent arrears to 28 June 2024, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants responsible for break lease fees?

The tenants can be ordered to pay reasonable compensation for any loss or damage that has resulted from the reduction in the term of the fixed term tenancy.
The tenants ended the tenancy before the end of the fixed term and the landlord has proven it incurred reasonable costs of $645.42 for break lease advertising fees, viewing fees and credit check fees because of the fixed term lease being ended eight months early.
I have granted the landlord the compensation it has claimed for the costs it directly incurred because of the early unconsented termination of the fixed term tenancy.
The tenant’s stated they should not be liable for the exit inspection methamphetamine test and required the landlord to prove it had carried out and paid for a pre-tenancy methamphetamine test. The landlord proved that it had engaged a specialist to undertake this test, pre and post the tenancy, and that it had incurred a cost of $278.42 for the post tenancy testing that it would not have had to undertake, but for the tenants’ breach of the terms of the Agreement. I am satisfied the tenants should compensate the landlord for the cost of this testing. Reimbursement of filing fees
Because Fistro Limited has substantially succeeded with this claim, I have reimbursed the $27.00 filing fee.
The landlord also made a claim for reimbursement of the filing fee it paid to make application 4892025, which was heard by Adjudicator King on 5 June 2024. Application 4892025 was for termination of the tenancy for abandonment. No order was made for the filing fee, as the abandonment claim failed. Section 102(4) of the RTA provides for the Tribunal to reimburse an applicant’s filing fee only if the applicant’s claim(s) are wholly or substantially successful. The applicant application 4892025 was not successful. Its application for reimbursement of the $20.44 filing fee is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4966673 — Rent arrears at 27A Paraonui Road, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4966673 — Rent arrears at 27A Paraonui Road, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Are the tenants responsible for break lease fees?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Are the tenants responsible for break lease fees?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions