What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5059770 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 5059770?

Break Lease Fee: $298.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $890.00 awarded to landlord; Shortfall In Rent 23 Nov 2024 – 31 M…: $2,714.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5059770?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5059770?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11235140-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5059770 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 5059770?

Break Lease Fee: $298.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $890.00 awarded to landlord; Shortfall In Rent 23 Nov 2024 – 31 M…: $2,714.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5059770?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5059770?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11235140-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 17, 8 Burgoyne Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5059770 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5059770 — net $3,929.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at 22 November 2024	$890.00	Rent arrears as at 22 November 2024
Break lease fee	$298.25	Break lease fee
Shortfall in rent 23 Nov 2024 – 31 May 2025	$2,714.29	Shortfall in rent 23 Nov 2024 – 31 May 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,929.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,929.54

The landlord and one tenant, Mr T, attended the hearing which was heard by videoconference. I rang the number provided for the other tenant, Mr F, but my call went unanswered. The hearing proceeded in his absence.

This was a fixed term tenancy due to start on 14 September 2024 and to finish on 31 May 2025. For reasons that don’t need to be explained here, the tenants did not take up the tenancy and so signed a variation to the tenancy agreement, the essential terms of which were: (a) That the tenants agreed to pay rent of $890.00 per week until a new tenant was found or the term of the tenancy expired, whichever was the earlier; and (b) The landlord (or tenant) finds a new tenant on the equivalent terms of the current agreement – rent of $890.00 per week; and (c) The tenants agree to pay the break lease fee costs.

The landlord makes a claim against the tenants seeking $890.00 in rent arrears, payment of $298.25 break lease fee, payment of the shortfall in rent and reimbursement of the filing fee.

How much do the tenants owe?

At today’s hearing, the tenant accepted that they owed rent arrears and the break lease fee as described in the table above. The issue was the payment of $2,714.29 shortfall in rent.

Mr T stated that the tenants ought not to be required to pay the shortfall in rent because the agreement between them was that the landlord or tenants would find a new tenant on the equivalent terms as their current agreement – that is, rent would be payable at a rate of $890.00 per week.

He stated that the landlord signed up a new tenant at a weekly rent of $790.00 which he said was in contravention of that term and that therefore the tenants ought not to be responsible for the landlord having done so.

However, I find that the tenants are responsible for paying the shortfall. I say this for reasons that include: (a) While I accept that the agreement fell short of saying what would happen if a new tenant who would agree to rent at $890.00 could not be found, the entire agreement had the underlying premise that the landlord would not be out of pocket because the tenants wanted to break the fixed term agreement; and (b) I accept that the landlord did all she could to find a new tenant – she went through a large number of messages from prospective tenants who were interested in the tenancy when it was granted to Mr T and Mr F and she undertook 20 viewings with prospective tenants; and (c) A landlord is under a duty to mitigate any losses arising out of a breach of contract (s49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)); and (d) I consider it reasonable that the landlord signed up a new tenant at a lesser rent as a way of mitigating those losses. She could have no idea about when she could find a tenant who would pay $890.00 per week could be found and it took her nearly two months to find a tenant at the lesser rate; and (e) Had the tenants applied to the Tribunal to reduce their fixed term tenancy, the Tribunal would normally require the tenant to pay rent until the expiry of the fixed term or until a new tenant is found. If the new tenancy agreement has rent at a lower rate, then the tenants would be required to pick up that shortfall until the expiry of the fixed term.

The shortfall is proven as being $2714.29 and the tenants are required to pay this amount.

The tenants are also required to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was wholly successful in her claim against them. Suppression of names

Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

I am allowing the landlord’s claim for suppression of her name because she was wholly successful in her claim – s95A(3).

I am also allowing the tenants’ application for suppression of names pursuant to s95A(1). I do so because I consider that the tenant, Mr T, has made genuine efforts to repay the debt without assistance from the other tenant, and because I consider that he had a genuine dispute regarding the claim for the shortfall in rent. I do not consider that there is any public interest in having the tenants names published. C ter Haar 18 December 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5059770 — net $3,929.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at 22 November 2024	$890.00	Rent arrears as at 22 November 2024
Break lease fee	$298.25	Break lease fee
Shortfall in rent 23 Nov 2024 – 31 May 2025	$2,714.29	Shortfall in rent 23 Nov 2024 – 31 May 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,929.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,929.54

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,929.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The landlord and one tenant, Mr T, attended the hearing which was heard by videoconference. I rang the number provided for the other tenant, Mr F, but my call went unanswered. The hearing proceeded in his absence.
This was a fixed term tenancy due to start on 14 September 2024 and to finish on 31 May 2025. For reasons that don’t need to be explained here, the tenants did not take up the tenancy and so signed a variation to the tenancy agreement, the essential terms of which were: (a) That the tenants agreed to pay rent of $890.00 per week until a new tenant was found or the term of the tenancy expired, whichever was the earlier; and (b) The landlord (or tenant) finds a new tenant on the equivalent terms of the current agreement – rent of $890.00 per week; and (c) The tenants agree to pay the break lease fee costs.
The landlord makes a claim against the tenants seeking $890.00 in rent arrears, payment of $298.25 break lease fee, payment of the shortfall in rent and reimbursement of the filing fee.

How much do the tenants owe?

At today’s hearing, the tenant accepted that they owed rent arrears and the break lease fee as described in the table above. The issue was the payment of $2,714.29 shortfall in rent.
Mr T stated that the tenants ought not to be required to pay the shortfall in rent because the agreement between them was that the landlord or tenants would find a new tenant on the equivalent terms as their current agreement – that is, rent would be payable at a rate of $890.00 per week.
He stated that the landlord signed up a new tenant at a weekly rent of $790.00 which he said was in contravention of that term and that therefore the tenants ought not to be responsible for the landlord having done so.
However, I find that the tenants are responsible for paying the shortfall. I say this for reasons that include: (a) While I accept that the agreement fell short of saying what would happen if a new tenant who would agree to rent at $890.00 could not be found, the entire agreement had the underlying premise that the landlord would not be out of pocket because the tenants wanted to break the fixed term agreement; and (b) I accept that the landlord did all she could to find a new tenant – she went through a large number of messages from prospective tenants who were interested in the tenancy when it was granted to Mr T and Mr F and she undertook 20 viewings with prospective tenants; and (c) A landlord is under a duty to mitigate any losses arising out of a breach of contract (s49 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)); and (d) I consider it reasonable that the landlord signed up a new tenant at a lesser rent as a way of mitigating those losses. She could have no idea about when she could find a tenant who would pay $890.00 per week could be found and it took her nearly two months to find a tenant at the lesser rate; and (e) Had the tenants applied to the Tribunal to reduce their fixed term tenancy, the Tribunal would normally require the tenant to pay rent until the expiry of the fixed term or until a new tenant is found. If the new tenancy agreement has rent at a lower rate, then the tenants would be required to pick up that shortfall until the expiry of the fixed term.
The shortfall is proven as being $2714.29 and the tenants are required to pay this amount.
The tenants are also required to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was wholly successful in her claim against them. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
I am allowing the landlord’s claim for suppression of her name because she was wholly successful in her claim – s95A(3).
I am also allowing the tenants’ application for suppression of names pursuant to s95A(1). I do so because I consider that the tenant, Mr T, has made genuine efforts to repay the debt without assistance from the other tenant, and because I consider that he had a genuine dispute regarding the claim for the shortfall in rent. I do not consider that there is any public interest in having the tenants names published. C ter Haar 18 December 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 5059770 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 17, 8 Burgoyne Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5059770 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 17, 8 Burgoyne Street, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much do the tenants owe?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much do the tenants owe?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions