What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5227951 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 5227951?

He Tribunal Orders Suppression Of Th…: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5227951?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5227951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12245933-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5227951 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 5227951?

He Tribunal Orders Suppression Of Th…: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5227951?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5227951?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12245933-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5227951 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5227951 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
he Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenants’ names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] to pay [T	$500.00	he Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenants’ names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] to pay [T
Net award	$500.00
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $500.00 from the bond for repairs.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $500.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,500.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 7 August 2025.
The landlord has applied for loss of rent, repair costs, advertising fees, carpet cleaning, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants applied for refund of the bond of $3,000.00.
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 8 March 2024 to 8 March 2025. The weekly rent was $750.00.
On 11 January 2025 the tenants emailed the landlord giving notice that they were ending the tenancy because they had purchased a property. They asked to vacate the premises by 5 February 2025: “This will bring the tenancy to an end a month earlier than originally agreed, and we completely understand that this may require some adjustments”. The tenants also said they were happy to contribute to advertising costs.
The landlord replied, noting that a 4-week notice period would expire on 8 February 2025: I do acknowledge that you want to move out on 5 th so you may choose to pay until 8 th or happy to adjust 3 days rent when we sort bond...We can adjust the advertising cost when we sort bond.
On 15 January 2025 the tenants confirmed that they were happy to change the move out date to 8 February 2025.
A “pre-move out” inspection was performed on 5 February 2025. The landlord used the Tenancy Services proforma property inspection report, adding some handwritten notes: • “Carpet needs cleaning (almost all rooms [illegible] patches)”. • “1 blind needs fixing”. • “Carpet near sliding door in master bedroom is ripped, needs fixing”. • “Loss of rent deduction discussed. Tenant [(name)] agreed”. • “I will do post move out inspection after 8 th Feb”.
The parties signed and dated the inspection report.
The tenants returned the keys on 8 February 2025. Loss of Rent
The landlord claimed loss of rent from 8 February to 8 March 2025. The claim was quantified at $4,500.00 although four weeks’ rent would be $3,000.00.
A residential tenancy can be terminated by the tenant surrendering the tenancy with the landlord’s written consent (section 50(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). A lease is surrendered when a tenant voluntarily delivers possession of leased property to the landlord, and the landlord accepts possession.
The emails between the parties on 11 January 2025 reflect an agreement to end the tenancy on 8 February 2025. There is no suggestion in the landlord’s correspondence that the tenants would remain liable to the end of the tenancy on 8 March 2025 or any later date.
The landlord said she had a discussion with one of the tenants on 5 February 2025 about loss of rent due to the early end of the tenancy. The landlord says the tenant agreed. I acknowledge that this is reflected in the handwritten comments on the inspection report.
In an email to the tenants dated 10 March 2025, the landlord said (in part): I had advised you in our face-to-face conversation on 5 February 2025 that you will need to pay for loss of rent. As you know I have engaged Ray White to secure new tenants and have done everything in my control to get someone on board asap.
In written submissions, the tenants said that the reference to loss of rent in the inspection report was made without their knowledge and after the document was signed.
At the hearing, the tenant did not remember whether the inspection report she signed included the reference to loss of rent. The comment is just above the parties’ signatures so it would have been fairly evident. The tenant accepted that the landlord had added some handwritten comments at the time. I find it is more likely than not that the handwritten comment was on the document when the parties signed it.
The tenants said that they would not have agreed to end the tenancy if they had understood they would be liable for rent beyond 8 February 2025. They would have sought to amend the date of purchase of their own property to avoid paying both mortgage and rent.
I find that the tenants reasonably relied on the landlord’s email dated 11 January 2025 for their understanding that the tenancy would end on 8 February 2025. The tenants changed their position based on that email exchange, by agreeing to end the tenancy and by proceeding with the house purchase. I find it was not open to the landlord to resile from that understanding later, the relevant legal principle being estoppel.
There may well have been a discussion on 5 February 2025 about loss of rent, given that replacement tenants had not been found. However, the tenants said they did not agree they were liable for rent after 8 February 2025. The handwritten note indicates loss of rent was discussed but does not say what the tenants were agreeing to, for example, to pay rent to the end of the fixed term or until replacement tenants were found. If the parties were agreeing that rent would be paid up to a specific date, contrary to earlier correspondence, the note could easily have said so.
In the email dated 10 March 2025, the landlord referred to clause 54 of the tenancy agreement (Lease Breaks). This clause provides that the tenant may submit a request in writing to the landlord for consent to end the fixed term early. The clause seems tautologous, referring twice to the tenant requesting/applying for the landlord’s consent. The clause further provides: “If the application is successful, then the landlord and tenant shall enter into an agreement. The tenant is liable for the rent and other matters contained in the agreement until they have been formally released in terms of the agreement”. I note that, if this was the procedure required under the tenancy agreement to establish the tenants’ liability for rent after 8 February 2025, it was not followed.
I find that the tenancy ended on 8 February 2025, and the tenants are liable for rent to that date. Advertising Costs
The landlord referred to the tenants’ liability for the cost of finding other tenants in the application form. This was not included in the part of the application form where a party is required to provide details about the compensation sought. The tenants said they were not aware that this was part of the landlord’s application.
A landlord can recover expenses reasonably incurred when they consent to a tenant parting with possession. This typically includes advertising fees. An itemised account must be provided to the tenant (section 44A of the Act). The landlord was unsure about the exact amount of the advertising costs incurred (in an email she said $805.00) and no invoice was provided. I decline to award these expenses as there is insufficient information. Carpet Cleaning
The tenants said they cleaned the carpet at the end of the tenancy and there were no stains caused by them.
Both parties provided photographs of carpet stains. The tenants said all the stains shown in their photographs were pre-existing. They provided some screenshots from real estate listings which they said showed pre-existing stains. The listing photographs are not dated.
In a text message on 11 February 2025 the landlord said they agreed that some stains were there before the tenants moved in, “...but there are a few from your time which needs [sic] professional cleaning”.
It is difficult to determine by comparing the two sets of photographs whether there were new stains.
The landlord said photographs were taken at the start of the tenancy, but they were not provided. Typically, professional property managers prepare detailed ingoing inspection reports with photographs. The Tribunal was not provided with anything equivalent. This causes difficulties identifying where the carpet stains were, and when they happened.
I am unable to identify which stains were pre-existing and which were caused during the tenancy, which is not to say there weren’t any. I find that this part of the landlord’s claim is not established. Damage
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 cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
There was some damage to the walls during the tenancy. The tenants said the blinds were allowing too much light into their daughter’s room, so they installed high-quality blackout curtains. The landlord provided photographs said to show damage from the installation of the curtains.
The tenants put up a shelf in a spare room without the landlord’s permission. They attempted to repair the wall. The tenants submitted that the repairs were not visible from more than two metres away, in accordance with an MBIE “Guide to Tolerances” (which was not provided to the Tribunal).
The damage is clearly visible in the photographs. It covers a small area, perhaps about 10cm by 10cm at most. I consider that this damage was more than fair wear and tear because it resulted from the tenants’ actions installing a shelf without permission. I am not persuaded that the repair was satisfactory just because it cannot be seen from a distance.
The tenants took issue with the quotation from the renovation company, which they said had previously provided services to the landlord and was not independent. They submitted that the cost was excessive.
I am not satisfied that the tenants damaged the walls when they installed curtains. They disputed causing the screw hole visible to the right of the blinds in the window jamb. The damage to the other side of the window jamb is difficult to see and could just be wear and tear.
I find that the tenants damaged the wall in the spare room and are liable for the cost of repair. The quote was for preparing, sanding, and painting two walls. Only one wall was damaged and so there needs to be an adjustment to provide reasonable compensation to the landlord. This necessarily involves a somewhat summary assessment. I award $500.00 (50% of the quote). Filing Fee and Name Suppression
Both parties have had some success. They will bear their own costs.
Both parties sought suppression. I grant suppression to both parties.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5227951 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
he Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenants’ names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] to pay [T	$500.00	he Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenants’ names and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] to pay [T
Net award	$500.00
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $500.00 from the bond for repairs.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $500.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,500.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 7 August 2025.
The landlord has applied for loss of rent, repair costs, advertising fees, carpet cleaning, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants applied for refund of the bond of $3,000.00.
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 8 March 2024 to 8 March 2025. The weekly rent was $750.00.
On 11 January 2025 the tenants emailed the landlord giving notice that they were ending the tenancy because they had purchased a property. They asked to vacate the premises by 5 February 2025: “This will bring the tenancy to an end a month earlier than originally agreed, and we completely understand that this may require some adjustments”. The tenants also said they were happy to contribute to advertising costs.
The landlord replied, noting that a 4-week notice period would expire on 8 February 2025: I do acknowledge that you want to move out on 5 th so you may choose to pay until 8 th or happy to adjust 3 days rent when we sort bond...We can adjust the advertising cost when we sort bond.
On 15 January 2025 the tenants confirmed that they were happy to change the move out date to 8 February 2025.
A “pre-move out” inspection was performed on 5 February 2025. The landlord used the Tenancy Services proforma property inspection report, adding some handwritten notes: • “Carpet needs cleaning (almost all rooms [illegible] patches)”. • “1 blind needs fixing”. • “Carpet near sliding door in master bedroom is ripped, needs fixing”. • “Loss of rent deduction discussed. Tenant [(name)] agreed”. • “I will do post move out inspection after 8 th Feb”.
The parties signed and dated the inspection report.
The tenants returned the keys on 8 February 2025. Loss of Rent
The landlord claimed loss of rent from 8 February to 8 March 2025. The claim was quantified at $4,500.00 although four weeks’ rent would be $3,000.00.
A residential tenancy can be terminated by the tenant surrendering the tenancy with the landlord’s written consent (section 50(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). A lease is surrendered when a tenant voluntarily delivers possession of leased property to the landlord, and the landlord accepts possession.
The emails between the parties on 11 January 2025 reflect an agreement to end the tenancy on 8 February 2025. There is no suggestion in the landlord’s correspondence that the tenants would remain liable to the end of the tenancy on 8 March 2025 or any later date.
The landlord said she had a discussion with one of the tenants on 5 February 2025 about loss of rent due to the early end of the tenancy. The landlord says the tenant agreed. I acknowledge that this is reflected in the handwritten comments on the inspection report.
In an email to the tenants dated 10 March 2025, the landlord said (in part): I had advised you in our face-to-face conversation on 5 February 2025 that you will need to pay for loss of rent. As you know I have engaged Ray White to secure new tenants and have done everything in my control to get someone on board asap.
In written submissions, the tenants said that the reference to loss of rent in the inspection report was made without their knowledge and after the document was signed.
At the hearing, the tenant did not remember whether the inspection report she signed included the reference to loss of rent. The comment is just above the parties’ signatures so it would have been fairly evident. The tenant accepted that the landlord had added some handwritten comments at the time. I find it is more likely than not that the handwritten comment was on the document when the parties signed it.
The tenants said that they would not have agreed to end the tenancy if they had understood they would be liable for rent beyond 8 February 2025. They would have sought to amend the date of purchase of their own property to avoid paying both mortgage and rent.
I find that the tenants reasonably relied on the landlord’s email dated 11 January 2025 for their understanding that the tenancy would end on 8 February 2025. The tenants changed their position based on that email exchange, by agreeing to end the tenancy and by proceeding with the house purchase. I find it was not open to the landlord to resile from that understanding later, the relevant legal principle being estoppel.
There may well have been a discussion on 5 February 2025 about loss of rent, given that replacement tenants had not been found. However, the tenants said they did not agree they were liable for rent after 8 February 2025. The handwritten note indicates loss of rent was discussed but does not say what the tenants were agreeing to, for example, to pay rent to the end of the fixed term or until replacement tenants were found. If the parties were agreeing that rent would be paid up to a specific date, contrary to earlier correspondence, the note could easily have said so.
In the email dated 10 March 2025, the landlord referred to clause 54 of the tenancy agreement (Lease Breaks). This clause provides that the tenant may submit a request in writing to the landlord for consent to end the fixed term early. The clause seems tautologous, referring twice to the tenant requesting/applying for the landlord’s consent. The clause further provides: “If the application is successful, then the landlord and tenant shall enter into an agreement. The tenant is liable for the rent and other matters contained in the agreement until they have been formally released in terms of the agreement”. I note that, if this was the procedure required under the tenancy agreement to establish the tenants’ liability for rent after 8 February 2025, it was not followed.
I find that the tenancy ended on 8 February 2025, and the tenants are liable for rent to that date. Advertising Costs
The landlord referred to the tenants’ liability for the cost of finding other tenants in the application form. This was not included in the part of the application form where a party is required to provide details about the compensation sought. The tenants said they were not aware that this was part of the landlord’s application.
A landlord can recover expenses reasonably incurred when they consent to a tenant parting with possession. This typically includes advertising fees. An itemised account must be provided to the tenant (section 44A of the Act). The landlord was unsure about the exact amount of the advertising costs incurred (in an email she said $805.00) and no invoice was provided. I decline to award these expenses as there is insufficient information. Carpet Cleaning
The tenants said they cleaned the carpet at the end of the tenancy and there were no stains caused by them.
Both parties provided photographs of carpet stains. The tenants said all the stains shown in their photographs were pre-existing. They provided some screenshots from real estate listings which they said showed pre-existing stains. The listing photographs are not dated.
In a text message on 11 February 2025 the landlord said they agreed that some stains were there before the tenants moved in, “...but there are a few from your time which needs [sic] professional cleaning”.
It is difficult to determine by comparing the two sets of photographs whether there were new stains.
The landlord said photographs were taken at the start of the tenancy, but they were not provided. Typically, professional property managers prepare detailed ingoing inspection reports with photographs. The Tribunal was not provided with anything equivalent. This causes difficulties identifying where the carpet stains were, and when they happened.
I am unable to identify which stains were pre-existing and which were caused during the tenancy, which is not to say there weren’t any. I find that this part of the landlord’s claim is not established. Damage
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 cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
There was some damage to the walls during the tenancy. The tenants said the blinds were allowing too much light into their daughter’s room, so they installed high-quality blackout curtains. The landlord provided photographs said to show damage from the installation of the curtains.
The tenants put up a shelf in a spare room without the landlord’s permission. They attempted to repair the wall. The tenants submitted that the repairs were not visible from more than two metres away, in accordance with an MBIE “Guide to Tolerances” (which was not provided to the Tribunal).
The damage is clearly visible in the photographs. It covers a small area, perhaps about 10cm by 10cm at most. I consider that this damage was more than fair wear and tear because it resulted from the tenants’ actions installing a shelf without permission. I am not persuaded that the repair was satisfactory just because it cannot be seen from a distance.
The tenants took issue with the quotation from the renovation company, which they said had previously provided services to the landlord and was not independent. They submitted that the cost was excessive.
I am not satisfied that the tenants damaged the walls when they installed curtains. They disputed causing the screw hole visible to the right of the blinds in the window jamb. The damage to the other side of the window jamb is difficult to see and could just be wear and tear.
I find that the tenants damaged the wall in the spare room and are liable for the cost of repair. The quote was for preparing, sanding, and painting two walls. Only one wall was damaged and so there needs to be an adjustment to provide reasonable compensation to the landlord. This necessarily involves a somewhat summary assessment. I award $500.00 (50% of the quote). Filing Fee and Name Suppression
Both parties have had some success. They will bear their own costs.
Both parties sought suppression. I grant suppression to both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5227951 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5227951 — 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