What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4981153?

The tribunal order states: Matthew Borich and Katrina Diack must pay Rentals.co.nz Limited (as agent for

How much money was awarded in case 4981153?

Break Lease Costs: $279.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $607.18 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $7.10 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4981153?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4981153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11232847-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4981153?

The tribunal order states: Matthew Borich and Katrina Diack must pay Rentals.co.nz Limited (as agent for

How much money was awarded in case 4981153?

Break Lease Costs: $279.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $607.18 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $7.10 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4981153?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4981153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11232847-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

134 Western Hills Drive, Kensington, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4981153 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4981153 — net $920.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$7.10	Water rates
Break lease costs	$279.25	Break lease costs
Repairs	$607.18	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$920.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$920.53

Order

Matthew Borich and Katrina Diack must pay Rentals.co.nz Limited (as agent for Shane Watt & Samara Hay) $920.53 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenants left the tenancy in June 2024.
The landlord’s application sought rent arrears, break lease costs, repairs, and water rates.
The tenant’s application sought refund of the bond, and compensation for work carried out on the property.
After the applications were filed, the tenant agreed to release the bond to the landlord in the hope that would satisfy the landlord’s claim.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 18 December 2024. Mr Borich and Ms Diack attended the hearing in person. Ms Inglis, representing the landlord, was unable to attend in person and appeared by phone with the consent of the Tribunal.
At the hearing Mr Borich and Ms Diack confirmed that they no longer sought compensation for work carried out on the property, and they did not dispute the landlord’s claim for repairs to a wall or for water rates.
The focus of the dispute was whether this was fixed term tenancy.

Was this a fixed term tenancy?

Mr Borich and Ms Diack said that: a. When they first spoke with Rentals.co.nz (Mr Paki) about the tenancy they made it clear that they were interested in a short-term tenancy because they were looking to purchase a house. b. Mr Paki told them that this would also suit the owners, who were overseas but considering returning to New Zealand. c. They signed the written agreement without carefully reading it. d. They were not aware that they were locked into a fixed term tenancy until they told the landlord that they had purchased a house and were moving out. e. Rentals.co.nz then denied their verbal agreement.
Ms Inglis said that as far as Rentals.co.nz is concerned, this was always a one- year fixed term tenancy. Although Mr Borich and Ms Diack talked about the possibility of buying a house, their written tenancy application stated that they wanted a 12-month tenancy.
The starting point must be that the written tenancy agreement sets out the terms of the tenancy. That is the purpose of the written agreement. In this instance, the tenancy agreement states that it is a one-year fixed term tenancy.
The Tenancy Tribunal can vary or set aside an agreement if the Tribunal is satisfied that the agreement was entered into on the basis of misrepresentation or mistake, or that the terms of the written agreement does not accord with the “true agreement” of the parties. 1
However, the burden of proof is with the party who asserts misrepresentation or mistake.
In this instance, the only evidence available to me is the conflicting recollections of the landlord and tenants about conversations that occurred before the start of this tenancy in November 2023.
My finding is that it is not proven, to the standard of “more likely than not” that the written agreement does not accord with the true agreement of the parties.
Therefore, I must find that: a. The terms of the written tenancy agreement apply. b. This was a one-year fixed term tenancy. c. Although the tenants gave notice and left the premises, the tenancy did not end. A fixed term tenancy cannot be ended by notice. d. The tenants remained liable for rent to the end of the fixed term or to the date that a new tenancy (on the same terms) began, whichever is the sooner. e. A new tenancy began on 23 August 2024. The amount of rent arrears to 22 August 2024 is proven. Break lease costs
If a tenant leaves a fixed term tenancy early, the landlord has no legal duty to find a replacement tenant. 2 A landlord could wait until the end of the fixed term and bring a claim for all of the rent owed.
Landlords can agree to the surrender of a tenancy, and most landlords take this practical approach in these circumstances.
If a landlord agrees to the surrender of a tenancy, the landlord can impose reasonable terms, and claim from the tenant “any expenses reasonably incurred” 3 .
Rentals.co.nz seeks break lease costs totalling $558.50 comprised of advertising, administration, and inspection costs.
I accept that these costs were properly and reasonably incurred in the effort to find replacement tenants. The amounts claimed are fair and reasonable. The 1 Section 78(1)(g) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 61(4) RTA 3 Section 44A RTA landlord sent the tenant a break downs of the costs. The amount currently claimed by the landlord is less than they indicated to the tenants.
I note that the fixed term tenancy was due to end on 25 November 2024. The tenancy could have lawfully ended on that date, and the landlord would then have to incur the costs of advertising, etc, to find new tenants. The loss to the landlord is that the costs have been brought forward from November 2024 to June 2024.
It would be unjust to require the tenants to pay the full amount of the costs. The tenants are to pay half of the break lease costs. Bond, filing fee
The proven claim exceeds the amount of the bond. The landlord is entitled to retain the bond.
The landlord has been successful in their application, and I must also award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00.
Neither party sought name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4981153 — net $920.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$7.10	Water rates
Break lease costs	$279.25	Break lease costs
Repairs	$607.18	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$920.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$920.53

Order

Matthew Borich and Katrina Diack must pay Rentals.co.nz Limited (as agent for Shane Watt & Samara Hay) $920.53 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenants left the tenancy in June 2024.
The landlord’s application sought rent arrears, break lease costs, repairs, and water rates.
The tenant’s application sought refund of the bond, and compensation for work carried out on the property.
After the applications were filed, the tenant agreed to release the bond to the landlord in the hope that would satisfy the landlord’s claim.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 18 December 2024. Mr Borich and Ms Diack attended the hearing in person. Ms Inglis, representing the landlord, was unable to attend in person and appeared by phone with the consent of the Tribunal.
At the hearing Mr Borich and Ms Diack confirmed that they no longer sought compensation for work carried out on the property, and they did not dispute the landlord’s claim for repairs to a wall or for water rates.
The focus of the dispute was whether this was fixed term tenancy.

Was this a fixed term tenancy?

Mr Borich and Ms Diack said that: a. When they first spoke with Rentals.co.nz (Mr Paki) about the tenancy they made it clear that they were interested in a short-term tenancy because they were looking to purchase a house. b. Mr Paki told them that this would also suit the owners, who were overseas but considering returning to New Zealand. c. They signed the written agreement without carefully reading it. d. They were not aware that they were locked into a fixed term tenancy until they told the landlord that they had purchased a house and were moving out. e. Rentals.co.nz then denied their verbal agreement.
Ms Inglis said that as far as Rentals.co.nz is concerned, this was always a one- year fixed term tenancy. Although Mr Borich and Ms Diack talked about the possibility of buying a house, their written tenancy application stated that they wanted a 12-month tenancy.
The starting point must be that the written tenancy agreement sets out the terms of the tenancy. That is the purpose of the written agreement. In this instance, the tenancy agreement states that it is a one-year fixed term tenancy.
The Tenancy Tribunal can vary or set aside an agreement if the Tribunal is satisfied that the agreement was entered into on the basis of misrepresentation or mistake, or that the terms of the written agreement does not accord with the “true agreement” of the parties. 1
However, the burden of proof is with the party who asserts misrepresentation or mistake.
In this instance, the only evidence available to me is the conflicting recollections of the landlord and tenants about conversations that occurred before the start of this tenancy in November 2023.
My finding is that it is not proven, to the standard of “more likely than not” that the written agreement does not accord with the true agreement of the parties.
Therefore, I must find that: a. The terms of the written tenancy agreement apply. b. This was a one-year fixed term tenancy. c. Although the tenants gave notice and left the premises, the tenancy did not end. A fixed term tenancy cannot be ended by notice. d. The tenants remained liable for rent to the end of the fixed term or to the date that a new tenancy (on the same terms) began, whichever is the sooner. e. A new tenancy began on 23 August 2024. The amount of rent arrears to 22 August 2024 is proven. Break lease costs
If a tenant leaves a fixed term tenancy early, the landlord has no legal duty to find a replacement tenant. 2 A landlord could wait until the end of the fixed term and bring a claim for all of the rent owed.
Landlords can agree to the surrender of a tenancy, and most landlords take this practical approach in these circumstances.
If a landlord agrees to the surrender of a tenancy, the landlord can impose reasonable terms, and claim from the tenant “any expenses reasonably incurred” 3 .
Rentals.co.nz seeks break lease costs totalling $558.50 comprised of advertising, administration, and inspection costs.
I accept that these costs were properly and reasonably incurred in the effort to find replacement tenants. The amounts claimed are fair and reasonable. The 1 Section 78(1)(g) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 61(4) RTA 3 Section 44A RTA landlord sent the tenant a break downs of the costs. The amount currently claimed by the landlord is less than they indicated to the tenants.
I note that the fixed term tenancy was due to end on 25 November 2024. The tenancy could have lawfully ended on that date, and the landlord would then have to incur the costs of advertising, etc, to find new tenants. The loss to the landlord is that the costs have been brought forward from November 2024 to June 2024.
It would be unjust to require the tenants to pay the full amount of the costs. The tenants are to pay half of the break lease costs. Bond, filing fee
The proven claim exceeds the amount of the bond. The landlord is entitled to retain the bond.
The landlord has been successful in their application, and I must also award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00.
Neither party sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4981153 — Property damage at 134 Western Hills Drive, Kensington, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4981153 — Property damage at 134 Western Hills Drive, Kensington, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was this a fixed term tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was this a fixed term tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions