What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5143628 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 5143628?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,085.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5143628?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5143628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11665740-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5143628 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 5143628?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,085.72 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5143628?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5143628?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11665740-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5143628 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5143628 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5143628 — net $1,392.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14/02/25	$3,085.72	Rent arrears to 14/02/25
Exit clean	$200.00	Exit clean
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$1,392.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,392.72

Claims and awards for application 5143628 — net $1,392.72 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 14/02/25

Amount: $3,085.72
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 14/02/25

Exit clean

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exit clean

Filing fee

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee

Net award

Landlord $1,392.72

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,392.72

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,392.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord applied for rent arrears to 14 February 2025, compensation for the costs of ending the fixed term tenancy, and compensation for cleaning costs on exit. The landlord sought a refund of the bond, reimbursement of the application fee and an order suppressing their details.
The tenant filed a cross-application seeking an order that they be released from the fixed term tenancy, and/or that the tenancy ended on 8 or 12 December 2024. The tenant also makes a claim in relation to the Healthy Homes Standards and says the premises did not meet ventilation standards. The tenant seeks refund of the bond, reimbursement of the application fee and an order suppressing their details. The tenancy
The tenants moved to New Zealand in April 2023. This was their second tenancy in New Zealand.
On 23 June 2023, the parties entered into a one-year fixed-term tenancy agreement with the tenancy commencing 23 June 2023 and ending on 23 June 2024. The agreed rent was $480.00 per week.
On 29 April 2024, the parties entered into an extension of the fixed-term tenancy agreement which extended the tenancy for a further one-year term, to 23 June 2025. The agreed rent from 28 June 2024 was $500.00 per week.
On 1 December 2024, the tenant emailed the landlord advising they had found a new house and planned to move out on 12 December 2024.
The tenants moved out on 10 December 2024.
A new tenancy commenced on 15 February 2025. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent arrears?

The landlord says, when the tenant emailed them on 1 December 2024 advising they had found a new house and planned to move out on 12 December 2024, the landlord responded on 2 December 2024 reminding them they were in a fixed-term tenancy and said they would need to fill in an application to break the current fixed-term tenancy.
In that email, the landlord told the tenant, “There is a lease break fee apply and you need to pay the rent until new tenant move in.”
The landlord supplied the tenant with the application form required to seek the landlord’s approval to break the fixed term tenancy. On 2 December 2024 the tenants signed the applciation form. The application form includes the following statement: I/We acknowledge that if this application shall be successful, we will be required to sign a written agreement described as an “Agreement for an early termination of a fixed term tenancy” which will provide the terms and conditions for the release.
The landlord says the parties did not enter into an “Agreement for an early termination of a fixed term tenancy.” However, the landlord relies on email correspondence in which the landlord’s condition that the tenant continue to pay rent until a new tenant was found was repeated.
The emails relied upon are dated 2 December 2024, in which the landlord stated the tenant would be liable for rent until a new tenant was found, and 9 January 2025, in which the landlord stated: This is a lease break situation, meaning you are still responsible for paying the rent until a new tenant is secured and moves in.
The landlord says a new tenancy commenced on 15 February 2025.
The landlord has provided a rent summary that shows the tenant last paid rent on 26 December 2024. Rent arrears to 14 February 2025 are recorded as $3,085.72.
The tenant says he thought he could give the landlord 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy. He says he gave notice on 1 December 2024 and understood he would be liable to pay rent for a further 21 days, or up to one month. He says this was just his understanding and was not based on any discussions with the landlord.
The tenant says he completed the application to break the current fixed-term tenancy on 2 December 2024. He says he did not check and understand everything.
Section 50 of the RTA states: Subject in the case of a subtenancy to section 57, no tenancy to which this Act applies shall terminate or be terminated otherwise than as follows: (a) in the case of a fixed-term tenancy, on the expiry of the term of the tenancy or, if any of sections 55AA, 56A(1), 58(1)(d), (da), 58A, 59, 59A, or 59B apply, by giving notice in accordance with the applicable section. [...] (d) where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy and could only come to an end on the expiry of the term, or where the tenant delivers vacant possession to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent. A fixed-term tenancy can therefore, only come to an end if there is written agreement from the landlord.
The landlord gave written consent for the tenant to surrender the tenancy, albeit, there were conditions to the landlord’s consent. Those conditions (to continue paying rent until a new tenant moved in) were not expressly accepted by the tenant. The tenant says there was no agreement reached.
On either the landlord’s reasoning, or the tenant’s reasoning, I come to the same finding, which is, that the tenant is liable to pay rent until 14 February 2025.
On the landlord’s reasoning, the landlord agreed to the fixed-term tenancy coming to an end, but on the condition that the tenant continue to pay rent until a new tenant moves in, which occurred on 15 February 2025.
On the tenant’s reasoning, the landlord’s conditions to end the fixed-term tenancy were not accepted by the tenant and no agreement was reached to end the fixed-term tenancy early. Given that, the tenant remained liable to pay rent for the remainder of the fixed-term tenancy which expires on 23 June 2025. The landlord began receiving rent for the premises from a new tenant from 15 February 2025, so is limited in seeking rent from the tenant until that date.
While it is clear the landlord consented to the fixed term tenancy coming to an end, the terms and conditions of the landlord’s consent were not clearly particularised nor recorded in writing. As a result, I find there was no agreement to end the fixed term-tenancy and the tenant was liable to pay rent until the landlord began receiving rent from a new tenant.
I find the tenancy ended on 14 February 2025. The amount ordered in rent arrears is proved.

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for the break lease fee?

The landlord says when the landlord responded to the tenant by email on 2 December 2024 and said they would need to fill in an application to break the current fixed-term tenancy, the landlord also provided the tenant with an estimate of the cost of breaking the fixed-term tenancy early.
The landlord did not produce a copy of the estimated break fee sent to the tenant, nor the email to show it was sent to the tenant on 2 December 2024.
The landlord said the estimated break fee was in a similar form to the final invoice which was produced, but the estimate did not give a total figure as it depended on how much work was required to find a new tenant. The estimate included $200 for advertising the premises, $125 for an exit inspection, $50 to draft a new tenancy agreement, and an hourly rate of $50 per hour for matters such as holding viewings.
The landlord sought compensation in the amount of the final invoice provided to the tenant on 15 January 2025, being for $665.00.
As stated above, on 2 December 2024, the tenant signed a form seeking the landlord’s consent to break the fixed term tenancy. The application form included the statement: I/We acknowledge that if this application shall be successful, we will be required to sign a written agreement described as an “Agreement for an early termination of a fixed term tenancy” which will provide the terms and conditions for the release.
The landlord confirmed the parties did not enter into an “Agreement for an early termination of a fixed term tenancy.” Again, the landlord relies on email correspondence in which she says she repeated that the tenants would need to pay a break fee. The landlord relied on the email of 2 December 2024, in which she stated: There is a lease break fee apply... the lease break fees involved are not limited to the three mentioned; they also depend on factors such as the number of viewings, application checks, and the frequency of communication between the tenant and the owner regarding the request to end the tenancy and the confirmation of final terms and processes.
I was not provided with a response from the tenant to the landlord’s email of 2 December 2024.
The landlord also relied on her email dated 15 January 2024 in which the landlord states: I will finalise the lease break cost and the rent and email you shortly of all the cost.
I was not provided with a response from the tenant to the landlord’s email of 15 January 2025. The landlord said she did not have evidence of the tenant replying in writing to confirm acceptance of that condition but says if they didn’t agree to pay it, they would have emailed to say they didn’t agree.
The landlord produced the final invoice titled “Lease Break Invoice” which sought $665.00 for the costs of finding a new tenant.
The tenant says they never agreed to pay a lease break fee. He says they filled in the application form to ask to end the tenancy early but did not read it carefully. He says he did not fully understand all of the emails he received from the landlord.
I find the landlord has not proved the tenant agreed to pay the “lease break” fee to end the fixed-term tenancy early. While I acknowledge that the landlord referred to the break fee in some email communications, at no point did the tenant respond accepting that condition.
I do not accept that the tenant’s silence can be taken as acceptance. Given the parties did not enter into an “Agreement for an early termination of a fixed term tenancy” referred to in the application to end the tenancy early, there is no record of what conditions were agreed to.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation for the “lease break” fee.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord produced photos taken on 18 December 2024 which show parts of the apartment were not left reasonably clean. The landlord produced an invoice from a cleaner incorrectly dated 8 January 2024, but says it should be dated 8 January 2025. The landlord seeks reimbursement for the cleaning of the premises, curtain washing and replacing two light bulbs, totalling $540.50.
The tenants says they left only a handful of personal items. They accept they overlooked cleaning out the kitchen cupboard, but say the stains on the ceiling depicted in the landlord’s photos were there before they moved in. The tenant also suggested the windows may have been left open after they moved out which would cause dust and debris to come into the apartment. The tenants acknowledged some of the light bulbs needed replacing.
In response to the tenant’s submission regarding others being in the premises or leaving windows open, the landlord points to the viewing records which show the first viewing was conducted on 12 January 2025.
A tenant is not required to leave a property in an immaculate standard of cleanliness. The standard is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy”.
I find that the premises was not left “reasonably clean.” I do not however consider it appropriate to award the landlord the full amount sought, as the level to which a professional cleaner would bring the premises to is above that of an average, reasonable bystander. I also note that I was not provided with any evidence in support of the claim that the curtains were left unclean and required professional cleaning.
I consider a nominal award of $200 is appropriate for the tenant’s failure to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. TENANT’S CROSS APPLICATION

Does the landlord owe the tenant a rent credit?

In their cross-application, the tenant sought an order that they be released from the fixed-term tenancy. They claimed that due to changes in their work circumstances, plus the overheating of the property in summer, which makes the apartment uninhabitable, they would face severe hardship if they were forced to continue to the end date.
At the hearing, the tenants clarified this part of their claim. They said they believed the tenancy had come to an end following the tenants giving notice on 1 December 2024. The tenants say the tenancy should have ended on 8 or 12 December 2024, and seek a refund of rent overpaid, being $1,485.71.
The tenant did not have grounds to give notice (of 7 days, 11 days or 21 days) to end the fixed-term tenancy.
For the reasons stated above from paragraph [26], I find no agreement was reached to end the fixed-term tenancy and the tenants remained liable to pay rent until a new tenancy commenced. On that same basis, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for overpayment of rent.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] claims the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 23 June 2023.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant says the one-bedroom apartment was unbearably hot and was unable to be sufficiently ventilated. The tenant says it was particularly hot in summer and meant he and his wife avoided being home during the day.
The apartment was on the 12 th storey of an apartment building. The parties agreed there were four openable windows in the apartment, all on the northern side. Two opening windows were in the living room and two were in the bedroom. The opening windows had a restricted opening due to the height of the building and could only open between 5 – 10cm wide.
There were two extractor fans in the bathroom and an extractor fan in the kitchen, however the tenant says the fan in the kitchen served no purpose as it was not ducted to the outside, so the air just circulated within the kitchen.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes Inspection Report dated 20 May 2020. The report stated the premises was compliant to Healthy Homes standard as at that time. The report states the kitchen rangehood was installed before 1 July 2019. The report says, at the time of the report, the extractor fan was in good working order and had a ducting diameter of 150mm.
The landlord says it is not possible to vent the extractor fan to the outside because it would involve breaking the watertightness of the ceiling or walls and is not permitted by the Body Corporate. The landlord says the exemptions under the HHS regulations apply.
Regulation 23 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 requires that each kitchen have an extractor fan with ducting of at least 150mm. Regulation 24 provides for an exemption that a premises need not comply with regulation 23 where, at the start of the tenancy, it is not reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan so as to comply with the requirements.
The landlord has produced an email dated 31 March 2025 from the General Manager of the building’s body corporate to say that installing ducting for air conditioning (and therefore, the landlord says, for an extractor fan) is not permitted as the installation would have the potential to cause damage to the building.
I find the apartment’s windows and bathroom extractor fans met the ventilation standards required. The kitchen extractor fan did not meet the ventilation standards, however I accept that, given the size of the building and that it was built prior to 2019, it is not reasonably practicable to install a kitchen extractor fan so as to comply with the requirements.
I find the landlord did not committed an unlawful act. I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation for the alleged breach of Healthy Homes Standards as regards ventilation. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with their claim the tenant must reimburse the landlord’s filing fee. Should the parties’ identifying details be suppressed?
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/or identifying particulars not be published, 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. See s 95A of the RTA.
The landlord applied for suppression of their name and the tenancy address. As the landlord’s application was successful, the landlord is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.
The tenant also applied for suppression of their name. While their cross- application was not successful, I have determined pursuant to s95A(4) that, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, the tenant’s name should also not be published and I make the order accordingly.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5143628 — net $1,392.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14/02/25	$3,085.72	Rent arrears to 14/02/25
Exit clean	$200.00	Exit clean
Filing fee	$27.00	Filing fee
Net award	$1,392.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,392.72

Claims and awards for application 5143628 — net $1,392.72 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 14/02/25

Amount: $3,085.72
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 14/02/25

Exit clean

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exit clean

Filing fee

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee

Net award

Landlord $1,392.72

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,392.72

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,392.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter.
Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord applied for rent arrears to 14 February 2025, compensation for the costs of ending the fixed term tenancy, and compensation for cleaning costs on exit. The landlord sought a refund of the bond, reimbursement of the application fee and an order suppressing their details.
The tenant filed a cross-application seeking an order that they be released from the fixed term tenancy, and/or that the tenancy ended on 8 or 12 December 2024. The tenant also makes a claim in relation to the Healthy Homes Standards and says the premises did not meet ventilation standards. The tenant seeks refund of the bond, reimbursement of the application fee and an order suppressing their details. The tenancy
The tenants moved to New Zealand in April 2023. This was their second tenancy in New Zealand.
On 23 June 2023, the parties entered into a one-year fixed-term tenancy agreement with the tenancy commencing 23 June 2023 and ending on 23 June 2024. The agreed rent was $480.00 per week.
On 29 April 2024, the parties entered into an extension of the fixed-term tenancy agreement which extended the tenancy for a further one-year term, to 23 June 2025. The agreed rent from 28 June 2024 was $500.00 per week.
On 1 December 2024, the tenant emailed the landlord advising they had found a new house and planned to move out on 12 December 2024.
The tenants moved out on 10 December 2024.
A new tenancy commenced on 15 February 2025. Burden and standard of proof
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent arrears?

The landlord says, when the tenant emailed them on 1 December 2024 advising they had found a new house and planned to move out on 12 December 2024, the landlord responded on 2 December 2024 reminding them they were in a fixed-term tenancy and said they would need to fill in an application to break the current fixed-term tenancy.
In that email, the landlord told the tenant, “There is a lease break fee apply and you need to pay the rent until new tenant move in.”
The landlord supplied the tenant with the application form required to seek the landlord’s approval to break the fixed term tenancy. On 2 December 2024 the tenants signed the applciation form. The application form includes the following statement: I/We acknowledge that if this application shall be successful, we will be required to sign a written agreement described as an “Agreement for an early termination of a fixed term tenancy” which will provide the terms and conditions for the release.
The landlord says the parties did not enter into an “Agreement for an early termination of a fixed term tenancy.” However, the landlord relies on email correspondence in which the landlord’s condition that the tenant continue to pay rent until a new tenant was found was repeated.
The emails relied upon are dated 2 December 2024, in which the landlord stated the tenant would be liable for rent until a new tenant was found, and 9 January 2025, in which the landlord stated: This is a lease break situation, meaning you are still responsible for paying the rent until a new tenant is secured and moves in.
The landlord says a new tenancy commenced on 15 February 2025.
The landlord has provided a rent summary that shows the tenant last paid rent on 26 December 2024. Rent arrears to 14 February 2025 are recorded as $3,085.72.
The tenant says he thought he could give the landlord 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy. He says he gave notice on 1 December 2024 and understood he would be liable to pay rent for a further 21 days, or up to one month. He says this was just his understanding and was not based on any discussions with the landlord.
The tenant says he completed the application to break the current fixed-term tenancy on 2 December 2024. He says he did not check and understand everything.
Section 50 of the RTA states: Subject in the case of a subtenancy to section 57, no tenancy to which this Act applies shall terminate or be terminated otherwise than as follows: (a) in the case of a fixed-term tenancy, on the expiry of the term of the tenancy or, if any of sections 55AA, 56A(1), 58(1)(d), (da), 58A, 59, 59A, or 59B apply, by giving notice in accordance with the applicable section. [...] (d) where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy and could only come to an end on the expiry of the term, or where the tenant delivers vacant possession to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent. A fixed-term tenancy can therefore, only come to an end if there is written agreement from the landlord.
The landlord gave written consent for the tenant to surrender the tenancy, albeit, there were conditions to the landlord’s consent. Those conditions (to continue paying rent until a new tenant moved in) were not expressly accepted by the tenant. The tenant says there was no agreement reached.
On either the landlord’s reasoning, or the tenant’s reasoning, I come to the same finding, which is, that the tenant is liable to pay rent until 14 February 2025.
On the landlord’s reasoning, the landlord agreed to the fixed-term tenancy coming to an end, but on the condition that the tenant continue to pay rent until a new tenant moves in, which occurred on 15 February 2025.
On the tenant’s reasoning, the landlord’s conditions to end the fixed-term tenancy were not accepted by the tenant and no agreement was reached to end the fixed-term tenancy early. Given that, the tenant remained liable to pay rent for the remainder of the fixed-term tenancy which expires on 23 June 2025. The landlord began receiving rent for the premises from a new tenant from 15 February 2025, so is limited in seeking rent from the tenant until that date.
While it is clear the landlord consented to the fixed term tenancy coming to an end, the terms and conditions of the landlord’s consent were not clearly particularised nor recorded in writing. As a result, I find there was no agreement to end the fixed term-tenancy and the tenant was liable to pay rent until the landlord began receiving rent from a new tenant.
I find the tenancy ended on 14 February 2025. The amount ordered in rent arrears is proved.

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for the break lease fee?

The landlord says when the landlord responded to the tenant by email on 2 December 2024 and said they would need to fill in an application to break the current fixed-term tenancy, the landlord also provided the tenant with an estimate of the cost of breaking the fixed-term tenancy early.
The landlord did not produce a copy of the estimated break fee sent to the tenant, nor the email to show it was sent to the tenant on 2 December 2024.
The landlord said the estimated break fee was in a similar form to the final invoice which was produced, but the estimate did not give a total figure as it depended on how much work was required to find a new tenant. The estimate included $200 for advertising the premises, $125 for an exit inspection, $50 to draft a new tenancy agreement, and an hourly rate of $50 per hour for matters such as holding viewings.
The landlord sought compensation in the amount of the final invoice provided to the tenant on 15 January 2025, being for $665.00.
As stated above, on 2 December 2024, the tenant signed a form seeking the landlord’s consent to break the fixed term tenancy. The application form included the statement: I/We acknowledge that if this application shall be successful, we will be required to sign a written agreement described as an “Agreement for an early termination of a fixed term tenancy” which will provide the terms and conditions for the release.
The landlord confirmed the parties did not enter into an “Agreement for an early termination of a fixed term tenancy.” Again, the landlord relies on email correspondence in which she says she repeated that the tenants would need to pay a break fee. The landlord relied on the email of 2 December 2024, in which she stated: There is a lease break fee apply... the lease break fees involved are not limited to the three mentioned; they also depend on factors such as the number of viewings, application checks, and the frequency of communication between the tenant and the owner regarding the request to end the tenancy and the confirmation of final terms and processes.
I was not provided with a response from the tenant to the landlord’s email of 2 December 2024.
The landlord also relied on her email dated 15 January 2024 in which the landlord states: I will finalise the lease break cost and the rent and email you shortly of all the cost.
I was not provided with a response from the tenant to the landlord’s email of 15 January 2025. The landlord said she did not have evidence of the tenant replying in writing to confirm acceptance of that condition but says if they didn’t agree to pay it, they would have emailed to say they didn’t agree.
The landlord produced the final invoice titled “Lease Break Invoice” which sought $665.00 for the costs of finding a new tenant.
The tenant says they never agreed to pay a lease break fee. He says they filled in the application form to ask to end the tenancy early but did not read it carefully. He says he did not fully understand all of the emails he received from the landlord.
I find the landlord has not proved the tenant agreed to pay the “lease break” fee to end the fixed-term tenancy early. While I acknowledge that the landlord referred to the break fee in some email communications, at no point did the tenant respond accepting that condition.
I do not accept that the tenant’s silence can be taken as acceptance. Given the parties did not enter into an “Agreement for an early termination of a fixed term tenancy” referred to in the application to end the tenancy early, there is no record of what conditions were agreed to.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation for the “lease break” fee.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord produced photos taken on 18 December 2024 which show parts of the apartment were not left reasonably clean. The landlord produced an invoice from a cleaner incorrectly dated 8 January 2024, but says it should be dated 8 January 2025. The landlord seeks reimbursement for the cleaning of the premises, curtain washing and replacing two light bulbs, totalling $540.50.
The tenants says they left only a handful of personal items. They accept they overlooked cleaning out the kitchen cupboard, but say the stains on the ceiling depicted in the landlord’s photos were there before they moved in. The tenant also suggested the windows may have been left open after they moved out which would cause dust and debris to come into the apartment. The tenants acknowledged some of the light bulbs needed replacing.
In response to the tenant’s submission regarding others being in the premises or leaving windows open, the landlord points to the viewing records which show the first viewing was conducted on 12 January 2025.
A tenant is not required to leave a property in an immaculate standard of cleanliness. The standard is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean” and “reasonably tidy”.
I find that the premises was not left “reasonably clean.” I do not however consider it appropriate to award the landlord the full amount sought, as the level to which a professional cleaner would bring the premises to is above that of an average, reasonable bystander. I also note that I was not provided with any evidence in support of the claim that the curtains were left unclean and required professional cleaning.
I consider a nominal award of $200 is appropriate for the tenant’s failure to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. TENANT’S CROSS APPLICATION

Does the landlord owe the tenant a rent credit?

In their cross-application, the tenant sought an order that they be released from the fixed-term tenancy. They claimed that due to changes in their work circumstances, plus the overheating of the property in summer, which makes the apartment uninhabitable, they would face severe hardship if they were forced to continue to the end date.
At the hearing, the tenants clarified this part of their claim. They said they believed the tenancy had come to an end following the tenants giving notice on 1 December 2024. The tenants say the tenancy should have ended on 8 or 12 December 2024, and seek a refund of rent overpaid, being $1,485.71.
The tenant did not have grounds to give notice (of 7 days, 11 days or 21 days) to end the fixed-term tenancy.
For the reasons stated above from paragraph [26], I find no agreement was reached to end the fixed-term tenancy and the tenants remained liable to pay rent until a new tenancy commenced. On that same basis, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for overpayment of rent.

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 (HHS). [The tenant/s] claims the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The tenancy commenced on 23 June 2023.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant says the one-bedroom apartment was unbearably hot and was unable to be sufficiently ventilated. The tenant says it was particularly hot in summer and meant he and his wife avoided being home during the day.
The apartment was on the 12 th storey of an apartment building. The parties agreed there were four openable windows in the apartment, all on the northern side. Two opening windows were in the living room and two were in the bedroom. The opening windows had a restricted opening due to the height of the building and could only open between 5 – 10cm wide.
There were two extractor fans in the bathroom and an extractor fan in the kitchen, however the tenant says the fan in the kitchen served no purpose as it was not ducted to the outside, so the air just circulated within the kitchen.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes Inspection Report dated 20 May 2020. The report stated the premises was compliant to Healthy Homes standard as at that time. The report states the kitchen rangehood was installed before 1 July 2019. The report says, at the time of the report, the extractor fan was in good working order and had a ducting diameter of 150mm.
The landlord says it is not possible to vent the extractor fan to the outside because it would involve breaking the watertightness of the ceiling or walls and is not permitted by the Body Corporate. The landlord says the exemptions under the HHS regulations apply.
Regulation 23 of the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 requires that each kitchen have an extractor fan with ducting of at least 150mm. Regulation 24 provides for an exemption that a premises need not comply with regulation 23 where, at the start of the tenancy, it is not reasonably practicable to install an extractor fan so as to comply with the requirements.
The landlord has produced an email dated 31 March 2025 from the General Manager of the building’s body corporate to say that installing ducting for air conditioning (and therefore, the landlord says, for an extractor fan) is not permitted as the installation would have the potential to cause damage to the building.
I find the apartment’s windows and bathroom extractor fans met the ventilation standards required. The kitchen extractor fan did not meet the ventilation standards, however I accept that, given the size of the building and that it was built prior to 2019, it is not reasonably practicable to install a kitchen extractor fan so as to comply with the requirements.
I find the landlord did not committed an unlawful act. I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation for the alleged breach of Healthy Homes Standards as regards ventilation. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with their claim the tenant must reimburse the landlord’s filing fee. Should the parties’ identifying details be suppressed?
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/or identifying particulars not be published, 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. See s 95A of the RTA.
The landlord applied for suppression of their name and the tenancy address. As the landlord’s application was successful, the landlord is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.
The tenant also applied for suppression of their name. While their cross- application was not successful, I have determined pursuant to s95A(4) that, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, the tenant’s name should also not be published and I make the order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5143628 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5143628 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent arrears?

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for the break lease fee?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Does the landlord owe the tenant a rent credit?

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe the landlord rent arrears?

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for the break lease fee?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Does the landlord owe the tenant a rent credit?

Did the landlord breach the Healthy Homes Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions