What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5294023?

The tribunal order states: Kanaphatra Suthonglor and Nattalad Sirikul are to pay Cirone Limited Joanna

How much money was awarded in case 5294023?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Expenses - S 44 RTA: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,384.29 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $121.61 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5294023?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5294023?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12388872-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5294023?

The tribunal order states: Kanaphatra Suthonglor and Nattalad Sirikul are to pay Cirone Limited Joanna

How much money was awarded in case 5294023?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Expenses - S 44 RTA: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,384.29 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $121.61 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5294023?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5294023?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12388872-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

38 Ballater Place, Highland Park, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5294023 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5294023 — net $1,450.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 June 2025	$1,384.29		Rent arrears to 8 June 2025
Water rates to 8 June 2025	$121.61		Water rates to 8 June 2025
Expenses - s 44 RTA	$345.00		Expenses - s 44 RTA
Exemplary damages: - breach of s 44A RTA		$400.00	- breach of s 44A RTA
Total award	$1,850.90	$400.00
Net award	$1,450.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,450.90

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5294023 — net $1,450.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 June 2025	$1,384.29		Rent arrears to 8 June 2025
Water rates to 8 June 2025	$121.61		Water rates to 8 June 2025
Expenses - s 44 RTA	$345.00		Expenses - s 44 RTA
Exemplary damages: - breach of s 44A RTA		$400.00	- breach of s 44A RTA
Total award	$1,850.90	$400.00
Net award	$1,450.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,450.90

Order

Kanaphatra Suthonglor and Nattalad Sirikul are to pay Cirone Limited Joanna Zhao $1,450.90 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,450.90 (3441940-010) to Cirone Limited Joanna Zhao immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $829.10 (3441940-010) to Kanaphatra Suthonglor and Nattalad Sirikul immediately.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
For ease of reference, I will refer to the parties in the singular.
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy with a contractual end date of 18 December 2025.
The tenant requested to terminate the tenancy early and the landlord agreed.
The landlord claims: a. Rent arrears, b. Water rates, c. Expenses in relation to early termination of the fixed term, d. Payment from the bond, and e. Reimbursement of the filing fee
The tenant claims: a. Payment of the bond b. Exemplary damages for breach of section 44A of the RTA which relates to landlord’s expenses incurred on the termination of a fixed-term tenancy, and c. Reimbursement of the filing fee

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: a. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. b. 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. c. 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.”

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RENT ARREARS AND WATER RATES

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The orders in respect of rent arrears and water rates are made by consent as follows: a. Rent arrears - to 8 June 2025 - $1,384.29 b. Water rates to 8 June 2025 - $121.61 LANDLORD’S EXPENSES
The landlord seeks an order payment of their expenses of $782 resulting from the early termination of the fixed-term tenancy.
The tenant objects to paying the landlord’s expenses.
Following the tenant vacating the premises, on 23 June 2025, the landlord sent the tenant an email seeking the tenant to agree to release the bond to cover rent arrears, water rates and an “Admin Fee” of $570 which the landlord said “covers service coordination, travel, applicant screening, organising and conducting viewings, and communication with both you and the landlord”.
The tenant objected to paying the “Admin fee” and filed an application in the Tribunal on 24 June 2025. RELEVANT LAW – LANDLORD EXPENSES
Section 44A of the RTA relates to the recovery of a landlord’s expenses on early termination of a fixed-term tenancy. The provision says: 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. (3)A landlord who takes any step to recover expenses referred to in subsection (1) without providing an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant— (a)commits an unlawful act; and (b)commits an infringement offence and is liable to a fine or an infringement fee specified in Schedule 1B.
It considering what expenses can be considered to be reasonably incurred I have reviewed a number of recent Tribunal decisions on this issue. Other Tribunal decisions have said: a. Section 44A requires at itemised account for actual expenses incurred that can be evidenced. This does not include a finder’s fee or admin fee. 1 b. Section 44A allows landlord to 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. The Tribunal has dismissed a claim where the landlord was seeking to recover a nominal standard charge. 2 c. A third of the amount claimed for expenses is reasonable where two- thirds of the tenancy period had passed, and the landlord would have 1 Tenant v Halamish Rental Limited [2025] NZTT 4880900 2 Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Hongying Xie v Fortune and Williams [2025] NZTT 5248456 at 17-18. been liable for the full cost of re-tenanting the property in a few months’ time. 3 d. To be recoverable, expenses need to be those actually incurred by the landlord and must have resulted from the early termination of the tenancy. Expenses such as advertising, that would have been incurred when the fixed term tenancy ended are not necessarily recoverable. It is the extra work by a landlord/property manager resulting from the tenant’s request to end a tenancy early that is a recoverable expense. 4
In addition, in can be helpful to look at recent amounts ordered for landlord’s expenses: • [2025] NZTT 5286863 - Tenancy that ended six months into a 12- month fixed – term - $408.37. • [2025] NZTT 4998334 - Tenancy ended 2 months into a 12-month fixed- term - $575. • [2025] NZTT 5237515 - Tenancy ended 10 months before end of fixed- term - $741. • [2025] NZTT 5281287, 5277419 - Tribunal had previously ordered break lease fees of $560.44 - $953.41. • [2025] NZTT 5244693 - Tenant changed their mind before moving into premises - $316.25. • [2025] NZTT 5265259 - Tenant sought to end tenancy before it commenced - $515.34. • [2024] NZTT 4960257 - Landlord claimed $1,075.00 – amount ordered reduced to reflect time not itemised - $800.
These decisions are not binding but provide guidance when assessing a claim for expenses made pursuant to section 44A of the RTA.

THIS CASE

The landlord’s original claim for expenses (as set out in the email of 23 June 2024) set out that the landlord to recover a nominal standard charge, which is not available within the RTA. 3 Rental Hq Limited Acting Agent For Yuming Lin v Tatana and Tatana [2024] NZTT 4598793. 4 Landlord v Tenant [2024] NZTT 4945795.
The landlord has incurred some time in dealing with the tenant’s requested to terminate the tenancy earlier than the fixed term. The landlord should be paid for their time, as an expenses incurred by the owner.
On 14 July 2025 the landlord submitted a document in the Tribunal titled “break down cost” It provides: May 6th, 2025 First Visit to talk about break lease, explaining the procedure verball Showing prospective tenants including time and patrol cost, after hour 6:30pm around May 15th, 2025 communicating with owners more than 2 hours during the whole process wechat, msg advising tenant the procedure of early termination emailing and filling early break lease application, signed twice for different final dates final inspection with tenant on June 8th, 2025 1 dates Showing tenant's friend one of another properties listed on May 8th, 2025 Meeting owner June 9th and talke about final inspection for the damage/wear and tear Tribunal preparation & Attending tribunal Cost Admin Cost due to break lease
In this case the landlord did not need to find a replacement tenant as the landlord has not re-tenanted the property. However, there was some initial time spent dealing with a prospective new tenant proposed by this tenant. The landlord’s subsequent break down of costs includes the landlord’s time for meeting with the tenant’s friend, that the tenant had proposed could take over the tenancy, however this did not subsequently occur. The breakdown of costs also includes the landlord’s time for showing the tenant’s friend other properties and for responding to the Tribunal claim. These are not expenses that can be claimed pursuant to section 44A of the RTA.
The total amount claimed is $782. In reviewing the breakdown of costs, I will allow the following: May 6th, 2025 First Visit to talk about break lease $60 communicating with owners more than 2 hours - $120 advising tenant the procedure of early termination - $120 Total - $300 + GST = $345
The tenancy ended on 8 June 2024 however the contractual end date was 18 December 2025. The fixed term was therefore only halfway through. I consider that the total expense referred to above is reasonable and make no further adjustment. TENANT’S CLAIMS
The tenant says that the landlord breached s 44A(2) of the RTA by seeking to recover expenses that were not itemised and the expenses had not been incurred.
The landlord accepted that they initial email they sent to the tenant’s seeking to recover expenses was not an itemised account of actual expenses.
I find the landlord breached the duty to first provide an itemised account to the tenant.
I consider s 44A requires an itemised account for actual costs incurred that can be evidenced. In this case the landlord did not provide an itemised account for costs at the outset that can be evidenced when the landlord sought to recover these costs from the tenant’s bond.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages in respect of this breach.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell 5 the Court of Appeal said: “Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.”
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. Before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors set out in section 109 of the RTA:: a. the intent of the person in committing the unlawful act, 5 Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732(Cooke P) b. the effect of the unlawful act, c. the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed, d. the public interest, e. whether it is just to make the award. 6
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered are set out in Schedule 1A of the RTA. The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered in respect of a breach of section 44A of the RTA (Landlord failing to itemise expenses incurred on assignment, subletting, parting with possession, or termination by consent) is $750.
Before making an order for exemplary damages I must have regards to the factors set out in section 109. I consider the following matters are relevant: a. The landlord was aware of the obligation to provide an itemised account of expenses but did not do so. b. The tenant has had to go to the time and effort of filing a claim in the Tribunal challenging the “admin fee”. c. It is in the tenant’s interest to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful act committed against them, d. There is a public interest that landlords pay exemplary damages when the RTA is breached. e. It is just and fair that exemplary damages are ordered in this case.
The Tribunal’s usual approach to exemplary damages is to award one third of the maximum unless there are aggravating or mitigating factors in play. 7 The landlord has aggravated the situation by claiming expenses in the Tribunal that do not form expenses claimable pursuant to section 44A of the RTA. I make an order for the amount of $400 exemplary damages.

BOND

Both parties seek payment from the bond. The bond is to be distributed to the parties in accordance with the Orders made above.

FILING FEE

6 Section 109 of the RTA. 7 Wellington Property Management Ltd v Hardie [2022] NZTT 4399281 4374781.

If an applicant has been partly successful in their claim, the Tribunal may order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application. 8
As both parties have been partly successful with their claim, I do not award either the filing fee as they would in effect cancel each other out.

NAME SUPPRESSION

Neither party applied for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5294023 — Rent arrears at 38 Ballater Place, Highland Park, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5294023 — Rent arrears at 38 Ballater Place, Highland Park, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RENT ARREARS AND WATER RATES

THIS CASE

BOND

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RENT ARREARS AND WATER RATES

THIS CASE

BOND

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions