What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5161811 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 5161811?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $3,188.57 awarded to landlord; Section 44A Expenses (Parting With P…: $762.00 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $341.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5161811?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5161811?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11613932-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5161811 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 5161811?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Rent: $3,188.57 awarded to landlord; Section 44A Expenses (Parting With P…: $762.00 awarded to landlord; Water Charges To End Of Tenancy: $341.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5161811?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5161811?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11613932-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5161811 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5161811 — net $1,425.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 13 November 2025	$3,188.57		Rent to 13 November 2025
Water charges to end of tenancy	$341.68		Water charges to end of tenancy
Lawns and Garden work	$40.00		Lawns and Garden work
Section 44A expenses (parting with possession	$762.00		Section 44A expenses (parting with possession
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$4,332.85	$27.00
Net award	$1,425.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,425.85

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,425.85 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 20 March 2025.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants applied for refund of the bond. Background
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 29 April 2023 to 3 May 2024. On 22 September 2023, the tenants emailed the landlord explaining that they had purchased a home and would be vacating the premises on 29 October 2023.
The landlord replied pointing out that the fixed term tenancy could only be ended by mutual consent and the tenants would be responsible for, inter alia, the rent until a new tenant was found.
Advertisements for new tenants were placed on 10 October 2023 (18 days after the tenants gave notice).
The premises were re-let at the same rent from 28 November 2023.
The tenants chased the landlord several times to finalise matters arising from the tenancy. For example, in an email dated 10 January 2024, they noted they were waiting for the bond refund to be processed. The property manager responded with a summary of the vacate costs on 18 January 2024. The tenants explained why some of these costs were disputed in an email dated 28 February 2024 and the property manager said she would discuss the costs with her manager.
There was then a long gap until the tenants emailed on 11 February 2025, seeking to agree the costs. The tenants intimated that a Tribunal application might need to be made if agreement could not be reached. The landlord applied to the Tribunal on the same day, 11 February 2025. Rent
The landlord gave the tenant’s 10 days credit and claimed rent to 17 November 2023 in the sum of $3,600.00 (35 days rent).
The landlord had an obligation to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss resulting from the tenants’ breach of contract – unilaterally terminating a fixed term tenancy early is a breach. The tenants said they could not avoid being liable for the rent for 18 days after their notice, because the advertisement was not posted until 10 October 2023. They said they should not be liable for rent when no effort was being made to find new tenants.
The landlord submitted that the ingoing tenant had to give 28 days’ notice, so effectively they had found a new tenant by the end of October 2023, which was 6 weeks after the tenants gave notice.
It would be understandable if the landlord took a few days to take instructions from the owner and to arrange for advertisements, but in my view, 18 days to place some standardised adverts was too long. The landlord might be right that, even if the advert had been placed straightaway, a new tenant would not have been found any earlier. However, the obligation is to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss. If the advert had been placed by Monday 25 September 2023, for instance, a new tenant might have been found by the end of October/early November. I consider that the tenants should not be held liable for rent during an unreasonable delay in the re-marketing process.
I award rent to 13 November 2023, a total credit of 14 days from the notional end of the tenancy on 27 November 2023. As the landlord observed, the last payment made by the tenants was on 27 October 2023 which paid the rent to 13 October 2023. The tenants are liable for rent from 14 October to 13 November 2023 at the weekly rent of $720.00 (4 weeks and 3 days) totalling $3,188.57. Water charges and gardening
The tenants did not dispute the water charges of $341.68 or the weeding costs of $40.00. Section 44A expenses
The landlord claimed expenses incurred in respect of the tenant’s decision to part with possession pursuant to section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
An itemised account of the expenses incurred finding new tenants was emailed to the tenants on 18 January 2024 for $776.06.
In their emails, the tenants said they requested receipts to support the expenses claimed and it was difficult to pay the expenses as well as the rent.
In my view, the landlord is entitled to recover the costs claimed. The landlord confirmed that these costs are on-charged to the owner. That is important, because the expenses must be “incurred”. The account included time charges for advertising, credit checks, viewings, screening of applications, preparing the new tenancy agreement, conducting a vacate inspection, and general administration at an hourly rate of $26.92 (totalling 12.25 hours). Disbursements were claimed for the advertising fees, and transport costs for viewings and the final inspection.
My only quibble is that the expenses included 0.5 hours for completing the itemised account. While there is a time-cost involved in doing so, in my view this expense is not incurred in respect of the parting with possession but rather it is a legally mandated step to recover such costs. I consider general administration charges of 3 hours would be reasonable and reduce the expenses award to $762.60 ($776.06 minus $13.46). Suppression and filing fee
As discussed at the hearing, I grant both parties name suppression. The landlord’s application has been successful but for the reasons given below, there has also been some disadvantage to the tenants which can be remedied by a suppression order.
There was a lengthy delay in the landlord finalising the vacated costs claim despite reminders from the tenants. The landlord also chose to decline mediation. The tenants said they had no opportunity to resolve the matter outside of the Tribunal process and expressed their frustration.
The Tribunal does have a discretion regarding costs, and I consider the tenants have some justification for their view that the dispute could have been handled differently. They noted that a Tribunal claim was filed by the landlord on the same day that they emailed seeking an agreed resolution. The landlord said there had been some personnel changes due to illness and I do not suggest the delay was intentional.
I have decided not to award the landlord the filing fee. The tenants subsequently filed their own application for the bond. I reimburse the tenants for the filing fee they paid.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5161811 — net $1,425.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent to 13 November 2025	$3,188.57		Rent to 13 November 2025
Water charges to end of tenancy	$341.68		Water charges to end of tenancy
Lawns and Garden work	$40.00		Lawns and Garden work
Section 44A expenses (parting with possession	$762.00		Section 44A expenses (parting with possession
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$4,332.85	$27.00
Net award	$1,425.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,425.85

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,425.85 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 20 March 2025.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants applied for refund of the bond. Background
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 29 April 2023 to 3 May 2024. On 22 September 2023, the tenants emailed the landlord explaining that they had purchased a home and would be vacating the premises on 29 October 2023.
The landlord replied pointing out that the fixed term tenancy could only be ended by mutual consent and the tenants would be responsible for, inter alia, the rent until a new tenant was found.
Advertisements for new tenants were placed on 10 October 2023 (18 days after the tenants gave notice).
The premises were re-let at the same rent from 28 November 2023.
The tenants chased the landlord several times to finalise matters arising from the tenancy. For example, in an email dated 10 January 2024, they noted they were waiting for the bond refund to be processed. The property manager responded with a summary of the vacate costs on 18 January 2024. The tenants explained why some of these costs were disputed in an email dated 28 February 2024 and the property manager said she would discuss the costs with her manager.
There was then a long gap until the tenants emailed on 11 February 2025, seeking to agree the costs. The tenants intimated that a Tribunal application might need to be made if agreement could not be reached. The landlord applied to the Tribunal on the same day, 11 February 2025. Rent
The landlord gave the tenant’s 10 days credit and claimed rent to 17 November 2023 in the sum of $3,600.00 (35 days rent).
The landlord had an obligation to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss resulting from the tenants’ breach of contract – unilaterally terminating a fixed term tenancy early is a breach. The tenants said they could not avoid being liable for the rent for 18 days after their notice, because the advertisement was not posted until 10 October 2023. They said they should not be liable for rent when no effort was being made to find new tenants.
The landlord submitted that the ingoing tenant had to give 28 days’ notice, so effectively they had found a new tenant by the end of October 2023, which was 6 weeks after the tenants gave notice.
It would be understandable if the landlord took a few days to take instructions from the owner and to arrange for advertisements, but in my view, 18 days to place some standardised adverts was too long. The landlord might be right that, even if the advert had been placed straightaway, a new tenant would not have been found any earlier. However, the obligation is to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss. If the advert had been placed by Monday 25 September 2023, for instance, a new tenant might have been found by the end of October/early November. I consider that the tenants should not be held liable for rent during an unreasonable delay in the re-marketing process.
I award rent to 13 November 2023, a total credit of 14 days from the notional end of the tenancy on 27 November 2023. As the landlord observed, the last payment made by the tenants was on 27 October 2023 which paid the rent to 13 October 2023. The tenants are liable for rent from 14 October to 13 November 2023 at the weekly rent of $720.00 (4 weeks and 3 days) totalling $3,188.57. Water charges and gardening
The tenants did not dispute the water charges of $341.68 or the weeding costs of $40.00. Section 44A expenses
The landlord claimed expenses incurred in respect of the tenant’s decision to part with possession pursuant to section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
An itemised account of the expenses incurred finding new tenants was emailed to the tenants on 18 January 2024 for $776.06.
In their emails, the tenants said they requested receipts to support the expenses claimed and it was difficult to pay the expenses as well as the rent.
In my view, the landlord is entitled to recover the costs claimed. The landlord confirmed that these costs are on-charged to the owner. That is important, because the expenses must be “incurred”. The account included time charges for advertising, credit checks, viewings, screening of applications, preparing the new tenancy agreement, conducting a vacate inspection, and general administration at an hourly rate of $26.92 (totalling 12.25 hours). Disbursements were claimed for the advertising fees, and transport costs for viewings and the final inspection.
My only quibble is that the expenses included 0.5 hours for completing the itemised account. While there is a time-cost involved in doing so, in my view this expense is not incurred in respect of the parting with possession but rather it is a legally mandated step to recover such costs. I consider general administration charges of 3 hours would be reasonable and reduce the expenses award to $762.60 ($776.06 minus $13.46). Suppression and filing fee
As discussed at the hearing, I grant both parties name suppression. The landlord’s application has been successful but for the reasons given below, there has also been some disadvantage to the tenants which can be remedied by a suppression order.
There was a lengthy delay in the landlord finalising the vacated costs claim despite reminders from the tenants. The landlord also chose to decline mediation. The tenants said they had no opportunity to resolve the matter outside of the Tribunal process and expressed their frustration.
The Tribunal does have a discretion regarding costs, and I consider the tenants have some justification for their view that the dispute could have been handled differently. They noted that a Tribunal claim was filed by the landlord on the same day that they emailed seeking an agreed resolution. The landlord said there had been some personnel changes due to illness and I do not suggest the delay was intentional.
I have decided not to award the landlord the filing fee. The tenants subsequently filed their own application for the bond. I reimburse the tenants for the filing fee they paid.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5161811 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5161811 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions