What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5122893 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 5122893?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $357.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5122893?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5122893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11970832-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5122893 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 5122893?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $357.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5122893?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5122893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11970832-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5122893 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5122893 — net $330.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears owed by [Tenant 1] to 6.12.24	$357.14		Rent arrears owed by [Tenant 1] to 6.12.24
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$357.14	$27.00
Net award	$330.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$330.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5122893 — net $330.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears owed by [Tenant 1] to 6.12.24	$357.14		Rent arrears owed by [Tenant 1] to 6.12.24
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$357.14	$27.00
Net award	$330.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$330.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
[Tenant 1] must pay Powell & Co Property Management Limited As Agent For Meta & Philip Brand & James $330.14 by deduction from the bond immediately, being rent arrears to 6 December 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Powell & Co Property Management Limited As Agent For Meta & Philip Brand & James: $330.14 [Tenant 1]: [Tenant 2]: $2,569.86 $1,100.00
The hearing is adjourned to deal with a remaining claim lodged by the tenant [Tenant 1] only seeking compensation and exemplary damages for the landlord’s unlawful termination of his tenancy.
A further 90 minutes should be allowed for the next hearing of this matter, scheduled before me by video conference on the next available date.
The claims for arrears in excess of $357.14 and for cleaning costs of $557.75 are dismissed.

Reasons

There have been two hearings on 9 April and 8 May 2025.
Mr Powell representing the landlord and [Tenant 1] attended the first and second hearings. Ms Figgess representing the landlord also attended the second hearing.
[Tenant 2] attended the second hearing briefly by telephone. However, she had submitted a written submission and evidence that she asked the Tribunal to consider and she decided not to participate in the hearing further.
[Tenant 1] filed an application for refund of the bond. [Tenant 2] was joined to the proceedings because she was a tenant at the relevant time and the bond is held at the Bond Centre in her and [Tenant 1]’s names. Subsequently, [Tenant 1] amended his application seeking compensation and exemplary damages for unlawful termination of his tenancy.
The landlord has filed a cross application for rent arrears and cleaning costs.
The outcome of the dispute between the parties depends on a finding as to when the tenancy ended between the landlord and the tenants; and whether and on what basis there was a new tenancy between [Tenant 1] only and the landlord. Therefore, it is necessary to traverse the factual evidence in some detail.
It is also important to set out the applicable law for tenants wishing to terminate a periodic tenancy. Section 51(2B) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) (in force at the relevant time) provided that a tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 28 days’ notice in writing to the landlord. Furthermore, it is firmly established that a notice of termination given by one tenant under a joint periodic tenancy is effective to terminate the tenancy for all, even if the other tenant does not agree. 1 1 McPhee & Heenan, DC Auckland, CIV-2013-004-1768, 29 July 2014 at paragraph [12] and Takarangi v Summitt Property Management Limited [2023] NZDC 11628 Facts
The tenancy agreement for these premises was a fixed term starting on 31 July 2023 and ending on 30 July 2024 between [Tenant 1], three other co-tenants and the landlord. During the tenancy, there were two changes of tenant. The last change was documented by a deed of variation which resulted in an assignment of the tenancy to [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] as the sole tenants from 23 April 2024 onwards.
When the fixed term expired on 30 July 2024, the tenancy automatically became a periodic tenancy which could be terminated by either tenant giving 28 days’ notice in writing to the landlord and otherwise pursuant to section 51 RTA.
Unfortunately, the relationship between the tenants deteriorated which triggered a series of emails between the tenants and the landlord to bring the tenancy to an end. Timeline of emails in 2024 9 October: [Tenant 2] emailed the landlord giving 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy on 6 November; Ms Figgess asked whether she wished to terminate the tenancy for both tenants or whether someone would be taking [Tenant 2]’s place. [Tenant 2] replied: “I wish to terminate the lease unless [Tenant 1] can find a replacement for me within the 28 days. I know this is his intention.” 9 October: [Tenant 2] also emailed [Tenant 1] that she had given notice saying: “I have given my 28 days’ notice....this will trigger tenancy end for both of us if a new tenant is not found. Alternatively, if you want to continue on in the house, you will have to return my bond...” [Tenant 1] replied to [Tenant 2] on 10 October that he could continue on the lease if she wished to sign out. 17 October: In reply to queries from [Tenant 2] about the process for recovering her bond, Mr Powell sent an email to both tenants advising that they were jointly and severally liable for the tenancy and as the lease had become periodic, he also advised on options for ending the tenancy as follows: •“One person moves out, a new person is found to take over, we approve and sign them onto the lease and remove the person leaving. The incoming tenant pays their share of the bond to the outgoing tenant. •A ‘one out, all out’ case where any one person removing themselves from the tenancy, without finding a replacement, giving notice on the whole lease. This requires 28 days’ formal notice to us copied to both tenants signifying agreement to it. The bond is refunded in full minus any costs for any repairs and overdue rent required. I strongly support the first option here, but that requires communication and agreement between the two of you. I am copying both of you in on this email, it is generated in response to an email from [Tenant 2], as you are both on the lease and need to agree on the process, steps and timing moving forwards, Future emails regarding this matter need to have all parties included please.” Note: This advice from Mr Powell at this stage ignored the fact that [Tenant 2] had already given a notice to terminate the tenancy on 9 October and she had already explained that she wanted it to terminate unless [Tenant 1] found a replacement tenant. Mr Powell did not acknowledge that the tenancy would end on 6 November unless a replacement tenant was found by [Tenant 1]. Mr Powell may have been unaware that this notice had already been given to Ms Figgess. 29 October: [Tenant 2] advised Ms Figgess that she had moved out; that [Tenant 1] had a new flatmate and requested that the lease be sorted. Ms Figgess emailed [Tenant 1] for the new tenant details so that she could process the change. 7 November: [Tenant 1] advised Ms Figgess that he had decided to move on too and end the lease. He asked how to proceed. Ms Figgess said he must give 28 days’ notice, which he then did. Both acknowledged his last day would be 5 th December. Note: This email from Ms Figgess ignores the fact that [Tenant 2] had given notice to end the tenancy on 6 November and the landlord proceeded as if the tenancy had not been terminated. 8 November: [Tenant 2] emailed Ms Figgess advising that she was confused about what had happened, noting that she had moved out; was aware that [Tenant 1] had given 28 days’ notice; and questioned where that leaves her and a third party who wanted to be a replacement tenant. Ms Figgess replied that any change of tenant is between [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 1]. She then advised [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 1]: “You are still both liable for rent until the end date of 5 th Dec.” Note: Again, I consider this advice was incorrect because [Tenant 2] had already terminated the tenancy with effect on 6 November. 17 November: [Tenant 1] emailed Ms Figgess asking if it was still possible to continue on the lease. She asked him whether he wished to withdraw his termination notice. He replied yes because he had found a suitable additional tenant. Ms Figgess then replied: “You will need to let [Tenant 2] know. I am sending the change of tenant through soon.” 18-20 November: Ms Figgess advised [Tenant 2] of the proposed change of tenant. [Tenant 2] kept asking the landlord for an update as she wanted confirmation that the tenancy for her had ended and wanted her bond refunded. Ms Figgess advised [Tenant 2] that she would give [Tenant 1] until the end of the day (to complete the change of tenancy documents) and would then follow through “with the 28 days’ notice if you wish” to which [Tenant 2] replied in the affirmative. 22-25 November: [Tenant 1] said the new tenant had not received change of tenant documents and asked Ms Figgess to send them through. Ms Figgess advised the tenants that the rent was in arrears. She also asked [Tenant 1] to pay [Tenant 2] her portion of the bond and obtain reimbursement from the new proposed replacement tenant. 26 November: Ms Figgess sent a series of emails to the tenants advising that the proposed change of tenant process was cancelled; the vacate date was 17 December and the following email: “After further investigation I have decided to end the tenancy as [Tenant 2] has given notice and I only require one person to end the tenancy. I will start the 28 days from today.” 5 December: [Tenant 1] emailed the landlord advising that he could move out on the weekend (Saturday 7 December/Sunday 8 December) stating he was going to clean the place and also stated “But if tomorrow suits I can move tomorrow, just give notice and let me know what to do. Might be easier Saturday with cleaning....” Ms Figgess also emailed the tenants suggesting a resolution. The email stated: “[Tenant 1]-You were to provide a suitable tenant to replace [Tenant 2], so the tenancy got extended. You failed to do so resulting in the tenancy ending later than [Tenant 2] originally wanted. [Tenant 2]-Would you be happy to pay the rent you owe up until 5 th of December, being the rent you legally owe? [Tenant 1]- then as good faith to [Tenant 2], as she allowed you to continue in the house but not being able to provide a suitable tenant to replace her, you pay the rent owing up to the vacate date?...” 6 December: [Tenant 1] asked Ms Figgess when the tenancy was to end because he could move whenever. She replied: “Today is the final day thanks.” Findings of fact
After carefully considering the available evidence including the communications between the parties I find as follows:
[Tenant 2] gave notice to terminate the tenancy on 6 November 2024 and made it very clear to the landlord that if [Tenant 1] was unable to find a replacement tenant to continue the tenancy the tenancy would end on that date. Her notice to terminate the tenancy was effective to terminate the whole tenancy for her and [Tenant 1] on 6 November. [Tenant 2] did not agree to extend the tenancy until [Tenant 1] found a replacement tenant.
I find that the landlord misrepresented the legal position to both tenants at various times after [Tenant 2] gave notice to terminate the tenancy. Property managers are expected to have knowledge of the law regarding termination of tenancies given their professional role. I have ruled in a previous decision of the Tribunal that while a landlord/property manager is not required to give legal advice to the tenants about their rights and obligations under the RTA, where they voluntarily do so, they must ensure that the advice is correct. 2 The material misrepresentations were: a. Mr Powell’s email on 17 October, while mostly correct fails to acknowledge the effect of [Tenant 2] giving notice on 9 October and her advice that the tenancy was to terminate accordingly unless [Tenant 1] found a replacement. The email also suggests that [Tenant 2] needed agreement from [Tenant 1] to terminate where he says: “This requires 28 days’ formal notice to us copied to both tenants signifying agreement to it.” The other tenant’s agreement is not required at all for ending a periodic tenancy. b. Ms Figgess’ email on 7 November which required [Tenant 1] to give 28 days’ notice misrepresents the position at that point. It ignores that the tenancy of [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] had ended on 6 November and did not explain on what basis 28 days’ notice was required. It is clear from an email the next day that Ms Figgess did not think a new tenancy with [Tenant 1] alone had started because she advised [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] that they were both still liable for rent. I find that [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] did not agree to extend the tenancy and to do so, the consent of both of them would have been required. c. Ms Figgess’ email on 8 November advised [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] that they were both liable for rent until 5 December. Again, this is incorrect and ignores the fact that [Tenant 2] had ended the tenancy for both on 6 November. d. Ms Figgess’ email on 8 November and subsequent emails incorrectly represented that [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 1] were jointly and severally liable for rent until 5 December. Therefore, in continuing to remain in the premises [Tenant 1] understood that [Tenant 2] was still liable for half the rent until he found a replacement tenant. This was incorrect because [Tenant 2] had terminated the tenancy and was not obliged to pay any rent after 6 November. e. The misrepresentations were compounded when Ms Figgess allowed [Tenant 1] to withdraw his termination notice on 17 November so that a replacement tenant could be signed up. When [Tenant 2] asked for an 2 Lu Liu v Taylor Property Plus (2006) Limited [2025] NZTT 4672909, 4688869 at paragraph 23 explanation, Ms Figgess replied in a manner that suggested [Tenant 2] was still liable for a continuing tenancy; f. In cancelling [Tenant 1]’s request to a change of tenant on 26 November, Ms Figgess acted unilaterally. She later explained in an email to the parties that this was because she had received notice from [Tenant 2] and only needed notice from one tenant to end the tenancy. It is not clear what “notice” she means? There were emails from [Tenant 2] to Ms Figgess questioning her as to when the tenancy would end for her so that she could recover her bond. Ms Figgess seems to have taken these inquiries as notice. However, this begs the question as to why she did not take [Tenant 2]’s notice on 9 October as notice from one tenant that ends the tenancy for all.
In summary, the landlord has misrepresented the effect of [Tenant 2] giving notice to end the tenancy on 6 November. The way in which the landlords’ communications proceeded appear to assume that [Tenant 2] could not terminate the tenancy unilaterally and that she continued to be liable for rent until a replacement tenant signed on. Had this tenancy been a fixed term tenancy, that would be correct. However, this tenancy had become periodic, to which different rules apply.
It follows that I find that the joint tenancy of [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] ended on 6 November 2024. The landlord then allowed [Tenant 1] to remain in the premises beyond the termination date. The landlord led [Tenant 1] to believe that the tenancy continued on the same terms as the tenancy agreement signed with [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2], such that he understood that [Tenant 2] was also jointly and severally liable for their obligations under the tenancy including payment of rent and obligations to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. This was incorrect.

Are the tenants liable for rent arrears?

The weekly rent for the premises under the tenancy agreement was $1,000 with [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] each paying a one-half share. There is no dispute that all rent owed by [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] was paid up to 6 November 2024, when the tenancy ended. In fact, it was paid up in full until 10 November. However, from 11 November onwards, [Tenant 2] did not pay her half share of the rent because she understood the tenancy had ended. [Tenant 1] continued to pay his half share of the rent only. The landlord seeks rent owed to 6 December 2024 at the weekly rate of $1,000. The total owed according to their records is $2,214.29.
I accept that [Tenant 2] is not liable for any rent arrears which accrued after she terminated the tenancy with effect on 6 November.
[Tenant 1] argues that he should not be liable for the full sum owed because the landlord misrepresented that [Tenant 2] was jointly liable for rent and [Tenant 1] relied on this representation in continuing to remain at the premises. Misrepresentation
Section 78(1)(g) RTA provides that the Tribunal may make an order varying, or setting aside an agreement where it appears to the Tribunal that it has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake. Section 78(1)(h) RTA also enables the Tribunal to make any other order that the High Court or the District Court may make under any enactment or rule of law relating to contracts.
The law regarding misrepresentation is now largely codified in sections 35 and 37 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA), although the common law remains relevant. Under s35 CCLA, if a party (party A) to a contract has been induced to enter it by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, made by another party (part B) to the contract, party A is entitled to damages from that party B in the same manner and to the same extent as if the representation were a term of the contract that has been broken.
The representation must be one of fact, not opinion. The representation must be false, and it must relate to a matter of present or past facts, including “half- truths”, not one which relates to the future. See the commentary in Gault on Commercial Law 3 and the Court of Appeal decision in Savill v NZI Finance Ltd. 4
I have already determined that there were several misrepresentations by the landlord concerning the liability of [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] regarding termination of the tenancy.
Having found that there was a misrepresentation, the other matters which must be proved are: a. The misrepresentation must have induced the tenant to, in this case, continue the tenancy. The tenant must have acted reasonably in relying on, and therefore, being induced by the misrepresentation; b. The landlord must have intended to induce the tenant to continue the tenancy, or the representation must have been such as would induce a normal person to contract. 5
I am satisfied on the evidence that [Tenant 1] was induced to continue with the tenancy because of the landlord’s misrepresentations. In particular, he was led to believe that he was not solely liable for the rent obligations and [Tenant 2] 3 Gault on Commercial Law (online looseleaf ed, Thomson Reuters) 4 Savill v NZI Finance Ltd [1990] 3 NZLR 135 5 Savill v NZI Finance Ltd, above n4 was also liable. Therefore, in continuing with the tenancy he believed there was no prejudice to his position in that he was not taking on an increased liability.
I am also satisfied that the nature of the representation would induce a normal person to continue the tenancy as [Tenant 1] did.
Because all elements required to establish misrepresentation have been proved, I can consider whether [Tenant 1] is entitled to compensation for the misrepresentation.
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as he 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. Section 78(1)(g) RTA also enables the Tribunal to vary the tenancy agreement to remedy the effect of the misrepresentation.
In this case, the landlord seeks rent arrears calculated at a weekly rate of $1,000. However, I am satisfied that [Tenant 1] would not have continued with a tenancy, had he known he could be solely liable for the rent. Therefore, I consider fair compensation is achieved by a variation to the tenancy agreement so that [Tenant 2] is liable to pay weekly rent of $500 only. This means that as at 6 December 2024, rent owed by [Tenant 1] is $357.14 only which should be deducted from his share of the bond.

Are the tenants liable for cleaning costs?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The tenant's obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
The landlord provided photos taken after [Tenant 1] vacated the premises. The landlord says the mains areas requiring cleaning were the kitchen and bathroom. They incurred cleaning costs of $557.75 which they wish to recover.
[Tenant 1] also provided photos at the start of the tenancy and when he exited. [Tenant 1] maintains that the premises were reasonably clean and tidy when he left and tidier than when the tenancy started.
After carefully considering alI the photo evidence provided by the parties, I find the premises are reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
Even if I am wrong, the landlords did not conduct an inspection after the tenancy with [Tenant 1] & [Tenant 2] jointly ended on 6 November 2024. Therefore, it is impossible to determine whether any cleaning that might have been required was attributable to [Tenant 1] & [Tenant 2] jointly or whether it is only [Tenant 1]’s responsibility in the period after 6 November. Therefore, I consider that the landlord cannot prove any claim for cleaning and who is responsible for it.
For those reasons, the cleaning claim is dismissed. Refund of the bond
All parties have confirmed that [Tenant 2] contributed $1,100 to the bond and [Tenant 1] contributed the balance of $2,900.
It follows that [Tenant 1]’s liability to the landlord should be deducted from his contribution to the bond and the balance refunded to him. [Tenant 2] is entitled to a full refund of her contribution to the bond. Suppression and costs
As the tenants have substantially succeeded, suppression orders are granted to the tenants, as requested, and [Tenant 1] is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee. Adjournment
The remaining claim lodged by [Tenant 1] only for compensation and exemplary damages regarding alleged unlawful termination of his tenancy on 6 December 2024 is adjourned to a date to be advised by Tenancy Services. K Stirling, 12 June 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5122893 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5122893 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for rent arrears?

Are the tenants liable for cleaning costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for rent arrears?

Are the tenants liable for cleaning costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions