What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146709 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 5146709?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing By Landlord: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,655.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $25.32 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146709?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11671913-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146709 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 5146709?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing By Landlord: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,655.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $25.32 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146709?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11671913-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5146709 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146709 — net $2,732.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,655.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$25.32	Water rates
Lawn mowing by landlord	$25.00	Lawn mowing by landlord
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,732.32
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,732.32

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146709 — net $2,732.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,655.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$25.32	Water rates
Lawn mowing by landlord	$25.00	Lawn mowing by landlord
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,732.32
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,732.32

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Chrystal Coreen Peleti and Phil Peleti to pay [The landlord/s] $2,732.32 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,732.32 Chrystal Coreen Peleti and Phil Peleti: $467.68
The tenant’s application for a reduction in the term of the fixed-term tenancy and the landlord’s applications for compensation for cleaning, work on the lawns by a contractor, damage to the driveway and a dead plant are dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The hearing for this matter took place on Friday, 28 March 2025.
With permission from the Tribunal, the landlords attended the hearing via telephone. A father of one of the landlords who is also a former property manager for the premises, attended the hearing in person. Both of the tenants attended the hearing in person.
This is a cross application. The tenant has applied for a reduction in the term of the fixed-term tenancy, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord’s claim for damaged carpet was withdrawn prior to the hearing. A. RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The person bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. B. SHOULD THE TERM OF THE FIXED-TERM TENANCY BE REDUCED?
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy. The tenancy was due to end on 06 March 2025. The tenant has asked the Tribunal to reduce the term of the tenancy to 17 January 2025.
The relevant background facts are summarised as follows: a. On 02 March 2021, the parties entered into a tenancy agreement (the “Tenancy Agreement”) and the tenancy started on 06 March 2021. b. In late 2023, the parties began discussions for a further extension of the tenancy from 07 March 2024. On 19 December 2023, the tenant sent an email to the landlord asking if they could “have a conversation” to end the tenancy early if their child did not get into their school of choice which is in a different school zone that the premises. c. On 07 February 2024, the parties signed the lease renewal (the “2024 Lease Renewal”) which extend the tenancy to 06 March 2025. d. The 2024 Lease Renewal includes the following clause: Early Termination: in the sole event that the tenancy needs to relocate for school zoning purposes, the Landlord is willing to consider an amicable early termination. e. On 13 December 2024, the tenant received confirmation from the Ministry of Education that their application for direct enrolment of their child in their preferred school had been declined. f. On 16 December 2024, the tenant sent an email to the landlord saying that they were “... sorry that we have to cut our lease short by approx. 7 weeks ...” and that they “would like to be out of here by Jan 18 th 2025...”. g. On 10 January 2025, the tenant, having secured a new premises in the school zone area, vacated the premises and moved into their new rental accommodation. h. On 19 January 2025, the tenant sent an email to the landlord saying that they had paid until 17 January and asked for their bond to be released. i. On 27 January 2025, the tenant made an application to the Tribunal. j. On 17 February 2025, the landlord made their application to the Tribunal. Fixed-term tenancy agreements – the law:
The usual legal position with fixed term contracts, is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it will only be in limited circumstances, that a decision maker like the Tribunal would interfere with that term. In the case of residential tenancies, one of these circumstances is found in section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). This section provides: On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.
To summarise, in order to have the fixed-term of the tenancy reduced, the applicant must establish that: a. There has been a change in his or her circumstances; and b. The change was unforeseen; and c. The unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not ended; and d. The severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term was not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party would suffer if the term was reduced.
Section 66(2) of the RTA provides that if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, that the Tribunal can order the tenant pay compensation to the landlord “... for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy”.
The requirement that the change in circumstances be ‘unforeseen’ means that the threshold for satisfying the section 66 test is high. In the Tribunal decision of Bond v Tang, TT Invercargill TT09/583, 25 August 2009 “unforeseen” was held to mean unexpected, without warning, or the reverse of “foreseen”; not liable to result, unlikely, not a real danger, not a serious possibility, not a real risk.
Changes in a tenant’s circumstances which have previously been held to be unforeseen include: an unexpected transfer of the tenant’s employment to another city, just before the tenancy started; 1 one of four tenants developing a sudden, serious illness and leaving the property; 2 suicide of a co-tenant; 3 visits from unknown persons enquiring about drugs, three burglaries at the premises; 4 a landlord’s harassment of the tenants; 5 illness and loss of employment as a doctor. 6 1 Hippolite v JP Morgan Real Estate TT Palmerston North TT431/96, 9 May 1996 at 1. 2 Bickerton v Lott DC Wellington TT756/00, 21 December 2000 at [14]. 3 Maguire v Ross TT Dunedin TT550/03, 30 October 2003 at 2. 4 Abbott v Layton Holdings Ltd TT Christchurch TT09/2803, 4 August 2009 at 1; see also Astute Property Group Ltd v Lopez [2017] NZTT 4069320, single burglary. 5 Kawamura v Scott TT Wellington TT09/975, 19 October 2009. 6 Lehrer v Protheroe DC Tauranga CIV-2009-070-65, 19 October 2009 at [27].
There are also a number of examples where the Tribunal has found a tenant’s change in circumstances were not unforeseen including: where a tenant’s income, as expected, stops at the end of the university year; 7 one tenant fails to pay rent and leaves the premises; 8 there is a dispute with a co-tenant; 9 a change of employment within Auckland; 10 a bank withdraws financial support for the tenant’s business; 11 and a tenant successfully applies for a job in another city. 12 Analysis:
The tenant says that the change in circumstances was that they did not receive a place at their preferred school for their child and, in order for their child to attend that school, they would need to move into the school zone. The tenant say this was unforeseen because in previous years they are aware of other families in similar circumstances who had received an out of zone place and were expecting to receive one for their child.
The landlord says the tenant’s child not receiving a place out of zone was not an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances. The landlord refers to the tenant’s email of 19 December 2023 (see paragraph 13.b above) and the clause that was added to the 2024 Lease Renewal (see paragraph 13.d above).
I find that the tenant’s change in circumstances, while not the outcome they were hoping for and clearly very disappointing, cannot be said to be unforeseen. The documentary evidence shows that the tenant was aware there was a very real possibility that their child would not obtain an out of zone place.
As I have found that the change in circumstances was not unforeseen, it is not necessary for me to consider the other limbs of the section 66 test.
The tenant’s claim for a reduction in the term of the fixed-term tenancy is dismissed. C. DID THE LANLDORD COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE TENANCY

AGREEMENT?

As set out at paragraph 13.d above, the 2024 Lease Renewal includes a term that if the tenant needed to move “... for school zoning purposes, the Landlord is willing to consider an amicable early termination”. 7 Andrews Realty Ltd v McNeish TT Christchurch TT2675/96, 16 December 1996 at 4. 8 Cowdy and Company Ltd v Crosby DC Christchurch TT2717/97, 12 March 1998 at 10. 9 Buchanan v Burrow TT Dunedin TT487/06, 20 July 2006 at 3. 10 Sarkhab v Charta Management Ltd TT Waitakere TT08/417, 20 May 2008 at 2. 11 Bond v Tang TT Invercargill TT09/583, 25 August 2009 at [22]. 12 McCormack v A1 Property Managers Ltd [2015] NZTT Christchurch 3024 at [21].
While the tenant has not specifically argued this point, for completeness I include my assessment of the meaning of this clause.
I find that this clause placed an obligation on the landlord to consider a request to end the tenancy early if the tenant needed to move to get into their school zone of choice. This was not an obligation to agree (which, would not be enforceable) but an obligation to consider the request.
The landlord says, and I accept, that they did consider the tenant’s request and that this is evidenced by the fact they were able to find a replacement tenant before the end of the fixed-term (see paragraphs 35-37 below). D. HAS THE LANDLORD FAILED TO MITIGATE THEIR LOSSES, SUCH THAT

THE RENT OWED SHOULD BE REDUCED?

The tenant has paid rent up to 17 January 2025. The landlord seeks rent arrears owed from 18 January 2025 to 6 March 2025. The landlord has provided a rent ledger showing the amount of rent until this date. The tenant does not dispute the calculation.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is proved. However, that is not the end of the matter. Before making an award for rent arrears, I must consider if the landlord has failed to mitigate their losses. The law relating to mitigation of loss:
Section 49 of the RTA provides: Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
This section reflects the obligation in common law which is that a party who suffers a loss due to a breach of contract will be prevented from recovering damages for losses that could have been avoided if the party had taken reasonable steps to mitigate those losses.
The District Court has accepted that a landlord who has received a notice to terminate a fixed-term tenancy that was outside of the available grounds provided by law, has an obligation to mitigate any losses by taking “sensible, prudent and immediate steps” to find another tenant and to cover the potential period of loss. 13 13 Davies v Clarke [2017] NZCD 21608 at [46]. Analysis:
The landlord did take steps to mitigate their losses: they found an agent, advertised the property and reduced the rent by $20. The tenant says that that landlord did not advertise the property quickly enough. However, the landlord says, and I accept, that the Christmas / New Year period would have delayed the process and that it takes some time to appoint an agent.
In any event, a prospective tenant was found who was willing to start the tenancy on 8 February 2025, albeit for a slightly lower weekly rent.
On 29 January 2025, the landlord’s agent messaged the tenant to advise that a prospective tenant had been found. The tenant was asked to sign a document titled Early Release of a Fixed Term Tenancy Agreement (the “Early Release Document”). The Early Release Document provided that the tenancy would end on 07 February 2025 and that the tenant would be tenant would be liable for: rent up to that date; and any shortfall in rent until the original end date of the fixed term, 06 March 2025. In this message, the landlord’s agent also advised that they could not sign the tenancy agreement with the new tenant until both parties had signed the Early Release Document.
That day, the tenant sent an email to the agent saying that they were willing to sign the Early Release Document if the end date was changed to 17 January 2025.
The landlord says they were not willing to agree to change the date as requested by the tenant. The landlord says that, acting on the advice of their agent, they took the position that without the signed Early Release Document, the premises was still being leased by the tenant and could not be let until after the end date of 06 March 2025.
The tenant’s actions in saying that they were ending the tenancy on 17 January 2025 (see 16 December 2024 email), vacating the premises on 10 January 2025, only paying rent up to 17 January 2025, handing back the keys to the agent, lodging a claim with the Tribunal requesting the term of the tenancy be reduced to 17 January 2025 all showed that as far as the tenant was concerned the tenancy had ended.
The landlord says that the tenant had not given up the tenancy because they still had keys to the premises, had said they would continue paying rent and maintaining the premises up to 06 March 2025 and would not sign the Early Release Document unless the date was changed.
The tenant says that the keys were additional keys they had cut for their children and had forgotten to return them. The tenant says that they did not recall saying that they would continue paying the rent. I note that the written evidence is not consistent with the landlord’s assertion that the tenant considered the tenancy was continuing until 06 March.
With regard to the tenant’s request for the date in the Early Release Document to be changed, I consider it is unlikely that the tenant would have insisted on this if it had not been presented with the Early Release Document in the first place. Furthermore, the tenant’s refusal to sign that document did not release the landlord from their obligation to mitigate their losses.
I consider that in these circumstances, where the tenant has purported to end the tenancy early, vacated the premises and stopped paying rent, the landlord, acting reasonably, would have let the premises to the new tenant without the Early Release Document being signed.
I find that that the landlord has not mitigated their losses and that it is appropriate to reduce the sums claims for rent arrears.
The landlord has claimed $5,740.00. If the prospective tenant had started on 08 February 2025 at the reduced rent of $800 per week, the lost rent would have been $2,655.00. I award lost rent of $2,655.00. E. HOW MUCH IS OWED FOR WATER RATES?
The landlord has claimed $25.32 for unpaid water rates. At the hearing the tenant advised that they do not dispute this claim.
This claim is proved. F. DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF

TENANCY?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that 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. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. A house does not have to be cleaned to a professional standard or be ‘motel’ clean. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises (including the garden/lawns) reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant disagrees and says that they thoroughly cleaned the premises.
The landlord says that the new tenant had to carry out additional cleaning and they gave the new tenant a $105 prezzie card to compensate for this.
The landlord has provided photographs of the premises at the end of the tenancy. The tenant has provided a letter from an individual who said she assisted the tenant to clean the premises and that the premises were left in a good condition. This person did not attend the hearing as a witness. For this reason, I place little weight on this evidence.
I consider that the premises, while not immaculate, were left reasonably clean and tidy. The claim for reimbursement of the prezzie card is dismissed.
The landlord says that they had to mow the lawns themselves on or about 12 February 2025 and this took around one hour. The landlord claims $80.00 for this work. The landlord has also provided an invoice for lawn mowing/weeds carried out by a contractor following 06 March 2025 for $115.00 including GST.
I accept that the landlord needed to mow the lawns shortly after the tenant left the premises. I award $25.00 for the landlord’s time for this work. I make no award in respect of the lawn mowing/wees that was done after the end date of 06 March 2025. This is because if the landlord had re-tenant the premises on 07 February 2025, the loss would not have been incurred. G. IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?
Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose.
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the driveway and is claiming for a plant which the landlord says died because the tenant did not water it.
The landlord confirmed at the hearing that the plant has not been replaced. I am not satisfied that the landlord has suffered a loss in respect of the plant and this claim is dismissed.
With regard to the driveway, the landlord claims the damage was caused by a vehicle driving over the wooden frame edging the concrete. The landlord has provided an invoice to repair this work where the contractor has stated the damage was caused by a vehicle being driven on the wooden frame. I place limited weight on this evidence: the contractor was the person who carried out the original work and as that work had only recently been completed, would have been liable if the damage was a construction error. Therefore, the contractor is not impartial. Furthermore, he did not attend the hearing as a witness.
The tenant say they have no recollection of causing this damage and believe that the damage was caused by water flowing from a neighbouring property,
I note that the driveway is accessible from the street. Unlike the house, which can (or should) only be accessed with the resident’s permission, third parties can drive onto driveways without the express permission of the residents.
I am also concerned that if the damage to the driveway was caused by a vehicle, the driveway may not be fit for purpose.
On the evidence available to me, I am not satisfied that this damage was caused by the tenant either intentionally or carelessly. This claim is dismissed. H. OTHER MATTERS
The landlord has, by a small margin, substantially succeeded with their claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee and granted the application for suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146709 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146709 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

AGREEMENT?

THE RENT OWED SHOULD BE REDUCED?

TENANCY?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

AGREEMENT?

THE RENT OWED SHOULD BE REDUCED?

TENANCY?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions