What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5106088 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5106088?

Break Lease Cost: $570.43 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $582.56 awarded to landlord; Rent Difference: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $28.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5106088?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5106088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11820361-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5106088 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5106088?

Break Lease Cost: $570.43 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $582.56 awarded to landlord; Rent Difference: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $28.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5106088?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5106088?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11820361-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5106088 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5106088 — net $1,898.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7/12/24	$582.56	Rent arrears to 7/12/24
Water rates & power	$28.65	Water rates & power
Break lease cost	$570.43	Break lease cost
Rent difference	$690.00	Rent difference
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$1,898.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,898.64

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,898.64 (the debt), calculated as shown in table below.
[The tenant/s] will pay the debt at the rate of $20 per week commencing immediately.
If the tenant fails to make any payment within 2 working days of the due date, the balance of the debt owing will be payable immediately and can be enforced through the District Court.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [The landlord’s representative/s].
The tenant attended with the assistance of her son and an interpreter.
This was a fixed term tenancy for 12 months that commenced in May 2024. The tenant sought to end the tenancy early on 27 September for financial hardship reasons. Agreement was reached that the landlord would advertise for a replacement tenancy and the tenant would pay the break lease costs and the rent until a replacement tenancy was secured.
The landlord subsequently advertised but a replacement tenancy was not secured until 8 December and only at a reduced rental. [The tenant/s]’s tenancy was for $510 in weekly rent, the new tenancy was secured at $480.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates and power costs until 7 December, break lease costs and the difference in rent from 8 December until the end of the original term, 18 May 2025. [The landlord’s representative/s] says this is reasonable given the owner has already lost out financially as they will not be able to increase the rent again until December 2025. 1
[The tenant/s] agrees to the water rates and power costs and the break lease fee, however objects to paying rent until 7 December and the rent difference. She considers (via her son) that the landlord did not act reasonably in advertising the property and so the delay in re-renting was unreasonable. She considers they delayed in advertising and then did not prioritise this property in trying to re-tenant.
Her son asked the landlord to advertise the property at $50 less on 20 October saying they would make up the difference for the remainder of the tenancy. The landlord initially continued advertising at the actual rent of $510 but noted in the conditions that the rent would be subsidised until May.
[The tenant/s]’s son says this was disingenuous of the landlord as it was not an advertisable rent reduction given people who could not afford $510 would not read into the blurb of the advertisement.
[The landlord’s representative/s] says they had to initially advertise this way so that the original rent remained in order that the landlord could increase the rent in May 2025. When this strategy was not successful, they lowered the actual rent to $480 which is $20 higher than [The tenant/s]’s son had authorised. She submits that [The tenant/s] should pay this because that is similar to what they proposed and has resulted in less debt than they suggested. This was the only way they could secure a replacement tenancy she says.
[The tenant/s]’s son no longer agrees to pay the rent difference because they did not agree specifically to the reduction amount (they agreed to a $50 rent reduction and this is a $30 reduction). 1 Pursuant to section 24 of the RTA The law and discussion
Parties enter into a fixed term tenancy for security. For tenants this is security of tenure; they can be sure they have a home for at least the agreed term. For landlords it is security of income; they can rely on a set amount of income from their investment.
If a tenant defaults on that contract, 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.
Here the parties agreed to end the tenancy on the basis [The tenant/s] continue to pay rent until a replacement tenancy was secured and pay the break lease fee. The difficulty arose, as it often does, when a replacement tenancy was not easily obtained.
There is no evidence that the landlord delayed nor acted unreasonably in advertising the property. They have provided evidence that the advertisement went live just days after the lease break was sought. I accept [The landlord’s representative/s]’s advice that it was a difficult time in the market, and they had many apartments, some cheaper available for rent in the complex at the time.
The parties then varied the break lease agreement to reduce the advertised rent by $50, the disparity of which [The tenant/s]’s son would pay. This authorisation was not specifically followed but eventually the rent was reduced by $30 per week and this tactic was successful.
There are two schools of thought on the legitimacy of rent difference in such situations. On the one hand such a loss could be considered an expense reasonably recoverable pursuant to s44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) because it is a cost the landlord is incurring because of the break. Alternatively, the loss can be considered as damages to reinstate the victim, being the landlord, on the repudiation to the position they would have been in had the breach in contract not incurred.
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages generally that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
It is an implied term in any such agreement that the landlord would make reasonable efforts to obtain a replacement tenancy on the same terms, and any reduction in rate would be reasonable in the circumstances.
Following either of those paths I consider it reasonable that the tenant pay the rent difference. Firstly, this is a loss the landlord is suffering due to the breaking of the lease. The full loss they will suffer is the inability to increase the rent for another six months pursuant to section 24 of the RTA, but the full loss is not sought.
Secondly the reduction in rent to advertise was agreed to by [The tenant/s]’s son. He in fact offered a higher amount than he is going to be paying. Having viewed the offer he provided to the landlord I consider he agreed to this term of ending the fixed term tenancy. He was clear he wanted to rent reduced to secure a replacement tenancy. It was reduced and a replacement tenancy was obtained. The fact that he is to pay less than he offered to pay is beneficial.
I am also satisfied that [The landlord’s representative/s] was sufficiently diligent in her efforts to secure a replacement tenancy and had to reduce the rent to obtain that replacement. The situation would have been more financially dire for [The tenant/s] had the replacement not been obtained.
Accordingly, I find [The tenant/s] liable for the rent reduction.
I appreciate that this is a financial burden that is difficult for her, and I empathise. However, her financial situation is not one I can take into account when applying the law as there is no provision for me to do so in the RTA. Breaking a fixed term lease often comes with a considerable financial burden as it has here for both parties.
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because a significant portion of this order was consented, I consider it just pursuant to sections 85 and 95A of the RTA to suppress both parties’ identifying details from the published order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5106088 — net $1,898.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 7/12/24	$582.56	Rent arrears to 7/12/24
Water rates & power	$28.65	Water rates & power
Break lease cost	$570.43	Break lease cost
Rent difference	$690.00	Rent difference
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$1,898.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,898.64

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,898.64 (the debt), calculated as shown in table below.
[The tenant/s] will pay the debt at the rate of $20 per week commencing immediately.
If the tenant fails to make any payment within 2 working days of the due date, the balance of the debt owing will be payable immediately and can be enforced through the District Court.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [The landlord’s representative/s].
The tenant attended with the assistance of her son and an interpreter.
This was a fixed term tenancy for 12 months that commenced in May 2024. The tenant sought to end the tenancy early on 27 September for financial hardship reasons. Agreement was reached that the landlord would advertise for a replacement tenancy and the tenant would pay the break lease costs and the rent until a replacement tenancy was secured.
The landlord subsequently advertised but a replacement tenancy was not secured until 8 December and only at a reduced rental. [The tenant/s]’s tenancy was for $510 in weekly rent, the new tenancy was secured at $480.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates and power costs until 7 December, break lease costs and the difference in rent from 8 December until the end of the original term, 18 May 2025. [The landlord’s representative/s] says this is reasonable given the owner has already lost out financially as they will not be able to increase the rent again until December 2025. 1
[The tenant/s] agrees to the water rates and power costs and the break lease fee, however objects to paying rent until 7 December and the rent difference. She considers (via her son) that the landlord did not act reasonably in advertising the property and so the delay in re-renting was unreasonable. She considers they delayed in advertising and then did not prioritise this property in trying to re-tenant.
Her son asked the landlord to advertise the property at $50 less on 20 October saying they would make up the difference for the remainder of the tenancy. The landlord initially continued advertising at the actual rent of $510 but noted in the conditions that the rent would be subsidised until May.
[The tenant/s]’s son says this was disingenuous of the landlord as it was not an advertisable rent reduction given people who could not afford $510 would not read into the blurb of the advertisement.
[The landlord’s representative/s] says they had to initially advertise this way so that the original rent remained in order that the landlord could increase the rent in May 2025. When this strategy was not successful, they lowered the actual rent to $480 which is $20 higher than [The tenant/s]’s son had authorised. She submits that [The tenant/s] should pay this because that is similar to what they proposed and has resulted in less debt than they suggested. This was the only way they could secure a replacement tenancy she says.
[The tenant/s]’s son no longer agrees to pay the rent difference because they did not agree specifically to the reduction amount (they agreed to a $50 rent reduction and this is a $30 reduction). 1 Pursuant to section 24 of the RTA The law and discussion
Parties enter into a fixed term tenancy for security. For tenants this is security of tenure; they can be sure they have a home for at least the agreed term. For landlords it is security of income; they can rely on a set amount of income from their investment.
If a tenant defaults on that contract, 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.
Here the parties agreed to end the tenancy on the basis [The tenant/s] continue to pay rent until a replacement tenancy was secured and pay the break lease fee. The difficulty arose, as it often does, when a replacement tenancy was not easily obtained.
There is no evidence that the landlord delayed nor acted unreasonably in advertising the property. They have provided evidence that the advertisement went live just days after the lease break was sought. I accept [The landlord’s representative/s]’s advice that it was a difficult time in the market, and they had many apartments, some cheaper available for rent in the complex at the time.
The parties then varied the break lease agreement to reduce the advertised rent by $50, the disparity of which [The tenant/s]’s son would pay. This authorisation was not specifically followed but eventually the rent was reduced by $30 per week and this tactic was successful.
There are two schools of thought on the legitimacy of rent difference in such situations. On the one hand such a loss could be considered an expense reasonably recoverable pursuant to s44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) because it is a cost the landlord is incurring because of the break. Alternatively, the loss can be considered as damages to reinstate the victim, being the landlord, on the repudiation to the position they would have been in had the breach in contract not incurred.
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages generally that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
It is an implied term in any such agreement that the landlord would make reasonable efforts to obtain a replacement tenancy on the same terms, and any reduction in rate would be reasonable in the circumstances.
Following either of those paths I consider it reasonable that the tenant pay the rent difference. Firstly, this is a loss the landlord is suffering due to the breaking of the lease. The full loss they will suffer is the inability to increase the rent for another six months pursuant to section 24 of the RTA, but the full loss is not sought.
Secondly the reduction in rent to advertise was agreed to by [The tenant/s]’s son. He in fact offered a higher amount than he is going to be paying. Having viewed the offer he provided to the landlord I consider he agreed to this term of ending the fixed term tenancy. He was clear he wanted to rent reduced to secure a replacement tenancy. It was reduced and a replacement tenancy was obtained. The fact that he is to pay less than he offered to pay is beneficial.
I am also satisfied that [The landlord’s representative/s] was sufficiently diligent in her efforts to secure a replacement tenancy and had to reduce the rent to obtain that replacement. The situation would have been more financially dire for [The tenant/s] had the replacement not been obtained.
Accordingly, I find [The tenant/s] liable for the rent reduction.
I appreciate that this is a financial burden that is difficult for her, and I empathise. However, her financial situation is not one I can take into account when applying the law as there is no provision for me to do so in the RTA. Breaking a fixed term lease often comes with a considerable financial burden as it has here for both parties.
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because a significant portion of this order was consented, I consider it just pursuant to sections 85 and 95A of the RTA to suppress both parties’ identifying details from the published order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5106088 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5106088 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions