What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5248456?

The tribunal order states: Craig Fortune and Megan Williams must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5248456?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,142.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $56.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5248456?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248456?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11875468-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5248456?

The tribunal order states: Craig Fortune and Megan Williams must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5248456?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $8,142.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $56.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5248456?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248456?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11875468-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 113 Moore Street, Howick, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5248456 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5248456 — net $5,876.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$56.80	Water rates
Stove top replacement	$650.00	Stove top replacement
Rent arrears as of 26 June 2025	$8,142.86	Rent arrears as of 26 June 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,876.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,876.66

Order

Craig Fortune and Megan Williams must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Hongying Xie $5,876.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Water rates$56.80 Stove top replacement$650.00 Rent arrears as of 26 June 2025$8,142.86 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$8,876.66 Minus bond- $3,000.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,876.66
The Bond Centre to pay the bond of $3,000.00 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord seeking an order for rent arrears, water, damage and a break lease fee. The tenants have returned possession of the tenancy to the landlords.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenants have been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records that the tenancy commenced on 5 October 2024 as a fixed-term tenancy to end on 5 October 2025.
During the tenancy the tenants requested to end the tenancy early. I can see that the landlord engaged with the tenant around this, including discussion of costs that they may be liable for. I will discuss that further below.
In any event, on 21 April 2025 Mr Fortune emailed the landlord stating that they had “moved out the end of March”, and it is plain that they have then returned possession of the premises to the landlord.
After taking possession the landlord found the glass or ceramic cooktop to be broken. That was mostly covered by way of an insurance payment, but the landlord now seeks to have the excess paid by the tenant.
A telephone hearing was scheduled today on 21 May 2025. I telephoned the tenants on the two cell phone numbers available, but there was no answer. There is no record of the tenants requesting they be called on a different number. The landlord advised that the tenants have moved to Australia, and no forwarding or alternate phone number has been provided to them either.

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Break lease fee b. Water bill c. Cook top d. Rent arrears

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The 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 likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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.

ANALYSIS

There are four claims, which I will consider in turn. Claim 1 – Lease break fee
The landlord seeks the ‘standard break lease fee’ on its contract, and the claim is for $870.00.
As I advised the landlord at the hearing, I cannot make this order. There is now no concept in law of a lease break fee in the RTA. That changed in 2021 when Parliament introduced section 44A into the RTA which is as follows: 44A Recovery of expenses incurred by landlord (1) A landlord who consents to an assignment under section 43B, to a subletting or parting with possession under section 44, or to termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d) is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the assignment, subletting, parting with possession, or termination. (2) A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant in accordance with subsection (1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant.
What this provision means, is that certainly a landlord can claim from the tenant the actual costs in finding the replacement tenant, but they must be the actual cost, not a nominal charge, or standard fee. What the landlord needs to do, is incur the cost, and then provide an itemised account to the tenant to pay those expenses, which the landlord has incurred. If the tenant does not pay that account, then the landlord can pursue a claim for those charges in the Tribunal.
But in this case, the landlord seeks to recover a nominal standard charge, which is not available within the RTA, so this claim must be dismissed.
As I noted, the landlord remains able to submit an account to the tenant for the actual charges incurred, and if those are not paid, to file another claim with the Tribunal at that time. Claim 2 - Water
The landlord claims water charges of $56.80 for the volumetric charge only.
Tenants are liable for water used during their tenancy on a volumetric basis, so this charge is ordered and full. Claim 3 – Cook top
The landlord states that when they got into the tenancy they found the cooktop was cracked on the edge needing replacement, at a cost of $2,645.00. The landlord is only claiming the insurance excess for the replacement being $650.00.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage occurred during the tenancy, and that it 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
The landlord has provided a set of photographs, which show the cooktop, and I accept that the cooktop was cracked significantly at the end of the tenancy. The damage is not fair wear and tear, so it now falls to the tenant to prove that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally, and the tenants have not done that.
In this case, the landlord only claims the insurance excess, which the tenant would be responsible for if the damage was careless, or intentional, and as the tenants have not proven that the damage was caused in either of those ways, the tenant is liable for the insurance excess charge, which is awarded. Claim 4 – Rent arrears
The landlord claims rent arrears to 26 June 2025, as the next tenancy starts on 27 June 2025. The total amount of the arrears is $8,142.86.
Because this is a fixed-term tenancy, the tenants are liable to pay rent until the end of the fixed-term period, which ends in October. In this case the landlord has found a replacement tenant to start in late June, so the tenants will be liable for the rent payments until that next tenant starts. This claim is established and is ordered in full. Bond
There is a bond held in the Bond Centre of $3,000.000, that is to be released to the landlord in full to offset the debt established above.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5248456 — net $5,876.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$56.80	Water rates
Stove top replacement	$650.00	Stove top replacement
Rent arrears as of 26 June 2025	$8,142.86	Rent arrears as of 26 June 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,876.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,876.66

Order

Craig Fortune and Megan Williams must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Hongying Xie $5,876.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Water rates$56.80 Stove top replacement$650.00 Rent arrears as of 26 June 2025$8,142.86 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$8,876.66 Minus bond- $3,000.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,876.66
The Bond Centre to pay the bond of $3,000.00 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord seeking an order for rent arrears, water, damage and a break lease fee. The tenants have returned possession of the tenancy to the landlords.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenants have been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records that the tenancy commenced on 5 October 2024 as a fixed-term tenancy to end on 5 October 2025.
During the tenancy the tenants requested to end the tenancy early. I can see that the landlord engaged with the tenant around this, including discussion of costs that they may be liable for. I will discuss that further below.
In any event, on 21 April 2025 Mr Fortune emailed the landlord stating that they had “moved out the end of March”, and it is plain that they have then returned possession of the premises to the landlord.
After taking possession the landlord found the glass or ceramic cooktop to be broken. That was mostly covered by way of an insurance payment, but the landlord now seeks to have the excess paid by the tenant.
A telephone hearing was scheduled today on 21 May 2025. I telephoned the tenants on the two cell phone numbers available, but there was no answer. There is no record of the tenants requesting they be called on a different number. The landlord advised that the tenants have moved to Australia, and no forwarding or alternate phone number has been provided to them either.

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Break lease fee b. Water bill c. Cook top d. Rent arrears

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The 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 likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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.

ANALYSIS

There are four claims, which I will consider in turn. Claim 1 – Lease break fee
The landlord seeks the ‘standard break lease fee’ on its contract, and the claim is for $870.00.
As I advised the landlord at the hearing, I cannot make this order. There is now no concept in law of a lease break fee in the RTA. That changed in 2021 when Parliament introduced section 44A into the RTA which is as follows: 44A Recovery of expenses incurred by landlord (1) A landlord who consents to an assignment under section 43B, to a subletting or parting with possession under section 44, or to termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d) is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the assignment, subletting, parting with possession, or termination. (2) A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant in accordance with subsection (1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant.
What this provision means, is that certainly a landlord can claim from the tenant the actual costs in finding the replacement tenant, but they must be the actual cost, not a nominal charge, or standard fee. What the landlord needs to do, is incur the cost, and then provide an itemised account to the tenant to pay those expenses, which the landlord has incurred. If the tenant does not pay that account, then the landlord can pursue a claim for those charges in the Tribunal.
But in this case, the landlord seeks to recover a nominal standard charge, which is not available within the RTA, so this claim must be dismissed.
As I noted, the landlord remains able to submit an account to the tenant for the actual charges incurred, and if those are not paid, to file another claim with the Tribunal at that time. Claim 2 - Water
The landlord claims water charges of $56.80 for the volumetric charge only.
Tenants are liable for water used during their tenancy on a volumetric basis, so this charge is ordered and full. Claim 3 – Cook top
The landlord states that when they got into the tenancy they found the cooktop was cracked on the edge needing replacement, at a cost of $2,645.00. The landlord is only claiming the insurance excess for the replacement being $650.00.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage occurred during the tenancy, and that it 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
The landlord has provided a set of photographs, which show the cooktop, and I accept that the cooktop was cracked significantly at the end of the tenancy. The damage is not fair wear and tear, so it now falls to the tenant to prove that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally, and the tenants have not done that.
In this case, the landlord only claims the insurance excess, which the tenant would be responsible for if the damage was careless, or intentional, and as the tenants have not proven that the damage was caused in either of those ways, the tenant is liable for the insurance excess charge, which is awarded. Claim 4 – Rent arrears
The landlord claims rent arrears to 26 June 2025, as the next tenancy starts on 27 June 2025. The total amount of the arrears is $8,142.86.
Because this is a fixed-term tenancy, the tenants are liable to pay rent until the end of the fixed-term period, which ends in October. In this case the landlord has found a replacement tenant to start in late June, so the tenants will be liable for the rent payments until that next tenant starts. This claim is established and is ordered in full. Bond
There is a bond held in the Bond Centre of $3,000.000, that is to be released to the landlord in full to offset the debt established above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5248456 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 113 Moore Street, Howick, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5248456 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 113 Moore Street, Howick, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions