What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5183171 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 5183171?

Compensation: partial rent reimburse…: $357.14 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $475.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5183171?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5183171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12144534-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5183171 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 5183171?

Compensation: partial rent reimburse…: $357.14 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $475.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5183171?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5183171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12144534-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5C, 3 Church Street, Wellington Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5183171 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5183171 — net $117.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs	$475.00		Repairs
Compensation: partial rent reimbursement		$357.14	partial rent reimbursement
Total award	$475.00	$357.14
Net award	$117.86
Bond	$5,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$117.86

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5183171 — net $117.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs	$475.00		Repairs
Compensation: partial rent reimbursement		$357.14	partial rent reimbursement
Total award	$475.00	$357.14
Net award	$117.86
Bond	$5,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$117.86

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $117.86 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $5,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $117.86 [The tenant/s]: $4,882.14

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 July 2025.
The tenant has filed an application seeking reimbursement of $892.85 rent paid for the period 02/12/2024 – 06/12/2024. The tenant also seeks a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has filed a cross-application seeking compensation for repairs, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they 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 Katipo 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 of 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 at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. TENANT’S CLAIMS Reimbursement of rent for period 02/12/2024 – 06/12/2024 The law
A tenant must pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 1
In the case of a fixed term tenancy, rent is due and payable throughout the tenancy from the beginning to the end of the fixed term. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(a).
A tenant may assign the tenancy with the prior written consent of the landlord and in accordance with any reasonable conditions attached to that consent by the landlord. 2
Where a tenant assigns a fixed term tenancy to a new tenant, the new tenant becomes responsible for paying rent as and when it is due from the date the new tenant takes over the tenancy to the end of the fixed term.
A landlord who consents to an assignment of the tenancy is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonable incurred by the landlord in respect of the assignment however, they must first provide an itemised account to the outgoing tenant. 3 This cost is usually referred to as a “break lease fee.” Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant requested permission to end the fixed term tenancy early. The landlord agreed to allow the tenant to assign the tenancy to a new tenant, rather than end it altogether.
The tenant vacated the premises on 1 December 2024. A new tenant moved into the premises on 7 December 2024 and began paying rent to the landlord on this date.
The tenant paid the landlord a break lease fee of $1,000.00 to cover expenses incurred by the landlord in assigning the tenancy. The tenant claims they believed this included any rent due between 2 December 2024 – 6 December 2024, which is the date the tenant vacated the premises and a new tenant moved in.
The tenant claims the landlord later told them that this was not the case. The tenant paid the landlord a further $892.85 in rent to cover the period from 2 December 2025 – 6 December 2025. The tenant claims they made this payment, because they felt pressured and concerned that if they did not, then their request to assign the tenancy would not go through.
The tenant claims the proper position is that the break lease fee of $1,000.00 covered everything, including any rent due between the date they vacated the premises and the date a new tenant moved in.
The landlord denies they have ever misrepresented to the tenant that the break lease fee included rent between the date the tenant vacated the premises and the date a new tenant moved in. The landlord claims they were always very clear with the tenant on this point, which can be seen in emails sent to the tenant. Further, the landlord claims the agreement signed by all parties 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 43B(1). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 44A(1) and (2). regarding the assignment of the tenancy clearly states that the tenant is liable to pay rent up to the date a new tenant moves into the premises.
The landlord submits that the rent due between 2 December 2024 – 6 December 2024 is $892.85. If the break lease fee included this cost, this would only leave the landlord $107.15 to cover all of the other expenses, which is nowhere near enough. Therefore, the landlord claims any assumption by the tenant that the break lease fee included rent due between 2 December 2024 – 6 December 2024 is unreasonable. Analysis
The landlord sent the tenant an email on 24 September 2024 in response to the tenant’s request to assign the tenancy. In it, the landlord states: ... You will need to pay [the landlord] resulting from the early transfer of the tenancy. These will be a fair reimbursement of the expenses incurred, including as (detailed below): a. Reference and credit checks on shortlisted prospective new tenants b. Drafting and signing new tenancy documents c. Attending to the change of name tenant(s) bond form d. Time spent providing all parties with the current tenancy statement, the original tenancy agreement, any tenancy variation documents and property condition report e. Liaising and communication with all parties involved f. Initial and exit inspections including preparation for commencement and conclusion of your tenancy g. Additionally, there is a short period between your departure and the new tenants moving in for a period of up to 3-5 days. This is a tenant expense as we would not incur at this stage of the tenancy. ...
I find the wording of this email implies that any rent due to paid between the date the tenant vacates the premises and the date a new tenant moves into the premises is included in the break lease fee. This is because the landlord states that the tenant is required to pay a fee for the “fair reimbursement of the expenses incurred, including as (detailed below)” (emphasis added). The landlord then goes on to list the rent due between the date of the tenant’s departure and the date the new tenants move in as one of these expenses under bullet point “g”.
The landlord claims the fact that bullet point “g” is prefaced with the word “additionally” makes it clear that this expense is separate from and in addition to the break lease fee. I disagree, because it is included as an alphebatised item under the list of items the landlord states the break lease fee covers. The interpretation would be different if it was not included as an alphebatised item or if the landlord specifically stated that this expense was not included in the break lease fee.
The landlord claims any inference that the break lease fee includes the rent due between 2 December 2024 – 6 December 2024 is not reasonable, because it would only have left the landlord $107.15 to cover all of the other items listed in their email. Whilst the landlord may be familiar the time and costs associated with acquiring new tenants, I don’t think it can reasonably be said that the tenants are.
It is also important to consider the terms of the agreement signed by both parties. It is titled “Agreement for Early Break Lease Process”. It was signed by the parties at different dates between 24 September 2024 – 1 October 2024.
Under the heading “Your rental Obligations” it states: The tenants understand they are liable for the rent, until a replacement group is found with an agreed move in date and a new Tenancy Agreement is signed. (emphasis added)
Later on, under the heading “Agreeing a move out date” it states: ...
I/we agree to give (3 – 5 days vacant possession to the Property Manager to allow an exit inspection, any additional cleaning, property repairs and an entry inspection for new tenants. Also that I/we will be liable to pay the rent until the day before the new tenants move in (emphasis added)
Under this paragraph in bold writing, the agreement states: As tenants, we understand that we are legally obligated to continue paying rent until suitable new tenants have signed a new Tenancy Agreement. (emphasis added)
All three of these clauses define different dates the tenant is required to pay rent up to: a. The date until a new tenant is found and there is an agreed move in date and a new tenancy agreement has been signed. b. The date until the new tenants move in. c. The date until the new tenants sign a tenancy agreement.
This is confusing and begs the question, what date applies to determine the tenant’s rent liability?
In an email sent by the tenant to the landlord on 21 October 2024, they state that the agreement only requires them to pay rent until a replacement tenant is found. As a replacement tenant had already been found and the tenant had paid the break lease fee of $1,000.00, they advised the landlord they were not liable to pay rent for the period 2 December 2024 – 6 December 2024.
In a reply email sent to the tenant on 22 October 2024, the landlord states that the tenant is responsible for paying rent until the new tenant moves into the premises on 7 December 2024. The landlord states this is what the Agreement for Early Break Lease Process states and notes: “...According to the agreement, you remain liable for rent until a replacement group has been found and a new tenancy agreement has been signed. If you were unhappy with the terms of the break lease agreement, I’m unsure why you would have signed it.”
The landlord appears to have taken the wording that the tenant is responsible for paying rent up to the date a new tenant is “found” and a “new tenancy agreement is signed” as being synonymous with the date the new tenancy begins, whereas the tenant appears to have taken a more literal interpretation of these words.
In their email dated 22 October 2024, the landlord asked the tenant to confirm if they still wished to proceed with the assignment of the tenancy after clarifying the position and the tenant replied that they did. The tenant claims they felt pressured to confirm their decision and pay the additional $892.85 in rent, because if they did not, they would remain liable to pay rent until the end of the fixed term on 9 February 2025.
The Tribunal sees numerous cases of fixed term tenancies where a tenant requests to end the fixed term early or assign the tenancy. The usual conditions that a landlord attaches to this kind of request are that the tenant pay a fee (often referred to as a “break lease fee”) and pay the rent until the date a new tenancy begins. This appears to have been the intention of the landlord however, in light of the wording of landlord’s email sent on 24 September 2024 and the terms of the Agreement for Early Break Lease Process, I can understand why the tenant reasonably believed the lease break fee covered all expenses and that they were only required to pay rent until the date a new tenant was found. The landlord may wish to review the terms of their standard Agreement for Early Break Lease Process to ensure it consistently states the tenant is liable to pay rent up to the date a new tenancy begins.
The Tribunal is required to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that ensures the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants. It must determine cases according to the general principles of the law and the substantial merits and justice of the case. 4
In this case, I find the most fair and reasonable outcome that promotes this purpose is one which requires the tenant to pay three days’ worth of rent from 2 December 2024 – 4 December 2024 ($535.71). This result strikes a fair balance between the following factors: a) The inference given in landlord’s email sent on 24 September 2024 is that the rent due between the date the tenant vacated the premises and the date a new tenant moved in was included in the list of items covered by the break lease fee. b) The Agreement for Early Break Lease definiens three different dates the tenant is required to pay rent up to. c) All parties signed the Agreement for Early Break Lease with its different dates for when the tenant’s rent liability ended before the landlord’s clarifying email was sent on 22 October 2024. d) The tenant confirmed their decision to proceed with the assignment of the tenancy after receiving the landlord’s clarifying email sent on 22 October 2024.
The tenant’s claim for reimbursement of $892.85 in rent is granted for a total of $357.14. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Damage The law
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. 5 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 85. 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 & 49B.
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 6
In Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore, 30 January 1996, [1996] RTHNZ 2, 1996 WL 35049225, his Honour Judge Thorburn held: Adjudicators and the Court must be careful to recognise that in any tenancy there will be a deterioration of condition because of fair wear and tear. It can be no other way. Mere use of premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration of condition.
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for damaging walls inside the premises. The tenant claims any damage is fair wear and tear, with the exception of one mark on the wall in bedroom 3. Analysis
The landlord gave evidence the premises was freshly painted before the tenancy began.
The landlord claims the walls were damaged during the tenancy and has had them repaired and painted at a cost of $1,937.46. The landlord submitted an invoice for this amount.
The landlord only seeks compensation of $690.00 towards the invoice for damage to the following areas, which the landlord claims exceeds fair wear and tear: a. Lounge (right hand side wall)$125.00 b. Bedroom 1 (left hand side wall)$75.00 c. Bedroom 2 (corridor & left hand side wall) $150.00 d. Bedroom 3 (corridor, left hand side & right hand side wall) $150.00 e. Bedroom 4 (right hand side wall)$100.00
The landlord submitted photographs of each area taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy.
In respect of the right hand side wall in the lounge, I am not convinced the damage exceeds fair wear and tear. The photograph taken at the end of the tenancy shows small, shallow dents to the wall. The damage is minimal. This 6 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. tenancy was one year long and there were five tenants living in the premises. I accept the tenant’s submission that the lounge was a “high traffic area” and therefore, more likely to incur damage from everyday living compared to the bedrooms.
In respect of the other damage listed at paragraphs [b] – [e] above, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that it occurred during the tenancy and exceeds fair wear and tear.
There are no signs of damage to any of these areas in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy, which leads me to believe the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The photograph of the left hand side of the wall in bedroom 1 shows a small patch of paint has been removed and a repair job has been attempted. On the balance of probabilities, I consider it more likely than not that this is the result of careless damage caused by removing something akin to a hook, which has peeled the paint. My conclusion is the same regarding the small patch of missing paint to the wall in bedroom 2.
In bedroom 3, there is a large horizonal scratch on the wall, which the tenant says occurred when they moved their bed. There is also what appears to be an attempted repair job to small holes in the wall where something appears to have been hung. On the balance of probabilities, I find this damage to be the result of carelessness on behalf of the tenant.
The right hand side of the wall in bedroom 4 shows what appears to be a small drawing on the wall that is not present in the photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. I also consider it more likely than not this was the result of careless damage.
The landlord did not file a claim with their insurer, as their excess would have exceeded the repair costs.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $475.00. FILING FEE & NAME SUPPRESSION
Both parties have been substantially successful with their claim and therefore, I do not order either party to reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I grant both parties’ request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5183171 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 5C, 3 Church Street, Wellington Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5183171 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 5C, 3 Church Street, Wellington Central,

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