What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5193211 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 5193211?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $850.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5193211?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5193211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11724054-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5193211 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 5193211?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $850.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5193211?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5193211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11724054-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5193211 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5193211 — net $877.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$850.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$877.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$877.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5193211 — net $877.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$850.00	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$877.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$877.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Kok Wai Fan and Kak Yen Tay must pay [The landlord/s] $877.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 15 April 2025. The tenant was supported by an interpreter.
The issue of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider this matter has previously been dealt with. In an order dated 23 January 2025, the Tribunal confirmed that it did have jurisdiction to consider the tenant’s claim under s.43B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The tenant seeks exemplary damages against the landlord for a breach of that section. In the time between that order being issued and today's hearing, the landlord has filed a cross claim for rent arrears, cleaning and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The relevant law is found in the RTA.
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like 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.” (the emphasis is mine). Tenant’s Claim
This was a fixed term tenancy due to end on 15 July 2025.
Section 43B RTA provides; 43B Assignment of tenancy by tenant (1) A tenant may, at any time during the tenancy, assign the tenancy— (a)with the prior written consent of the landlord; and (b)in accordance with any reasonable conditions attached to that consent by the landlord. (2)Subsection (1) does not apply in the circumstances described in section 43A(2). (3)A tenant commits an unlawful act if the tenant assigns the tenancy— (a)without the prior written consent of the landlord; or (b)if the tenancy is a tenancy described in [[section 22F(2)(b) or (c)]], in contravention of a provision described in section 43A(2). (4)If a tenant makes a written request for the landlord’s consent to an assignment and the request identifies, and includes contact details for, the proposed assignee, the landlord must respond in writing to the request within a reasonable period of time. (5)A landlord who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with subsection (4) commits an unlawful act.
A tenant, may, at any time during the tenancy, assign the tenancy to another, but the tenant must first get the landlord’s written consent and must comply with any conditions imposed by the landlord. The landlord must not withhold consent unreasonably and must not attach any unreasonable conditions to the consent.
If a tenant makes a written request for the landlord’s consent and the request identifies the proposed assignee and gives that persons contact details, the landlord must respond in writing to the request within a reasonable time. It is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to $1,500.00 may be payable to breach s.43B(3A) RTA without reasonable excuse.
The tenant says that he experienced communication difficulties with the landlord throughout the course of the tenancy. This culminated in difficulties, he says were experienced in trying to have his tenancy assigned before the end of the fixed term.
The tenant says that on 30 August 2024, he initially mentioned to the landlord that he had a friend (“Franco”) who might be interested in taking over his tenancy prior to the end of the fixed term.
On 4 September 2024, the tenant followed this up by providing the landlord with an e-mail which included the name and contact details for the Franco. I consider that this is the date on which the tenant made an application to the landlord to assign the tenancy. On the same day, the landlord replied that she would follow up with the proposed tenant.
On 24 September 2024, the landlord advised the tenant that there had been a delay as Franco had not completed the necessary application form. Franco completed the application form and sent it to the landlord on 25 September 2025.
The tenant said that issues had arisen because of furniture that the tenant had at the premises. Franco had wanted to take over the furniture at the commencement of his tenancy. The tenant inquired with the landlord to see whether this would be acceptable or whether the furniture would need to be removed at the end of his tenancy. It appears that there were both text and telephone messages between the parties during the period from the 1st of October to the 14th of October 2024 discussing this issue.
On 4 October 2024 Franco tried to contact the landlord directly to introduce himself and to find out what was to happen regarding the furniture issue.
On 15 October 2024, the tenant received an email from the landlord asking for him to complete a form in his capacity as the current tenant.
On 15 October 2024, Franco informed the tenant that the delays that he experienced meant that he was not confident enough in the proposal to take the tenancy and withdrew his interest in the tenancy.
The landlord said that they first received the application to assign to Franco with his name and contact address on 4 September 2024. Some days later they sent an application form to Franco. The form was returned by Franco on 25 September 2024. Credit and reference checks were conducted and the application was sent to the owner for approval on 3 October 2024.
Franco was informed that his application had been successful on 4 October 2024.
On 15 October 2024 the landlord sent an “ add tenant” form to the tenant. The landlord said that during the whole process there was confusion as to whether the tenant wanted to end the fixed term early or to assign the tenancy.
Franco having withdrawn his interest in the tenancy, new tenants were found and they moved into the premises on 11 December 2024, bringing the tenant’s fixed term to an end. Analysis
Having provided the landlord with a written request for the landlord’s consent to an assignment of the tenancy, which included the name and contact details for the proposed assignee on 4 September 2024, the question raised by s.43B(4) RTA is whether the landlord has responded to the request in a reasonable time. The term “reasonable time” is not defined in the RTA and will inevitably be a matter to be determined on the specific facts of each individual case. The Customs and Excise Act 2018 defines “reasonable period” as being a period that is no longer than necessary in the circumstances.
Where an application for an assignment with the proposed tenant’s name and contact details are provided, the landlord will inevitably have to carry out checks on the proposed tenant which will be similar to those carried out on a new tenant. The proposed tenant will need to complete an application form. Credit and reference checks will be conducted. Approval from the landlord will be sought to any new tenant.
Having received the request from the tenant on 4 September 2024, an application form was sent to Franco by the landlord. That form was not returned to the landlord until 25 September 2024. Credit and reference checks were conducted and approval sought from the owner. Franco was advised that his application had been successful on 4 October 2024.
It is not clear why there was a delay between the application form being sent to Franco and his returning the form. The burden of proof on this issue is with the tenant. I am not in a position where a finding on that point, which is adverse to the landlord can be made, due to the lack of evidence. I must then consider the landlord’s actions after the time where the application has been returned by Franco. The period of time between the application form being returned by Franco and the landlord informing Franco that he had been successful, was a little over a week. I consider that approval to be the landlord’s response as required by s.43B(4) RTA. When the work required of the landlord to review the application is considered, I find that a period of 9 days between the form being returned and approval given, is not unreasonable. The tenant’s application is dismissed. Landlord’s claims
The tenancy ended on 10 December 2024 with a new tenancy commencing. The landlord provided rent records showing that the tenant had rent arrears of $850.00 on that date. The amount is proven.
The landlord seeks $112.70 for cleaning.
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters”.
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable; not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord’s evidence was that this was the only cleaning carried out between tenancies and it was cleaning to bring the premises to a condition where they could be relet. That is not the standard required of tenants which is reasonably clean and tidy. No supporting evidence of the condition of the premises was provided by the landlord and the relatively modest claim by the landlord suggests that the premise had been left reasonably clean and tidy by the tenant. The claim is dismissed.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the tenant’s application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5193211 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5193211 — 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