What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5270787 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 5270787?

Compensation: $577.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,251.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5270787?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5270787?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11912116-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5270787 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 5270787?

Compensation: $577.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,251.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5270787?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5270787?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11912116-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

169 Mt Brown Road, Broomfield, RD 2, Broomfield 7482 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5270787 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5270787 — net $2,595.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 May 2025	$4,251.43		Rent arrears to 13 May 2025
Compensation - 'break lease' costs	$577.00		Compensation - 'break lease' costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation		$400.00	Compensation
Total award	$4,855.43	$400.00
Net award	$2,595.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,595.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Amanda Louise Rowe and Alan Hinchliffe must pay [The landlord/s] $2,595.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,860.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The tenants’ application for a reduction of the term of their fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with representatives appearing for the landlord company.
The tenants have applied for a reduction of the term of their fixed term tenancy, and for compensation for costs, and their time, incurred cleaning the premises including carpet cleaning.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears to the day before a new tenancy started, ‘break lease’ costs, the bond, and the filing fee. The tenants’ application Reduction of the term of the tenancy
The first issue is whether the tenants have established grounds for the Tribunal to reduce the term of their fixed term tenancy.
The tenancy started on 21 March 2025. The tenants paid a bond and 1 week’s rent. They did not move into the premises, although they took possession and carried out cleaning work. When the landlord did not respond to their 14-day notice for work to be done to their satisfaction they gave written notice to terminate the tenancy on 11 April 2025.
The landlord regarded the notice as a ‘break lease’ situation and set about to find replacement tenants. A new tenancy started on 14 May 2025.
An application to reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy is an application of high threshold. That is because a tenancy agreement is a contract, and the Tribunal does not lightly set aside or interfere with contracts.
To succeed, the tenants must prove that: a. there has been an unforeseen change in their circumstances; and b. they would experience severe hardship if the term is not reduced; and c. their hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenants allege that the premises were not clean, were unsafe, and that the landlord failed to attend to all the matters raised in their 14-day notice. Also, the owners’ possessions were not completely removed from the garage, and shelving units and a gun/jewellery safe were not removed which meant they were unable to park their vehicle in the garage.
The matters raised by the tenants were not matters that meet the threshold for an ‘unforeseen change in their circumstances’. Even if additional cleaning and some repairs were required, that does not justify the Tribunal reducing the term of the tenancy. Those matters can all be addressed by work orders or by compensation.
Given that the first statutory requirement has not been established, I need not assess the respective hardship of the parties which is the other requirement of a section 66 RTA application.
This was not a case where the landlord did nothing in response to the tenants’ request for repair work. The landlord’s representatives produced evidence that the owners of the property spent over $5,000.00 having repair and maintenance work completed much of it by the time the tenancy had started.
A landlord’s responsibility under section 45 RTA is to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord’s evidence (the initial inspection report with photos) shows that the landlord largely met its statutory responsibilities.
Objectively viewed, the premises were not unsafe and were not unfit for the tenants to move into. While some repairs were required, the landlord generally attended to repairs promptly and any matters not remedied could easily have been remedied by a work order.
The tenants cannot require repairs on the one hand and then complain that a contractor accessed the premises when they did not consent. As a rural property, the landlord explained, and I accept, that getting contractors to do the work posed some challenges.
The tenants viewed the property (the house is on a 40-acre rural block, but the tenancy was limited to the house and grounds) before they signed the tenancy agreement. They discussed with their property manager work that was agreed to be done. They said that they were given approval to remove cupboards and shelving that was up against the walls of the garage. The landlord’s representatives said the cupboards and shelving, and the gun/jewellery cabinet, were fixed to the walls and were not to be removed.
Even if there was a misunderstanding on that issue, it does not justify the Tribunal reducing the term of the tenancy. It is something that could have been resolved. Instead, the tenants removed the cupboards and shelves and stacked them in the middle of the garage, stating that they were unable to park their vehicle with the shelves and cupboards in place.
A fixed term tenancy cannot be ended by notice as the tenants purported to do. It can only end by agreement between the parties or by order of the Tribunal which, as I have noted, is not an order lightly made.
Here, the application falls well short of establishing grounds for a reduction of the tenancy under section 66 RTA.
But even if the tenants had proved their case, they would not have succeeded in having their rent arrears wiped. Section 66(2) RTA allows the Tribunal to compensate the landlord for the loss suffered by the reduction of the term of the tenancy. Often the Tribunal awards the equivalent of 4 weeks’ rent as compensation. That is roughly the rent amount for the period from when the tenants purported to terminate the tenancy and a new tenancy starting.
The tenants’ application for a reduction of the term of their fixed term tenancy is dismissed. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court said that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
The tenants sought compensation for their time and materials spent cleaning the premises, carpet cleaning, and for exterior spider treatment.
As I have noted, the landlord’s responsibility is to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition, not clean to a ‘motel standard’.
By a narrow margin after assessing the photos the tenants produced in evidence, I am prepared to award them some compensation for the cleaning work they did. The landlord (only just) failed to ensure that the premises overall were reasonably clean. I award them $400.00. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 The landlord’s application
The landlord has proved a claim for rent arrears to 13 May 2025; a new tenancy started the following day. I award the landlord rent arrears of $4,251.43.
The landlord acted promptly to find replacement tenants once alerted by the tenants that they were breaking their fixed term tenancy. Without that prompt action, the tenants’ liability would have been greater.
When a landlord must find replacement tenants, they are entitled to claim reasonable costs for their time and efforts including inspections, tenant vetting and preparing the required documentation. Landlords often refer to this as ‘break lease’ fees. That is not a statutory term. The Tribunal considers it as compensation for the time and efforts required to put a new tenancy in place.
The landlord’s claim for compensation in this case is objectively reasonable. I award the landlord the claimed cost, $577.00.
As the landlord’s application is successful, I also award the filing fee of $27.00. Result
The tenants’ application for a reduction of the term of their fixed term tenancy is dismissed. The tenants’ application for compensation for cleaning and other costs is successful in the amount of $400.00 only.
The landlord’s application is successful in full – rent arrears, compensation for ‘break lease’ costs, and the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties sought an order for name suppression. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as its application is wholly successful. The tenants are not entitled to name suppression as their application is mostly unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5270787 — net $2,595.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 May 2025	$4,251.43		Rent arrears to 13 May 2025
Compensation - 'break lease' costs	$577.00		Compensation - 'break lease' costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation		$400.00	Compensation
Total award	$4,855.43	$400.00
Net award	$2,595.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,595.43

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Amanda Louise Rowe and Alan Hinchliffe must pay [The landlord/s] $2,595.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,860.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The tenants’ application for a reduction of the term of their fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with representatives appearing for the landlord company.
The tenants have applied for a reduction of the term of their fixed term tenancy, and for compensation for costs, and their time, incurred cleaning the premises including carpet cleaning.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears to the day before a new tenancy started, ‘break lease’ costs, the bond, and the filing fee. The tenants’ application Reduction of the term of the tenancy
The first issue is whether the tenants have established grounds for the Tribunal to reduce the term of their fixed term tenancy.
The tenancy started on 21 March 2025. The tenants paid a bond and 1 week’s rent. They did not move into the premises, although they took possession and carried out cleaning work. When the landlord did not respond to their 14-day notice for work to be done to their satisfaction they gave written notice to terminate the tenancy on 11 April 2025.
The landlord regarded the notice as a ‘break lease’ situation and set about to find replacement tenants. A new tenancy started on 14 May 2025.
An application to reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy is an application of high threshold. That is because a tenancy agreement is a contract, and the Tribunal does not lightly set aside or interfere with contracts.
To succeed, the tenants must prove that: a. there has been an unforeseen change in their circumstances; and b. they would experience severe hardship if the term is not reduced; and c. their hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenants allege that the premises were not clean, were unsafe, and that the landlord failed to attend to all the matters raised in their 14-day notice. Also, the owners’ possessions were not completely removed from the garage, and shelving units and a gun/jewellery safe were not removed which meant they were unable to park their vehicle in the garage.
The matters raised by the tenants were not matters that meet the threshold for an ‘unforeseen change in their circumstances’. Even if additional cleaning and some repairs were required, that does not justify the Tribunal reducing the term of the tenancy. Those matters can all be addressed by work orders or by compensation.
Given that the first statutory requirement has not been established, I need not assess the respective hardship of the parties which is the other requirement of a section 66 RTA application.
This was not a case where the landlord did nothing in response to the tenants’ request for repair work. The landlord’s representatives produced evidence that the owners of the property spent over $5,000.00 having repair and maintenance work completed much of it by the time the tenancy had started.
A landlord’s responsibility under section 45 RTA is to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord’s evidence (the initial inspection report with photos) shows that the landlord largely met its statutory responsibilities.
Objectively viewed, the premises were not unsafe and were not unfit for the tenants to move into. While some repairs were required, the landlord generally attended to repairs promptly and any matters not remedied could easily have been remedied by a work order.
The tenants cannot require repairs on the one hand and then complain that a contractor accessed the premises when they did not consent. As a rural property, the landlord explained, and I accept, that getting contractors to do the work posed some challenges.
The tenants viewed the property (the house is on a 40-acre rural block, but the tenancy was limited to the house and grounds) before they signed the tenancy agreement. They discussed with their property manager work that was agreed to be done. They said that they were given approval to remove cupboards and shelving that was up against the walls of the garage. The landlord’s representatives said the cupboards and shelving, and the gun/jewellery cabinet, were fixed to the walls and were not to be removed.
Even if there was a misunderstanding on that issue, it does not justify the Tribunal reducing the term of the tenancy. It is something that could have been resolved. Instead, the tenants removed the cupboards and shelves and stacked them in the middle of the garage, stating that they were unable to park their vehicle with the shelves and cupboards in place.
A fixed term tenancy cannot be ended by notice as the tenants purported to do. It can only end by agreement between the parties or by order of the Tribunal which, as I have noted, is not an order lightly made.
Here, the application falls well short of establishing grounds for a reduction of the tenancy under section 66 RTA.
But even if the tenants had proved their case, they would not have succeeded in having their rent arrears wiped. Section 66(2) RTA allows the Tribunal to compensate the landlord for the loss suffered by the reduction of the term of the tenancy. Often the Tribunal awards the equivalent of 4 weeks’ rent as compensation. That is roughly the rent amount for the period from when the tenants purported to terminate the tenancy and a new tenancy starting.
The tenants’ application for a reduction of the term of their fixed term tenancy is dismissed. Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court said that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: •The nature of the breach; •The duration of the breach; and •The effect of the breach on the party.
The tenants sought compensation for their time and materials spent cleaning the premises, carpet cleaning, and for exterior spider treatment.
As I have noted, the landlord’s responsibility is to provide the premises in a reasonably clean condition, not clean to a ‘motel standard’.
By a narrow margin after assessing the photos the tenants produced in evidence, I am prepared to award them some compensation for the cleaning work they did. The landlord (only just) failed to ensure that the premises overall were reasonably clean. I award them $400.00. 1 [2020] NZDC 17667 The landlord’s application
The landlord has proved a claim for rent arrears to 13 May 2025; a new tenancy started the following day. I award the landlord rent arrears of $4,251.43.
The landlord acted promptly to find replacement tenants once alerted by the tenants that they were breaking their fixed term tenancy. Without that prompt action, the tenants’ liability would have been greater.
When a landlord must find replacement tenants, they are entitled to claim reasonable costs for their time and efforts including inspections, tenant vetting and preparing the required documentation. Landlords often refer to this as ‘break lease’ fees. That is not a statutory term. The Tribunal considers it as compensation for the time and efforts required to put a new tenancy in place.
The landlord’s claim for compensation in this case is objectively reasonable. I award the landlord the claimed cost, $577.00.
As the landlord’s application is successful, I also award the filing fee of $27.00. Result
The tenants’ application for a reduction of the term of their fixed term tenancy is dismissed. The tenants’ application for compensation for cleaning and other costs is successful in the amount of $400.00 only.
The landlord’s application is successful in full – rent arrears, compensation for ‘break lease’ costs, and the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties sought an order for name suppression. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as its application is wholly successful. The tenants are not entitled to name suppression as their application is mostly unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5270787 — Rent arrears at 169 Mt Brown Road, Broomfield, RD 2, Broomfield 7482

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5270787 — Rent arrears at 169 Mt Brown Road, Broomfield, RD 2, Broomfield 7482

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions