What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5151352 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay I-Rentals Ltd (as agent for Fraser Wright)

How much money was awarded in case 5151352?

Break Lease Costs: $1,337.42 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Tenant payments after…: $784.42 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,985.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $84.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5151352?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5151352?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11810109-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5151352 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay I-Rentals Ltd (as agent for Fraser Wright)

How much money was awarded in case 5151352?

Break Lease Costs: $1,337.42 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Tenant payments after…: $784.42 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,985.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $84.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5151352?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5151352?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11810109-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Grant Street, Kamo, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5151352 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5151352 — net $3,829.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 February 2025	$4,985.00		19. Ms Hobson remained liable for rent until that new tenancy began.
Water rates to 19 February 2025	$84.50		Water rates to 19 February 2025
Break lease costs	$1,337.42		Break lease costs
Filing fee	$27.00		Filing fee
Compensation: Tenant payments after 19 February		$784.42	Tenant payments after 19 February
Total award	$6,433.92	$784.42
Net award	$3,829.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,829.50

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay I-Rentals Ltd (as agent for Fraser Wright) $3,829.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,820.00 (3241453-008) to I-Rentals Ltd immediately.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 4 September 2018. The landlord and tenant entered into a series of extensions to the term of the fixed-term tenancy. The last of these began on 13 November 2024 and was due to end on 17 November 2025.
On 16 January 2025 Ms Hobson asked to be released from the fixed term tenancy.
On 30 January 2025, Ms Hobson filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal seeking to be released from the fixed term tenancy.
The landlord entered into a tenancy with a new tenant commencing on 20 February 2025.
The landlord filed a cross-application on 27 February 2025.
The two applications were heard at the Whangarei Court on 7 May 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms Raymond represented I-Rentals. Ms Sorenson (I-Rentals) also participated briefly in the hearing by phone. Tenant application
As noted above, the particular remedy that Ms Hobson sought in her application was release from her fixed term tenancy. The tenancy ended before the Tribunal could determine that question.
At the hearing Ms Hobson raised broader concerns about I-Rentals’ management of the tenancy, in particular around the last few weeks of the tenancy. Ms Hobson’s critiques were robust and wide-ranging. Ms Hobson sought vindication from the Tribunal that (amongst many other things) I-Rentals lacked transparency in their dealings with her.
It is not the role of the Tenancy Tribunal to audit or review the performance of a landlord or a tenant in general terms. The role of the Tribunal is determine applications, which involves deciding, in respect of specific issues, whether the landlord or tenant met their legal duty.
I acknowledge that Ms Hobson was (to say the least) frustrated and disappointed with I-Rentals. I also acknowledge that the ending of the tenancy, and the events leading up to it and all that has occurred since, was stressful and difficult for Ms Hobson.
However, it is also important to recognise that this was a fixed term tenancy. Ms Hobson asked to be released from the fixed term tenancy. The landlord agreed to release her. The landlord had no legal obligation to release Ms Hobson from the fixed term tenancy. They could have declined her request and held her liable for rent until the Tribunal made an order releasing her. There is also a possibility that the Tribunal may not have agreed that there were legal grounds to release Ms Hobson from the tenancy, in which case she could have potentially been liable for rent to the end of the fixed term in November.
I also acknowledge that the premature ending of the fixed term tenancy caused difficulties for the landlord.
Ms Hobson confirmed that she was not seeking a monetary award in her application. I agree that there is no legal basis for one. Landlord application Rent and water
The claim seeks rent arrears of $4,985.00 to 19 February 2025.
On the morning of 4 February I-Rentals sent Ms Hobson a message stating that the “vacate date” for the tenancy was 5 February and that the rent arrears to the end of the tenancy was $3,785.00. It also stated (incorrectly) that the bond was $2,520.00.
A few hours later, Ms Sorenson sent Ms Hobson a message stating: Sorry I was terribly confused between 8 Grant Street and another property. The email sent earlier advising that a new tenancy had been entered into is incorrect. There has been no new tenancy entered into with regards to 8 Grant Street. I apologise for the incorrect information given.
This was an unfortunate error, and it was understandably distressing for Ms Hobson.
However, I accept that it was a genuine error. The landlord had not, in fact, re- let this property from 5 February. It was not re-let until 20 February.
Ms Hobson remained liable for rent until that new tenancy began. The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $4,985.00 to 19 February.
Ms Hobson did not dispute the amount of water use on the final meter reading.
Ms Hobson has made payments since the end of the tenancy which can be credited to these outstanding amounts. Per Ms Hobson’s bank statements and the landlord’s ledger, Ms Hobson’s payments since the end of the tenancy total $784.42. Cleaning
The claim seeks cleaning costs of $507.50.
The cleaning was carried out on 1 February 2025. As noted above, the tenancy ended on 19 February 2025.
Ms Hobson disputed the cleaning costs on the grounds that the premises were reasonably clean and tidy and the amount claimed is excessive. Ms Hobson also noted that the landlord’s act of entering the premises without notice to carry out an ‘end of tenancy’ clean indicates that the landlord accepted the surrender of the tenancy on or before 1 February.
Ms Raymond said that it was necessary to clean the premises in order to show the property to prospective tenants. She said that I-Rentals did not give notice to Ms Hobson about the cleaning because Ms Hobson said that she had left the property and that she was “done with it”.
I acknowledge that the relationship between landlord and tenant had broken down by this time, and communication was difficult.
However, I agree with Ms Hobson’s view that the landlord cannot have it both ways. If they accepted the surrender of Ms Hobson’s tenancy, they were free to go to the premises as they pleased, but they could not continue to charge Ms Hobson rent. I-Rentals did continue to charge rent, through to 19 February. This means that it was a continuing tenancy, and the landlord could not enter the premises without notice.
The entry by the cleaners on 1 February was an unlawful entry. Exemplary damages of up to $1500.00 could be awarded for that unlawful act. The Tribunal uses awards exemplary damages at around one-third of the maximum, unless there are particular aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 1
My finding is that even if the landlord can show that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy as at 1 February, Ms Hobson’s liability for cleaning costs is offset by the landlord’s liability to her for the unlawful entry.
Therefore, this part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Break lease costs
A landlord who consents to the surrender of a tenancy can recover from the outgoing tenant “any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the [...] termination”. 2
A landlord who seeks to recover these expenses must provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant. 3
I-Rentals seeks break lease costs totalling $1,337.42 comprised of: Advertising (Trade Me listing):$225.00 1 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781 2 Section 44A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 3 Section 44A(2) RTA Methamphetamine test:$278.42 Exit and entry inspections:$220.00 Applicant credit checks:$70.00 Time, travel, viewings etc:$544.00
Ms Hobson said that: a. I-Rentals did not provide her with an itemised account of the expenses. b. The costs claimed are not reasonable. c. She should not be liable for the methamphetamine testing cost because she told I-Rentals that she would not pay for it and I-Rentals went ahead and did the test anyway. a. Did I-Rentals send Ms Hobson an itemised account of the expenses?
I am satisfied that I-Rentals sent Ms Hobson an itemised account of the expenses on 3 March 2025.
I-Rentals (Ms Sorenson) sent Ms Hobson an email on 3 March. Ms Hobson provided me with a printed copy of the email. The email stated: Our system shows the following: Rent owing $4825.00 Final water $84.50 Cleaning $507.50 Lease break charges $1337.42 which includes marketing of $225 and the meth test of $278.42. Total as of today is $6754.42 Copies of invoices attached.
There are 8 documents attached the email. One is entitled rent summary and another “tenant payment history”. The other six are invoices.
Ms Hobson acknowledged that she did not read all of the attachments and documents that I-Rentals sent to her. She said that if the information was important then I-Rentals had an obligation to flag it or draw it to her attention.
The law does not require this. It only requires that the landlord provide the account to the tenant.
I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the invoices attached to the email included the lease break charges invoice. This is supported by the data that is available from the landlord’s “Console” system, through which all of their messages are sent. b. Are the costs reasonable?
Landlords can recover “any expenses reasonably incurred”.
The advertising cost of $225.00 was an actual and reasonable cost incurred. The cost was a direct and reasonably foreseeable consequence of the tenant leaving the tenancy before the end date.
The methamphetamine testing cost was an actual and reasonable cost incurred. It is common practice for landlords to carry out a methamphetamine test between tenancies to establish a ‘baseline’ for the new tenancy.
Ms Raymond said that I-Rentals can (and routinely does) charge the owner a ‘letting fee’ or one weeks’ rent plus GST for setting up a new tenancy, plus $110.00 per inspection, plus third-party costs (advertising, methamphetamine testing, credit checks, etc).
Adding up those costs, the potential cost to the owner relating to the surrender of this tenancy and bringing in a new tenant exceeds the $1,337.42 claimed by the landlord.
The costs claimed are reasonable. c. Can Ms Hobson refuse the methamphetamine testing cost?
Ms Hobson cannot escape liability for this cost simply by telling the landlord that she is not going to pay it.
As stated above, all landlords are legally entitled to recover any expense reasonably incurred in the surrender of a tenancy. Filing fee, name suppression, bond
The landlord has been partially successful in their application, and I will also award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00. 4
Ms Hobson sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression on application to any party who is “substantially successful” in the 4 Section 102(4)(b) RTA proceedings. 5 Ms Hobson has not been substantially successful in these proceedings.
The Tribunal may grant name suppression to any party having regard to the interests of the party and to the public interest. 6 In this instance there are no special considerations relating to safety or privacy that warrant name suppression.
The proven amount owed to the landlord exceeds the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5151352 — net $3,829.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 February 2025	$4,985.00		19. Ms Hobson remained liable for rent until that new tenancy began.
Water rates to 19 February 2025	$84.50		Water rates to 19 February 2025
Break lease costs	$1,337.42		Break lease costs
Filing fee	$27.00		Filing fee
Compensation: Tenant payments after 19 February		$784.42	Tenant payments after 19 February
Total award	$6,433.92	$784.42
Net award	$3,829.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,829.50

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay I-Rentals Ltd (as agent for Fraser Wright) $3,829.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,820.00 (3241453-008) to I-Rentals Ltd immediately.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 4 September 2018. The landlord and tenant entered into a series of extensions to the term of the fixed-term tenancy. The last of these began on 13 November 2024 and was due to end on 17 November 2025.
On 16 January 2025 Ms Hobson asked to be released from the fixed term tenancy.
On 30 January 2025, Ms Hobson filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal seeking to be released from the fixed term tenancy.
The landlord entered into a tenancy with a new tenant commencing on 20 February 2025.
The landlord filed a cross-application on 27 February 2025.
The two applications were heard at the Whangarei Court on 7 May 2025. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms Raymond represented I-Rentals. Ms Sorenson (I-Rentals) also participated briefly in the hearing by phone. Tenant application
As noted above, the particular remedy that Ms Hobson sought in her application was release from her fixed term tenancy. The tenancy ended before the Tribunal could determine that question.
At the hearing Ms Hobson raised broader concerns about I-Rentals’ management of the tenancy, in particular around the last few weeks of the tenancy. Ms Hobson’s critiques were robust and wide-ranging. Ms Hobson sought vindication from the Tribunal that (amongst many other things) I-Rentals lacked transparency in their dealings with her.
It is not the role of the Tenancy Tribunal to audit or review the performance of a landlord or a tenant in general terms. The role of the Tribunal is determine applications, which involves deciding, in respect of specific issues, whether the landlord or tenant met their legal duty.
I acknowledge that Ms Hobson was (to say the least) frustrated and disappointed with I-Rentals. I also acknowledge that the ending of the tenancy, and the events leading up to it and all that has occurred since, was stressful and difficult for Ms Hobson.
However, it is also important to recognise that this was a fixed term tenancy. Ms Hobson asked to be released from the fixed term tenancy. The landlord agreed to release her. The landlord had no legal obligation to release Ms Hobson from the fixed term tenancy. They could have declined her request and held her liable for rent until the Tribunal made an order releasing her. There is also a possibility that the Tribunal may not have agreed that there were legal grounds to release Ms Hobson from the tenancy, in which case she could have potentially been liable for rent to the end of the fixed term in November.
I also acknowledge that the premature ending of the fixed term tenancy caused difficulties for the landlord.
Ms Hobson confirmed that she was not seeking a monetary award in her application. I agree that there is no legal basis for one. Landlord application Rent and water
The claim seeks rent arrears of $4,985.00 to 19 February 2025.
On the morning of 4 February I-Rentals sent Ms Hobson a message stating that the “vacate date” for the tenancy was 5 February and that the rent arrears to the end of the tenancy was $3,785.00. It also stated (incorrectly) that the bond was $2,520.00.
A few hours later, Ms Sorenson sent Ms Hobson a message stating: Sorry I was terribly confused between 8 Grant Street and another property. The email sent earlier advising that a new tenancy had been entered into is incorrect. There has been no new tenancy entered into with regards to 8 Grant Street. I apologise for the incorrect information given.
This was an unfortunate error, and it was understandably distressing for Ms Hobson.
However, I accept that it was a genuine error. The landlord had not, in fact, re- let this property from 5 February. It was not re-let until 20 February.
Ms Hobson remained liable for rent until that new tenancy began. The landlord’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $4,985.00 to 19 February.
Ms Hobson did not dispute the amount of water use on the final meter reading.
Ms Hobson has made payments since the end of the tenancy which can be credited to these outstanding amounts. Per Ms Hobson’s bank statements and the landlord’s ledger, Ms Hobson’s payments since the end of the tenancy total $784.42. Cleaning
The claim seeks cleaning costs of $507.50.
The cleaning was carried out on 1 February 2025. As noted above, the tenancy ended on 19 February 2025.
Ms Hobson disputed the cleaning costs on the grounds that the premises were reasonably clean and tidy and the amount claimed is excessive. Ms Hobson also noted that the landlord’s act of entering the premises without notice to carry out an ‘end of tenancy’ clean indicates that the landlord accepted the surrender of the tenancy on or before 1 February.
Ms Raymond said that it was necessary to clean the premises in order to show the property to prospective tenants. She said that I-Rentals did not give notice to Ms Hobson about the cleaning because Ms Hobson said that she had left the property and that she was “done with it”.
I acknowledge that the relationship between landlord and tenant had broken down by this time, and communication was difficult.
However, I agree with Ms Hobson’s view that the landlord cannot have it both ways. If they accepted the surrender of Ms Hobson’s tenancy, they were free to go to the premises as they pleased, but they could not continue to charge Ms Hobson rent. I-Rentals did continue to charge rent, through to 19 February. This means that it was a continuing tenancy, and the landlord could not enter the premises without notice.
The entry by the cleaners on 1 February was an unlawful entry. Exemplary damages of up to $1500.00 could be awarded for that unlawful act. The Tribunal uses awards exemplary damages at around one-third of the maximum, unless there are particular aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 1
My finding is that even if the landlord can show that the premises were not reasonably clean and tidy as at 1 February, Ms Hobson’s liability for cleaning costs is offset by the landlord’s liability to her for the unlawful entry.
Therefore, this part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Break lease costs
A landlord who consents to the surrender of a tenancy can recover from the outgoing tenant “any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the [...] termination”. 2
A landlord who seeks to recover these expenses must provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant. 3
I-Rentals seeks break lease costs totalling $1,337.42 comprised of: Advertising (Trade Me listing):$225.00 1 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781 2 Section 44A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 3 Section 44A(2) RTA Methamphetamine test:$278.42 Exit and entry inspections:$220.00 Applicant credit checks:$70.00 Time, travel, viewings etc:$544.00
Ms Hobson said that: a. I-Rentals did not provide her with an itemised account of the expenses. b. The costs claimed are not reasonable. c. She should not be liable for the methamphetamine testing cost because she told I-Rentals that she would not pay for it and I-Rentals went ahead and did the test anyway. a. Did I-Rentals send Ms Hobson an itemised account of the expenses?
I am satisfied that I-Rentals sent Ms Hobson an itemised account of the expenses on 3 March 2025.
I-Rentals (Ms Sorenson) sent Ms Hobson an email on 3 March. Ms Hobson provided me with a printed copy of the email. The email stated: Our system shows the following: Rent owing $4825.00 Final water $84.50 Cleaning $507.50 Lease break charges $1337.42 which includes marketing of $225 and the meth test of $278.42. Total as of today is $6754.42 Copies of invoices attached.
There are 8 documents attached the email. One is entitled rent summary and another “tenant payment history”. The other six are invoices.
Ms Hobson acknowledged that she did not read all of the attachments and documents that I-Rentals sent to her. She said that if the information was important then I-Rentals had an obligation to flag it or draw it to her attention.
The law does not require this. It only requires that the landlord provide the account to the tenant.
I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the invoices attached to the email included the lease break charges invoice. This is supported by the data that is available from the landlord’s “Console” system, through which all of their messages are sent. b. Are the costs reasonable?
Landlords can recover “any expenses reasonably incurred”.
The advertising cost of $225.00 was an actual and reasonable cost incurred. The cost was a direct and reasonably foreseeable consequence of the tenant leaving the tenancy before the end date.
The methamphetamine testing cost was an actual and reasonable cost incurred. It is common practice for landlords to carry out a methamphetamine test between tenancies to establish a ‘baseline’ for the new tenancy.
Ms Raymond said that I-Rentals can (and routinely does) charge the owner a ‘letting fee’ or one weeks’ rent plus GST for setting up a new tenancy, plus $110.00 per inspection, plus third-party costs (advertising, methamphetamine testing, credit checks, etc).
Adding up those costs, the potential cost to the owner relating to the surrender of this tenancy and bringing in a new tenant exceeds the $1,337.42 claimed by the landlord.
The costs claimed are reasonable. c. Can Ms Hobson refuse the methamphetamine testing cost?
Ms Hobson cannot escape liability for this cost simply by telling the landlord that she is not going to pay it.
As stated above, all landlords are legally entitled to recover any expense reasonably incurred in the surrender of a tenancy. Filing fee, name suppression, bond
The landlord has been partially successful in their application, and I will also award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00. 4
Ms Hobson sought name suppression. The Tribunal must grant name suppression on application to any party who is “substantially successful” in the 4 Section 102(4)(b) RTA proceedings. 5 Ms Hobson has not been substantially successful in these proceedings.
The Tribunal may grant name suppression to any party having regard to the interests of the party and to the public interest. 6 In this instance there are no special considerations relating to safety or privacy that warrant name suppression.
The proven amount owed to the landlord exceeds the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5151352 — Rent arrears at 8 Grant Street, Kamo, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5151352 — Rent arrears at 8 Grant Street, Kamo, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions