What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5294720 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Gold Property

How much money was awarded in case 5294720?

Expenses S 44A - Advertising: $159.85 awarded to landlord; Expenses S 44A - Credit Checks: $12.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,942.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5294720?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5294720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12744142-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5294720 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Gold Property

How much money was awarded in case 5294720?

Expenses S 44A - Advertising: $159.85 awarded to landlord; Expenses S 44A - Credit Checks: $12.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,942.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5294720?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5294720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12744142-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3B Chilcombe Street, Ilam, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5294720 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5294720 — net $2,141.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29/5/25	$1,942.86	Rent arrears to 29/5/25
Expenses s 44A - credit checks	$12.00	Expenses s 44A - credit checks
Expenses s 44A - advertising	$159.85	Expenses s 44A - advertising
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	for the application, and I order reimbursement of the filing fee accordingly - $27. 11 NAME SUPPRESSION
Net award	$2,141.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,141.71

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Gold Property Management Limited - As Agent For David & Jos Capper $2,141.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The property manager attended the hearing as agent for the landlord owner. For ease of reference, I will refer to the property manager as the landlord.
The parties entered into a fixed-term tenancy agreement with a contractual start date of 14 May 2025 and with an end date of 10 May 2026.
Ms Millar viewed the premises on 3 April 2025. The tenants signed the tenancy agreement on 7 April 2025.
On signing the tenancy agreement Ms Millar confirmed she was pleased to have secured the property. On 11 April 2025 the tenants attended again at the premises and thereafter decided they did not want to proceed with the tenancy.
On 12 April 2025 the tenants advised the landlord that they would not proceed with the tenancy. On 14 April 2025 the tenants signed a break lease contract, and the landlord secured a replacement tenancy.
The landlord seeks rent arrears from the commencement of the tenancy until the replacement tenancy commenced and expenses for credit checks and advertising costs resulting from the early termination of the fixed-term tenancy.
The tenants dispute the claim on the basis the landlord failed to mitigate their loss, misrepresented the property and did not provide evidence of the expenses claimed. The tenant did not file a cross-application to raise the misrepresentation claim however the landlord agreed that I may hear that claim rather than adjourning the matter for an cross application to be filed by the tenants. Accordingly, I have determined addressed this issue in this decision.

RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The RTA regulates the relationship between landlords and tenants, establishing a framework for tenancy agreements and outlines the rights and responsibilities of both parties.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. 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. 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 1 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 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

MISREPRESENTATION

The tenant claims that they had been induced to enter the agreement on a misrepresentation that the property had all-day sun and was suitable for their dogs. Relevant law – Misrepresentation
The Tribunal may, where it appears that an agreement between the parties has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or that any writing purporting to express the agreement between the parties does not accord with their true agreement, make orders varying or setting aside the agreement, either wholly or in part. 2 The Tribunal may make any order that the High Court or District Court may make under any enactment or rule of law relating to contracts. 3
When a party relies on a misrepresentation and suffers a loss, they may be able to rescind the contract and / or seek monetary compensation for their loss. 4 A tenant alleging that they were induced to enter an agreement by a misrepresentation must establish that there has been a false statement of fact, that the statement was made by or on behalf of the landlord, that they relied on the misrepresentation, and that the misrepresentation caused a loss. To cancel the agreement for misrepresentation the party seeking to cancel the contract must prove that the misrepresentation was essential or that the breach or misrepresentation has a substantial effect on the contract. This means that the breach or misrepresentation must significantly alter the benefits or burdens of the agreement for the party seeking to cancel the contract. 5 A party is not entitled to cancel the contract if, with full knowledge of the repudiation, misrepresentation, or breach, the party has affirmed the contract. 6 Discussion
The tenants say the property was advertised as receiving “all-day sun” and they say it did not. The tenants say they were not advised the property was not suitable for dogs. The tenants say these matters were not disclosed in the advertisement or during the application process and they promptly sought to cancel the tenancy agreement once both issues became apparent. 2 Section 78(1)(g) RTA 3 See section 78 (1)(h) RTA. 4 See section 37 of the contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 5 See section 37 of the contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 6 See section 38 of the contract and Commercial Law Act 2017
The tenants claim the landlord breached the Fair-Trading Act 1986 (FTA) by saying the property had “all-day sun”. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine claims in respect to the FTA.
However, in terms of misrepresentation I consider the landlord’s comments that the property has all-day sun is a statement that a reasonable person might understand to mean that the living areas are north -facing and this could have been assessed by the tenant at the original viewing. I consider there is insufficient evidence that the statement if read in this light is false, or if it is false I am not satisfied that it was a fundamental factor in the tenants entering into the tenancy agreement.
The tenants say the property was not suitable for their two dogs as there was no grassed area, only a paved rear yard. The tenants also say the property was on a shared section with an elderly neighbour which raised suitability concerns.
I consider there is no obligation in the RTA for a landlord to make any assessment on behalf of the tenant as to the suitability of the property for the tenant’s pets. That is an assessment the tenant must make and the tenant could have assessed this at the original viewing or before signing the tenancy agreement. Further, silence where there is no duty in the law to speak is not a misrepresentation. 7 I therefore consider that the tenants have not shown that they were induced into entering the tenancy agreement by way of a misrepresentation by the landlord.
Finally, and crucially, the tenant’s signed a “break lease contract” on 14 April 2025, after they say they became aware of the alleged misrepresentations, which affirms their obligations under the tenancy agreement. In particular the break lease contract confirms they must pay rent until a replacement tenancy is found. I therefore consider that even if I am wrong in finding that misrepresentation does not apply, the tenants have affirmed the tenancy agreement. I am confident the tenants are capable and entered both the tenancy agreement and the break lease contract with a clear understanding of the terms they were signing in respect to both of those documents.

MITIGATATION OF LOSS

The tenants say the landlord failed to mitigate their loss in terms of finding a replacement tenant. Relevant law – Mitigation of loss
Where a party to a tenancy agreement breaches any provisions of the agreement or the RTA, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit 7 Gillies v Blackham and Co Real Estate Limited [2021] NZTT Timaru 4297433 damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. 8 ‘ Discussion
The breach of the tenancy agreement in this case is the tenant’s attempt to terminate the fixed-term tenancy prior to the end of the fixed-term and subsequent failure to pay rent.
Neither party can give notice to end a fixed-term tenancy, except in limited cases which are not relevant here. 9 Parties may agree to end a fixed-term tenancy by way of the tenant surrendering the tenancy or delivering up vacant possession of the premises to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.
A tenant may request a landlord to be released from a fixed-term tenancy. However, there is no obligation on the landlord to respond to a tenant’s request to terminate a fixed-term tenancy within a particular period and there is no obligation on a landlord to agree to end the fixed-term tenancy early. 10 I also consider there is no obligation in the RTA on the landlord to provide regular updates to the tenant as to progress being made with respect to securing a new tenancy when there is agreement to reduce a fixed-term tenancy.
In this case the landlord did agree to the tenancy ending before the end of the fixed-term and in my view has promptly secured a replacement tenancy to mitigate their loss and reduce the tenant’s rent liability. The landlord confirmed that the replacement tenant found was only able to commence a tenancy on 30 May 2025, therefore any delays in communication would have no impact on the rent liability of the tenant in any event. In my view the landlord did not fail to mitigate their loss.

LANDLORD EXPENSES

The landlord seeks expenses for finding a replacement tenant. The tenant opposes the claim for expenses. Relevant Law – Landlord’s 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 8 Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides 9 See section 55Aa, 56A(1), 58(1)(d). (da), 58A, 59, 59A or 59B, 56B 10 Dmitrovic and Miles v FH 2018 Limited [2021] NZTT 4288277 at 20. 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.
This provision 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. This provision requires at itemised account for actual expenses incurred that can be evidenced. Discussion
The landlord has provided an itemised account of the expenses that the landlord has incurred by way of credit checks ($12 now claimed) and advertising costs of $159.85. The invoices were both dated 8 May 2025. The RTA does not require the itemised expenses to be on a letter head and the expenses were verified at the hearing by way of snipped images from statements for credits checks (and the landlord confirmed two credit checks were required as there were two replacement tenants) and the landlord’s trade me statement.
The property manager confirmed that expenses incurred by the property management firm are required to be paid by the landlord.
The costs claimed are reasonable expenses for which itemised accounts were provided to the tenants.

OUTCOME

For the reasons I have set out above I consider the tenants have not provided any reasonable defences to the landlord’s claims.
The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing and the amount claimed is ordered - $1,942.86 to 29 May 2025.
The landlord is entitled to reasonable expenses on agreeing to the early termination of the fixed-term tenancy and these are ordered - $12 credit checks and trade me advertising - $159.85.

FILING FEE

If an applicant has been wholly successful in their claim, the Tribunal must order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application, and I order reimbursement of the filing fee accordingly - $27. 11

NAME SUPPRESSION

On my enquiry, Neither party sought name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5294720 — net $2,141.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29/5/25	$1,942.86	Rent arrears to 29/5/25
Expenses s 44A - credit checks	$12.00	Expenses s 44A - credit checks
Expenses s 44A - advertising	$159.85	Expenses s 44A - advertising
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	for the application, and I order reimbursement of the filing fee accordingly - $27. 11 NAME SUPPRESSION
Net award	$2,141.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,141.71

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Gold Property Management Limited - As Agent For David & Jos Capper $2,141.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The property manager attended the hearing as agent for the landlord owner. For ease of reference, I will refer to the property manager as the landlord.
The parties entered into a fixed-term tenancy agreement with a contractual start date of 14 May 2025 and with an end date of 10 May 2026.
Ms Millar viewed the premises on 3 April 2025. The tenants signed the tenancy agreement on 7 April 2025.
On signing the tenancy agreement Ms Millar confirmed she was pleased to have secured the property. On 11 April 2025 the tenants attended again at the premises and thereafter decided they did not want to proceed with the tenancy.
On 12 April 2025 the tenants advised the landlord that they would not proceed with the tenancy. On 14 April 2025 the tenants signed a break lease contract, and the landlord secured a replacement tenancy.
The landlord seeks rent arrears from the commencement of the tenancy until the replacement tenancy commenced and expenses for credit checks and advertising costs resulting from the early termination of the fixed-term tenancy.
The tenants dispute the claim on the basis the landlord failed to mitigate their loss, misrepresented the property and did not provide evidence of the expenses claimed. The tenant did not file a cross-application to raise the misrepresentation claim however the landlord agreed that I may hear that claim rather than adjourning the matter for an cross application to be filed by the tenants. Accordingly, I have determined addressed this issue in this decision.

RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The RTA regulates the relationship between landlords and tenants, establishing a framework for tenancy agreements and outlines the rights and responsibilities of both parties.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. 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. 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 1 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 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

MISREPRESENTATION

The tenant claims that they had been induced to enter the agreement on a misrepresentation that the property had all-day sun and was suitable for their dogs. Relevant law – Misrepresentation
The Tribunal may, where it appears that an agreement between the parties has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, or that any writing purporting to express the agreement between the parties does not accord with their true agreement, make orders varying or setting aside the agreement, either wholly or in part. 2 The Tribunal may make any order that the High Court or District Court may make under any enactment or rule of law relating to contracts. 3
When a party relies on a misrepresentation and suffers a loss, they may be able to rescind the contract and / or seek monetary compensation for their loss. 4 A tenant alleging that they were induced to enter an agreement by a misrepresentation must establish that there has been a false statement of fact, that the statement was made by or on behalf of the landlord, that they relied on the misrepresentation, and that the misrepresentation caused a loss. To cancel the agreement for misrepresentation the party seeking to cancel the contract must prove that the misrepresentation was essential or that the breach or misrepresentation has a substantial effect on the contract. This means that the breach or misrepresentation must significantly alter the benefits or burdens of the agreement for the party seeking to cancel the contract. 5 A party is not entitled to cancel the contract if, with full knowledge of the repudiation, misrepresentation, or breach, the party has affirmed the contract. 6 Discussion
The tenants say the property was advertised as receiving “all-day sun” and they say it did not. The tenants say they were not advised the property was not suitable for dogs. The tenants say these matters were not disclosed in the advertisement or during the application process and they promptly sought to cancel the tenancy agreement once both issues became apparent. 2 Section 78(1)(g) RTA 3 See section 78 (1)(h) RTA. 4 See section 37 of the contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 5 See section 37 of the contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 6 See section 38 of the contract and Commercial Law Act 2017
The tenants claim the landlord breached the Fair-Trading Act 1986 (FTA) by saying the property had “all-day sun”. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine claims in respect to the FTA.
However, in terms of misrepresentation I consider the landlord’s comments that the property has all-day sun is a statement that a reasonable person might understand to mean that the living areas are north -facing and this could have been assessed by the tenant at the original viewing. I consider there is insufficient evidence that the statement if read in this light is false, or if it is false I am not satisfied that it was a fundamental factor in the tenants entering into the tenancy agreement.
The tenants say the property was not suitable for their two dogs as there was no grassed area, only a paved rear yard. The tenants also say the property was on a shared section with an elderly neighbour which raised suitability concerns.
I consider there is no obligation in the RTA for a landlord to make any assessment on behalf of the tenant as to the suitability of the property for the tenant’s pets. That is an assessment the tenant must make and the tenant could have assessed this at the original viewing or before signing the tenancy agreement. Further, silence where there is no duty in the law to speak is not a misrepresentation. 7 I therefore consider that the tenants have not shown that they were induced into entering the tenancy agreement by way of a misrepresentation by the landlord.
Finally, and crucially, the tenant’s signed a “break lease contract” on 14 April 2025, after they say they became aware of the alleged misrepresentations, which affirms their obligations under the tenancy agreement. In particular the break lease contract confirms they must pay rent until a replacement tenancy is found. I therefore consider that even if I am wrong in finding that misrepresentation does not apply, the tenants have affirmed the tenancy agreement. I am confident the tenants are capable and entered both the tenancy agreement and the break lease contract with a clear understanding of the terms they were signing in respect to both of those documents.

MITIGATATION OF LOSS

The tenants say the landlord failed to mitigate their loss in terms of finding a replacement tenant. Relevant law – Mitigation of loss
Where a party to a tenancy agreement breaches any provisions of the agreement or the RTA, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit 7 Gillies v Blackham and Co Real Estate Limited [2021] NZTT Timaru 4297433 damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. 8 ‘ Discussion
The breach of the tenancy agreement in this case is the tenant’s attempt to terminate the fixed-term tenancy prior to the end of the fixed-term and subsequent failure to pay rent.
Neither party can give notice to end a fixed-term tenancy, except in limited cases which are not relevant here. 9 Parties may agree to end a fixed-term tenancy by way of the tenant surrendering the tenancy or delivering up vacant possession of the premises to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.
A tenant may request a landlord to be released from a fixed-term tenancy. However, there is no obligation on the landlord to respond to a tenant’s request to terminate a fixed-term tenancy within a particular period and there is no obligation on a landlord to agree to end the fixed-term tenancy early. 10 I also consider there is no obligation in the RTA on the landlord to provide regular updates to the tenant as to progress being made with respect to securing a new tenancy when there is agreement to reduce a fixed-term tenancy.
In this case the landlord did agree to the tenancy ending before the end of the fixed-term and in my view has promptly secured a replacement tenancy to mitigate their loss and reduce the tenant’s rent liability. The landlord confirmed that the replacement tenant found was only able to commence a tenancy on 30 May 2025, therefore any delays in communication would have no impact on the rent liability of the tenant in any event. In my view the landlord did not fail to mitigate their loss.

LANDLORD EXPENSES

The landlord seeks expenses for finding a replacement tenant. The tenant opposes the claim for expenses. Relevant Law – Landlord’s 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 8 Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides 9 See section 55Aa, 56A(1), 58(1)(d). (da), 58A, 59, 59A or 59B, 56B 10 Dmitrovic and Miles v FH 2018 Limited [2021] NZTT 4288277 at 20. 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.
This provision 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. This provision requires at itemised account for actual expenses incurred that can be evidenced. Discussion
The landlord has provided an itemised account of the expenses that the landlord has incurred by way of credit checks ($12 now claimed) and advertising costs of $159.85. The invoices were both dated 8 May 2025. The RTA does not require the itemised expenses to be on a letter head and the expenses were verified at the hearing by way of snipped images from statements for credits checks (and the landlord confirmed two credit checks were required as there were two replacement tenants) and the landlord’s trade me statement.
The property manager confirmed that expenses incurred by the property management firm are required to be paid by the landlord.
The costs claimed are reasonable expenses for which itemised accounts were provided to the tenants.

OUTCOME

For the reasons I have set out above I consider the tenants have not provided any reasonable defences to the landlord’s claims.
The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing and the amount claimed is ordered - $1,942.86 to 29 May 2025.
The landlord is entitled to reasonable expenses on agreeing to the early termination of the fixed-term tenancy and these are ordered - $12 credit checks and trade me advertising - $159.85.

FILING FEE

If an applicant has been wholly successful in their claim, the Tribunal must order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application, and I order reimbursement of the filing fee accordingly - $27. 11

NAME SUPPRESSION

On my enquiry, Neither party sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5294720 — Rent arrears at 3B Chilcombe Street, Ilam, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5294720 — Rent arrears at 3B Chilcombe Street, Ilam, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS

MISREPRESENTATION

MITIGATATION OF LOSS

LANDLORD EXPENSES

OUTCOME

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS

MISREPRESENTATION

MITIGATATION OF LOSS

LANDLORD EXPENSES

OUTCOME

FILING FEE

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.