What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5164595 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 5164595?

Break Fee Costs: $603.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,843.93 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5164595?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5164595?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11850316-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5164595 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 5164595?

Break Fee Costs: $603.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,843.93 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5164595?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5164595?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11850316-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5164595 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5164595 — net $2,734.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 March 2024	$4,843.93	Rent arrears to 17 March 2024
Break fee costs	$603.75	Break fee costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,734.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,734.68

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] $2,734.68 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on the 4 April 2024 and was for a fixed term ending on the 2 April 2025. The tenants were friends and were joint tenants. This meant that they were joint and severally liable to the landlord. For example, if one tenant did not pay their rent, then both tenants remained liable to the landlord for the unpaid portion not just the tenant who had not paid.
The landlord had applied for termination of the tenancy for rent arrears in February. Since filing the application, the tenancy has now ended, and the landlord has re tenanted the property with a new tenancy beginning on the 17 March 2025. The landlord told me at the hearing that it was difficult to get new tenants for the property and they had to reduce the rent three times before they found new tenants.
I record that the landlord told me at the hearing that they would provide me with the new tenancy agreement. They have not provided me with that agreement, despite the registry asking for that information on two occasions.
In December 2024 tenant A told tenant B that she wished to move out as she needed to look after her sick mother. Tenant B says that tenant A told her that she had not made any definite plans. Tenant B says she expressed her concern that she was not left with all the rent to pay as she could afford the rent on her own. Tenant B also wanted to decide on any flatmate that she had who could take over tenancy.
On the 15 December 2024 tenant B went overseas to see her family for Christmas, this holiday was preplanned and tenant A assured tenant B that she would not make any decisions until after tenant B got back on the 7 January.
Despite this on the 16 December tenant A wrote to the landlord seeking to be released from the tenancy and saying that tenant B would be continuing with the tenancy on her own. Tenant A did not include tenant B in this correspondence.
Tenant B says that the first she learned of tenant A telling the landlord that she wished to be released was when she was included in an email thread on the 13 January 2025. Tenant A says she was shocked and concerned.
From the 13 January both tenants made it clear to the landlord that they wished to be released from the fixed term tenancy. The landlord explained that they would be liable until new tenants were found and for the break lease fees. The landlord gave the tenant a breakdown of how those costs would be calculated and the tenants agreed to those costs.
Tenant A moved out on the 25 January and tenant B on the 7 February.
The landlord says that they found it very difficult to re rent the property. There was a lot of supply in the market and rents were decreasing, as a result they decreased the rent from the $685 per week that these tenants were paying to $620.00 per week. The landlord says they dropped the rent 3x until they meet the market. The property was relet on the 17 March.
The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. I note that the tenants did not apply for the reduction of the fixed term tenancy as they could have pursuant to s66 RTA.
Tenant B says that it is unfair that she should have to pay rent until the new tenants are found and the break lease fees, she says that tenant A made the decision to leave early. Tenant B says that the landlord should have told her about tenant A’s email on the 16 December when she received it.
Whilst I have some sympathy for tenant B’s position, I do not consider that the arguments that she has raised give rise to a defence to the landlord’s claim for rent until a new tenant was found and the costs of breaking the lease. I say this for the following reasons: a. The tenants were jointly liable to landlord. b. The landlord included both tenants in correspondence after the 13 January. It was not until after that time that a final decision was made by the tenants as to whether the tenancy would end early or continue. c. The tenants agreed to the break fees in correspondence and clearly understood that they were liable for the rent until new tenants were found. d. The landlord did not delay in trying to find new tenants, if was simply the market conditions had changed. e. The disputes between the tenants did not change their liability to their landlord to perform their obligations in the fixed term contract.
I am satisfied that the tenants are liable for the rent until the new tenants were found. I am also satisfied that the break costs that the landlord seeks were reasonable. They were agreed to by the tenants and are reasonable for the work that was completed in trying to re-let this property.
Whilst some of the break costs fees are for costs usually occurred by a landlord at the start of the tenancy, I consider that the landlord has been put to this extra cost 4 months earlier than expected and has had extra work over and above what would normally be expected at the end of the tenancy to relet. Filing fee
As the landlord has been successful in its application, I award the landlord the filing fee. Name suppression.
The landlord and the tenant both asked for name suppression, and I have allowed it in this case. I consider that tenant B has found herself in a difficult situation precipitated by the actions of tenant A. I consider that there is no public interest knowing the identity of the parties.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5164595 — net $2,734.68 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 March 2024	$4,843.93	Rent arrears to 17 March 2024
Break fee costs	$603.75	Break fee costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,734.68
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,734.68

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] $2,734.68 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy began on the 4 April 2024 and was for a fixed term ending on the 2 April 2025. The tenants were friends and were joint tenants. This meant that they were joint and severally liable to the landlord. For example, if one tenant did not pay their rent, then both tenants remained liable to the landlord for the unpaid portion not just the tenant who had not paid.
The landlord had applied for termination of the tenancy for rent arrears in February. Since filing the application, the tenancy has now ended, and the landlord has re tenanted the property with a new tenancy beginning on the 17 March 2025. The landlord told me at the hearing that it was difficult to get new tenants for the property and they had to reduce the rent three times before they found new tenants.
I record that the landlord told me at the hearing that they would provide me with the new tenancy agreement. They have not provided me with that agreement, despite the registry asking for that information on two occasions.
In December 2024 tenant A told tenant B that she wished to move out as she needed to look after her sick mother. Tenant B says that tenant A told her that she had not made any definite plans. Tenant B says she expressed her concern that she was not left with all the rent to pay as she could afford the rent on her own. Tenant B also wanted to decide on any flatmate that she had who could take over tenancy.
On the 15 December 2024 tenant B went overseas to see her family for Christmas, this holiday was preplanned and tenant A assured tenant B that she would not make any decisions until after tenant B got back on the 7 January.
Despite this on the 16 December tenant A wrote to the landlord seeking to be released from the tenancy and saying that tenant B would be continuing with the tenancy on her own. Tenant A did not include tenant B in this correspondence.
Tenant B says that the first she learned of tenant A telling the landlord that she wished to be released was when she was included in an email thread on the 13 January 2025. Tenant A says she was shocked and concerned.
From the 13 January both tenants made it clear to the landlord that they wished to be released from the fixed term tenancy. The landlord explained that they would be liable until new tenants were found and for the break lease fees. The landlord gave the tenant a breakdown of how those costs would be calculated and the tenants agreed to those costs.
Tenant A moved out on the 25 January and tenant B on the 7 February.
The landlord says that they found it very difficult to re rent the property. There was a lot of supply in the market and rents were decreasing, as a result they decreased the rent from the $685 per week that these tenants were paying to $620.00 per week. The landlord says they dropped the rent 3x until they meet the market. The property was relet on the 17 March.
The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. I note that the tenants did not apply for the reduction of the fixed term tenancy as they could have pursuant to s66 RTA.
Tenant B says that it is unfair that she should have to pay rent until the new tenants are found and the break lease fees, she says that tenant A made the decision to leave early. Tenant B says that the landlord should have told her about tenant A’s email on the 16 December when she received it.
Whilst I have some sympathy for tenant B’s position, I do not consider that the arguments that she has raised give rise to a defence to the landlord’s claim for rent until a new tenant was found and the costs of breaking the lease. I say this for the following reasons: a. The tenants were jointly liable to landlord. b. The landlord included both tenants in correspondence after the 13 January. It was not until after that time that a final decision was made by the tenants as to whether the tenancy would end early or continue. c. The tenants agreed to the break fees in correspondence and clearly understood that they were liable for the rent until new tenants were found. d. The landlord did not delay in trying to find new tenants, if was simply the market conditions had changed. e. The disputes between the tenants did not change their liability to their landlord to perform their obligations in the fixed term contract.
I am satisfied that the tenants are liable for the rent until the new tenants were found. I am also satisfied that the break costs that the landlord seeks were reasonable. They were agreed to by the tenants and are reasonable for the work that was completed in trying to re-let this property.
Whilst some of the break costs fees are for costs usually occurred by a landlord at the start of the tenancy, I consider that the landlord has been put to this extra cost 4 months earlier than expected and has had extra work over and above what would normally be expected at the end of the tenancy to relet. Filing fee
As the landlord has been successful in its application, I award the landlord the filing fee. Name suppression.
The landlord and the tenant both asked for name suppression, and I have allowed it in this case. I consider that tenant B has found herself in a difficult situation precipitated by the actions of tenant A. I consider that there is no public interest knowing the identity of the parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5164595 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5164595 — Rent arrears

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