What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5218415 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 5218415?

Early Termination Fee: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Final Water: $10.13 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $964.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5218415?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5218415?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13127043-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5218415 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 5218415?

Early Termination Fee: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Final Water: $10.13 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $964.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5218415?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5218415?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13127043-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5218415 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5218415 — net $2,035.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 April 2025	$964.29	Rent arrears to 15 April 2025
Final water	$10.13	Final water
Wall damage	$172.00	Wall damage
Early termination fee	$862.50	Early termination fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,035.92
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,035.92

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Chad Lerdy Smith and Zernia Lerdy Smith’s tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and now ends on 15 April 2025.
Chad Lerdy Smith and Zernia Lerdy Smith are to pay [The respondent/s] $2,035.92 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,035.92 Chad Lerdy Smith and Zernia Lerdy Smith: $964.08
Chad Lerdy Smith and Zernia Lerdy Smith’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 1 May 2025.
This matter concerns a fixed-term tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed]. The tenancy commenced on 30 December 2024 for a term due to expire on 29 December 2025. The tenants vacated the property on 4 April 2025. On 28 March 2025, the tenants applied to the Tribunal for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy under section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The landlord filed a cross-application seeking compensation for rent arrears, water charges, damage, and early termination costs.
The tenants submitted that they have experienced financial hardship and family separation, with one tenant working and living in Wellington and the rest of the family residing in Auckland. They explained that the family immigrated to New Zealand recently and found themselves unable to sustain two households. They also stated that one tenant’s mental health has been affected by the situation. The tenants argue that the landlord’s property manager was unsympathetic and that they were left without clear information about when the tenancy would end after vacating. They rely on legal advice received suggesting that a fixed “end date” was required.
The landlord does not dispute that the tenants vacated early, and confirmed the tenancy was re-let to new tenants from 16 April 2025. The landlord seeks the following compensation: rent arrears to 15 April 2025 ($964.29), a final water charge ($10.13), compensation for damage to a wall caused by the tenant’s installation and removal of a towel rail ($172.00), and an early termination fee of $862.50. The landlord has provided the tenancy agreement, rent ledger, a quote and photographs of the wall damage, and confirmation of re-letting.
The key issues for the Tribunal to determine are: a) Whether the tenant is entitled to a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy under section 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”); b) Whether the landlord is entitled to the claimed compensation; c) Whether the tenant is liable for rent up to re-letting despite not receiving a specific end date; d) Whether name suppression should be granted. The Tenants’ Application for Reduction of a Fixed Term Tenancy
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 66 of the RTA, a fixed-term tenancy may be reduced by the Tribunal only where there are unforeseen and exceptional circumstances that make it unjust or inequitable to enforce the term. While the Tribunal accepts that the tenants’ financial and family circumstances were difficult, such hardship— though genuine—is not of an unforeseen or exceptional nature contemplated by section 66. Financial difficulty and relocation for work are not uncommon and do not amount to legal grounds to reduce a fixed term.
The tenants also relied on legal advice indicating the landlord was required to provide a set “end date” when they vacated. That advice was incorrect. Where tenants vacate early without an agreement to surrender the tenancy, they remain liable to pay rent until the premises are re-let or the original fixed term ends— whichever occurs first. This is the effect of section 66 and the general contractual principle of compensation for breach. There is no legal requirement for the landlord to specify an artificial “end date” prior to re-letting.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably in re-letting the property in a timely manner, and the tenants are liable for rent until the new tenancy commenced on 16 April 2025. Landlord’s Application for Compensation
The rent ledger confirms rent arrears of $964.29 to 15 April 2025. This is proven and awarded.
The landlord claims $10.13 for final water charges. This claim is proven and awarded.
The landlord also claims $172.00 for wall damage caused by the installation and removal of a towel rail by the tenant. Under section 42(1) RTA, a tenant must not make any alteration or addition to the premises without the landlord’s consent. The towel rail appears to have been installed without consent and caused damage requiring patching and repainting. Under sections 40(2)(a) and 49B RTA, tenants are liable for damage caused carelessly or intentionally, or by persons at the premises with their permission. The cost is reasonable and supported by evidence. It is awarded.
The landlord claims $862.50 as an early termination fee. This reflects the time and cost of advertising, viewings, and administration in re-letting the property. While the tenants questioned whether the landlord’s time and travel costs were properly attributed, the Tribunal finds the claim reasonable and proportionate. The landlord is entitled to compensation for the costs arising directly from the tenants’ early termination of a fixed-term contract. Suppression and Filing Fee
Both parties have applied for suppression orders. Under section 95A of the RTA, a party must be wholly or substantially successful to qualify for name suppression unless there are exceptional circumstances.
The tenants were not successful in their application, nor in defending the landlord’s claims. While they have apologised for their conduct towards the property manager, and cited frustration, unfamiliarity with the law, and recent immigration as context, these factors—while understandable—do not meet the threshold for suppression. Public accountability and the integrity of Tribunal processes require transparency. The tenants’ application for name suppression is declined.
The landlord has wholly succeeded in their application and is therefore entitled to name suppression and reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee under sections 95A(1) and 102(2) RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5218415 — net $2,035.92 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 April 2025	$964.29	Rent arrears to 15 April 2025
Final water	$10.13	Final water
Wall damage	$172.00	Wall damage
Early termination fee	$862.50	Early termination fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,035.92
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,035.92

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Chad Lerdy Smith and Zernia Lerdy Smith’s tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and now ends on 15 April 2025.
Chad Lerdy Smith and Zernia Lerdy Smith are to pay [The respondent/s] $2,035.92 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,035.92 Chad Lerdy Smith and Zernia Lerdy Smith: $964.08
Chad Lerdy Smith and Zernia Lerdy Smith’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 1 May 2025.
This matter concerns a fixed-term tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed]. The tenancy commenced on 30 December 2024 for a term due to expire on 29 December 2025. The tenants vacated the property on 4 April 2025. On 28 March 2025, the tenants applied to the Tribunal for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy under section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The landlord filed a cross-application seeking compensation for rent arrears, water charges, damage, and early termination costs.
The tenants submitted that they have experienced financial hardship and family separation, with one tenant working and living in Wellington and the rest of the family residing in Auckland. They explained that the family immigrated to New Zealand recently and found themselves unable to sustain two households. They also stated that one tenant’s mental health has been affected by the situation. The tenants argue that the landlord’s property manager was unsympathetic and that they were left without clear information about when the tenancy would end after vacating. They rely on legal advice received suggesting that a fixed “end date” was required.
The landlord does not dispute that the tenants vacated early, and confirmed the tenancy was re-let to new tenants from 16 April 2025. The landlord seeks the following compensation: rent arrears to 15 April 2025 ($964.29), a final water charge ($10.13), compensation for damage to a wall caused by the tenant’s installation and removal of a towel rail ($172.00), and an early termination fee of $862.50. The landlord has provided the tenancy agreement, rent ledger, a quote and photographs of the wall damage, and confirmation of re-letting.
The key issues for the Tribunal to determine are: a) Whether the tenant is entitled to a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy under section 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”); b) Whether the landlord is entitled to the claimed compensation; c) Whether the tenant is liable for rent up to re-letting despite not receiving a specific end date; d) Whether name suppression should be granted. The Tenants’ Application for Reduction of a Fixed Term Tenancy
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 66 of the RTA, a fixed-term tenancy may be reduced by the Tribunal only where there are unforeseen and exceptional circumstances that make it unjust or inequitable to enforce the term. While the Tribunal accepts that the tenants’ financial and family circumstances were difficult, such hardship— though genuine—is not of an unforeseen or exceptional nature contemplated by section 66. Financial difficulty and relocation for work are not uncommon and do not amount to legal grounds to reduce a fixed term.
The tenants also relied on legal advice indicating the landlord was required to provide a set “end date” when they vacated. That advice was incorrect. Where tenants vacate early without an agreement to surrender the tenancy, they remain liable to pay rent until the premises are re-let or the original fixed term ends— whichever occurs first. This is the effect of section 66 and the general contractual principle of compensation for breach. There is no legal requirement for the landlord to specify an artificial “end date” prior to re-letting.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably in re-letting the property in a timely manner, and the tenants are liable for rent until the new tenancy commenced on 16 April 2025. Landlord’s Application for Compensation
The rent ledger confirms rent arrears of $964.29 to 15 April 2025. This is proven and awarded.
The landlord claims $10.13 for final water charges. This claim is proven and awarded.
The landlord also claims $172.00 for wall damage caused by the installation and removal of a towel rail by the tenant. Under section 42(1) RTA, a tenant must not make any alteration or addition to the premises without the landlord’s consent. The towel rail appears to have been installed without consent and caused damage requiring patching and repainting. Under sections 40(2)(a) and 49B RTA, tenants are liable for damage caused carelessly or intentionally, or by persons at the premises with their permission. The cost is reasonable and supported by evidence. It is awarded.
The landlord claims $862.50 as an early termination fee. This reflects the time and cost of advertising, viewings, and administration in re-letting the property. While the tenants questioned whether the landlord’s time and travel costs were properly attributed, the Tribunal finds the claim reasonable and proportionate. The landlord is entitled to compensation for the costs arising directly from the tenants’ early termination of a fixed-term contract. Suppression and Filing Fee
Both parties have applied for suppression orders. Under section 95A of the RTA, a party must be wholly or substantially successful to qualify for name suppression unless there are exceptional circumstances.
The tenants were not successful in their application, nor in defending the landlord’s claims. While they have apologised for their conduct towards the property manager, and cited frustration, unfamiliarity with the law, and recent immigration as context, these factors—while understandable—do not meet the threshold for suppression. Public accountability and the integrity of Tribunal processes require transparency. The tenants’ application for name suppression is declined.
The landlord has wholly succeeded in their application and is therefore entitled to name suppression and reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee under sections 95A(1) and 102(2) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5218415 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5218415 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions