What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5246911 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 5246911?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,980.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $178.25 awarded to landlord; Second Lease Break Costs: $572.18 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $138.46 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5246911?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5246911?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12216574-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5246911 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 5246911?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,980.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $178.25 awarded to landlord; Second Lease Break Costs: $572.18 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $138.46 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5246911?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5246911?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12216574-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5246911 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5246911 — net $2,895.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 March 2025	$1,980.00	Rent arrears to 17 March 2025
Water rates	$138.46	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$178.25	Rubbish removal
Second lease break costs	$572.18	Second lease break costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,895.89
Bond	$3,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,895.89

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Edward Robert Mcfetridge as the Administrator of the Estate of Vincent Hugh Mcfetridge and Sarah Margaret Watson are to pay [The landlord/s] $2,895.89 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,895.89 Edward Robert Mcfetridge as the Administrator of the Estate of Vincent Hugh Mcfetridge and Sarah Margaret Watson: $184.11
The landlord’s application for compensation for the first lease break fees is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone on 29 July 2025. Ms Urquhart, representative of the landlord’s agent, attended the hearing for the landlord. Ms Watson attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water arrears, compensation for rubbish removal, compensation for costs associated with breaking the lease early, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The applicant 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 Kaipo 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 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.
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 during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant advised at the hearing that these costs are not disputed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims the tenant did not remove all rubbish and claims rubbish removal costs. The tenant advised at the hearing that this claim is also not disputed.

Is the tenant responsible for the lease break fee?

The landlord is claiming for two sets of lease break fees. The lease break fees include costs associated with ending the lease early including advertising for a new tenant, credit checks, administrative costs etc. The first lease break fees were for $378.99 and were for costs associated with finding a new tenant based on the tenant vacating the premises on 28 February 2025. The second lease break fees were for $762.91 and were for costs associated with finding a new tenant after 10 March 2025.
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy for a period of 53 weeks from 15 July 2024 to 21 July 2025. Ms Watson was a joint tenant with Vincent Mcfetridge. Sadly, on 058 February 2025 Mr Mcfetridge passed away. On 17 February 2025, the tenant wrote to the landlord asking for the tenancy to be ended early on compassionate grounds. The tenant said she would “... endeavour to have the property empty by the 28 th February the 21 days will be till the 11/03/25.”
I believe the reference to 21 days in the tenant’s letter to the landlord is to provisions in the RTA. Section 50A (Termination following death of sole tenant) of the RTA provides that on the death of a sole tenant the tenancy may be terminated on the 21 st date after the sole tenant’s estate or next of kin gives notice to the landlord of the death of the tenant. Section 50(2)(a) of the RTA provides that a tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 21 days’ notice.
However, as Mr Mcfetridge and Ms Watson were joint tenants and the tenancy was a fixed term tenancy not a periodic tenancy, it was not possible for the tenancy to be terminated by the tenant giving 21 days’ notice. That said, in circumstances where a tenant (not a sole tenant) has unexpectedly passed away, the tenant can seek an early release from the tenancy from the landlord or apply to the Tribunal under section 66 of the RTA to have the tenancy ended earlier due to an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances. 1
The tenant sought an early release from the landlord. Ms Urquhart said that she had conversations with Ms Watson explaining that she would endeavour to find a new tenant. She said she explained to the tenant that the tenant would be responsible for the rent until a new tenant was found and that the tenant would also be responsible for any reasonable costs associated with finding a new tenant. Ms Urquhart provided an email that she sent to Ms Watson on 17 February 2025 attaching a document which included this information. The document did not reference a specific date by which the tenancy would end.
Ms Watson said she remembers opening the email but not the contents of the email.
Ms Urquhart says that she found a tenant to start shortly after 28 February 2025 (the “new tenant”). Ms Urquhart says she advised the tenant of this. On 27 February 2025, Ms Urquhart sent a text message to the tenant asking how the move was going. The tenant said she would not be leaving until 10 March. Following this, Ms Urquhart advised the new tenant who withdrew from the tenancy. Ms Urquhart said that the landlord then incurred further lease break costs searching for a replacement tenant.
The tenant says that she was not told by the landlord that the landlord was expecting her to move out on 28 February 2025 so that the new tenant could move in. She says that the landlord has unreasonably incurred additional costs (being the first set of lease break fees) and does not believe the tenant should be liable for both sets of lease break costs.
Ms Urquhart was unable to provide any documentary evidence that the parties had agreed that the tenancy would end on 28 February 2025.
Based on the evidence before me, I find that the parties did not reach an agreement that the tenant would move out on 28 February 2025. In the tenant’s letter of 17 February 2025, the tenant stated that she would try to vacate the 1 It is worth noting that the there is a high threshold that needs to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy. In particular the applicant will need to establish that: there has been a change in his or her circumstances; and that change was unforeseen; and that unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not ended; and the severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term was not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party would suffer if the term was reduced. In addition, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, section 66(2) of the RTA provides that the Tribunal can order the tenant pay compensation to the landlord. premises by that date. She requested an early termination of the tenancy and mistakenly (see above) referenced 21 days’ notice which would have been 11 March 2025.
Given that there was no agreement between the parties that the tenant would vacate the premises on 28 February 2025, I find the tenant is not liable for the first lease break fees.
The tenancy was for a fixed term of 53 weeks. It was ended after 35 weeks, meaning the tenant had completed two thirds of the fixed term tenancy. Ms Urquhart confirmed at the hearing that the new tenant has entered into a fixed term for 12 months. If the tenant had ended the tenancy at the fixed term end date, 21 July 2025, it is very likely that those costs (the costs to find the new tenant) would have been incurred at that stage. For this reason, I do not consider it is reasonable that the tenant should be liable for the full costs incurred in finding a replacement tenant. I find 75% of the 2nd lease break fees to be reasonable in the circumstances and award $572.18. Filing fee and suppression:
[The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted the application for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5246911 — net $2,895.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 17 March 2025	$1,980.00	Rent arrears to 17 March 2025
Water rates	$138.46	Water rates
Rubbish removal	$178.25	Rubbish removal
Second lease break costs	$572.18	Second lease break costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,895.89
Bond	$3,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,895.89

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Edward Robert Mcfetridge as the Administrator of the Estate of Vincent Hugh Mcfetridge and Sarah Margaret Watson are to pay [The landlord/s] $2,895.89 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,895.89 Edward Robert Mcfetridge as the Administrator of the Estate of Vincent Hugh Mcfetridge and Sarah Margaret Watson: $184.11
The landlord’s application for compensation for the first lease break fees is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone on 29 July 2025. Ms Urquhart, representative of the landlord’s agent, attended the hearing for the landlord. Ms Watson attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water arrears, compensation for rubbish removal, compensation for costs associated with breaking the lease early, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The applicant 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 Kaipo 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 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.
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 during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant advised at the hearing that these costs are not disputed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims the tenant did not remove all rubbish and claims rubbish removal costs. The tenant advised at the hearing that this claim is also not disputed.

Is the tenant responsible for the lease break fee?

The landlord is claiming for two sets of lease break fees. The lease break fees include costs associated with ending the lease early including advertising for a new tenant, credit checks, administrative costs etc. The first lease break fees were for $378.99 and were for costs associated with finding a new tenant based on the tenant vacating the premises on 28 February 2025. The second lease break fees were for $762.91 and were for costs associated with finding a new tenant after 10 March 2025.
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy for a period of 53 weeks from 15 July 2024 to 21 July 2025. Ms Watson was a joint tenant with Vincent Mcfetridge. Sadly, on 058 February 2025 Mr Mcfetridge passed away. On 17 February 2025, the tenant wrote to the landlord asking for the tenancy to be ended early on compassionate grounds. The tenant said she would “... endeavour to have the property empty by the 28 th February the 21 days will be till the 11/03/25.”
I believe the reference to 21 days in the tenant’s letter to the landlord is to provisions in the RTA. Section 50A (Termination following death of sole tenant) of the RTA provides that on the death of a sole tenant the tenancy may be terminated on the 21 st date after the sole tenant’s estate or next of kin gives notice to the landlord of the death of the tenant. Section 50(2)(a) of the RTA provides that a tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 21 days’ notice.
However, as Mr Mcfetridge and Ms Watson were joint tenants and the tenancy was a fixed term tenancy not a periodic tenancy, it was not possible for the tenancy to be terminated by the tenant giving 21 days’ notice. That said, in circumstances where a tenant (not a sole tenant) has unexpectedly passed away, the tenant can seek an early release from the tenancy from the landlord or apply to the Tribunal under section 66 of the RTA to have the tenancy ended earlier due to an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances. 1
The tenant sought an early release from the landlord. Ms Urquhart said that she had conversations with Ms Watson explaining that she would endeavour to find a new tenant. She said she explained to the tenant that the tenant would be responsible for the rent until a new tenant was found and that the tenant would also be responsible for any reasonable costs associated with finding a new tenant. Ms Urquhart provided an email that she sent to Ms Watson on 17 February 2025 attaching a document which included this information. The document did not reference a specific date by which the tenancy would end.
Ms Watson said she remembers opening the email but not the contents of the email.
Ms Urquhart says that she found a tenant to start shortly after 28 February 2025 (the “new tenant”). Ms Urquhart says she advised the tenant of this. On 27 February 2025, Ms Urquhart sent a text message to the tenant asking how the move was going. The tenant said she would not be leaving until 10 March. Following this, Ms Urquhart advised the new tenant who withdrew from the tenancy. Ms Urquhart said that the landlord then incurred further lease break costs searching for a replacement tenant.
The tenant says that she was not told by the landlord that the landlord was expecting her to move out on 28 February 2025 so that the new tenant could move in. She says that the landlord has unreasonably incurred additional costs (being the first set of lease break fees) and does not believe the tenant should be liable for both sets of lease break costs.
Ms Urquhart was unable to provide any documentary evidence that the parties had agreed that the tenancy would end on 28 February 2025.
Based on the evidence before me, I find that the parties did not reach an agreement that the tenant would move out on 28 February 2025. In the tenant’s letter of 17 February 2025, the tenant stated that she would try to vacate the 1 It is worth noting that the there is a high threshold that needs to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy. In particular the applicant will need to establish that: there has been a change in his or her circumstances; and that change was unforeseen; and that unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not ended; and the severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term was not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party would suffer if the term was reduced. In addition, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, section 66(2) of the RTA provides that the Tribunal can order the tenant pay compensation to the landlord. premises by that date. She requested an early termination of the tenancy and mistakenly (see above) referenced 21 days’ notice which would have been 11 March 2025.
Given that there was no agreement between the parties that the tenant would vacate the premises on 28 February 2025, I find the tenant is not liable for the first lease break fees.
The tenancy was for a fixed term of 53 weeks. It was ended after 35 weeks, meaning the tenant had completed two thirds of the fixed term tenancy. Ms Urquhart confirmed at the hearing that the new tenant has entered into a fixed term for 12 months. If the tenant had ended the tenancy at the fixed term end date, 21 July 2025, it is very likely that those costs (the costs to find the new tenant) would have been incurred at that stage. For this reason, I do not consider it is reasonable that the tenant should be liable for the full costs incurred in finding a replacement tenant. I find 75% of the 2nd lease break fees to be reasonable in the circumstances and award $572.18. Filing fee and suppression:
[The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have reimbursed the filing fee and granted the application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5246911 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5246911 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the lease break fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the lease break fee?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions