What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303224 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 5303224?

Break Lease Costs: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $722.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303224?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303224?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12491416-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5303224 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 5303224?

Break Lease Costs: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $722.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5303224?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5303224?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12491416-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5303224 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303224 — net $1,613.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19.6.2025	$722.86	Rent arrears to 19.6.2025
Break lease costs	$862.50	Break lease costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,613.36
Bond	$1,840.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,613.36

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
Maddison Lilley and Marina Jessica Choat are to pay [the landlord/s] $1,613.36 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,613.36 Maddison Lilley and Marina Jessica Choat: $226.64

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The property manager/s], representing the landlord and the tenants, Ms Choat, with her support person Ms Thompson, and Ms Lilley and her support person Ms Bellam all attended the video and teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This is a fixed-term tenancy that started on 17 February 2025 and was due to expire on 16 February 2026. The tenants asked the landlord to leave the tenancy early.
The landlord said new tenants were found who moved into the property on 20 June 2025, so they indicated the end of the tenancy was on 19 June 2025 from their point of view, given the provisions in the tenancy agreement about tenants being responsible for the property until replacement tenants were found.
The tenants said they left on 3 June 2025 and tried to leave the property earlier. They said there were communication issues with the landlord about this and other matters.
Clause 47 of the tenancy agreement deals with the tenants’ liability for reasonable costs involved in having the property re-rented and for covering rent until replacement tenants move into the property.
Thus, if new tenants moved in on 20 June 2025, the tenants are liable for rent to 19 June 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 19 June 2025, which is $722.86. The tenants did not comment on this amount claimed for rent arrears. Break lease costs
Section 44A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that a landlord who consents to a 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 with parting with possession or termination. A landlord is to provide an itemised account of such expenses to a tenant.
Clause 47 of the tenancy agreement, as outlined above, also addresses this issue.
The landlord claimed $862.50 for the costs of the tenants breaking the lease. This claim is broken down as follows, with all amounts being GST inclusive: a. Advertising the property for reletting - $161.00. b. 2 x viewings - $115. c. 2 x background checks - $126.50. d. Administration time of 5 hours @ $80.00/hour - $460.
The tenants said they had been provided with different amounts for this prior to the hearing. The property manager apologised to the tenants for providing different amounts for this issue prior to the hearing. The amount claimed for this at the hearing was slightly less than indicated by the landlord in documents from before the hearing, so this was to the tenants’ advantage, however. The tenants then did not wish to comment on the amounts claimed for the costs of breaking the lease.
The landlord said that, whilst they had more than 2 applications for a new tenancy, they limited their charges to the tenants to 2 viewings and 2 background checks, which I find to be reasonable. I also find the advertising cost claimed of $161.00 to relet the property to be reasonable.
The landlord said the administration time claimed of 5 hours involved them having to field phone calls and emails from interested parties in the property, processing applications to tenant the property, calls and emails to the tenants about the break lease issues and costs, travel time to the viewings and other matters related to the tenants leaving the property early. Given the evidence, I find this cost reasonable given the amount of administration involved.
As such, I award the landlord $862.50 for the reasonable costs of the tenants breaking the fixed-term lease early.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Carpet stains in lounge
The landlord said the tenants caused multiple large stains in the lounge carpet during the tenancy and claimed $1,913.66 to replace the lounge carpet. The landlord referred to an Entry Inspection Report and Exit Inspection Report and to a quote/invoice from a carpet layer, during the hearing. However, none of these documents were provided to the Tribunal for the hearing, by the landlord to support this claim. No photographs of the lounge carpet were provided to the Tribunal for the hearing either.
The tenants believed there had been one stain on the carpet which had had baking soda put on it. They said they had not received any photographs or Inspection Reports about the carpet damage alleged by the landlord. The tenants said that, if that had been the case, they would have appreciated the opportunity to remediate any issues themselves, as they had also paid a professional carpet cleaner to do the carpets at the end of the tenancy. The tenants queried the need for the carpet to be replaced.
As the landlord did not provide any additional supporting evidence of the carpet stains in the lounge, by way of photographs, inspection reports or invoices or quotes, for example, for the Tribunal to assess whether a replacement carpet was required for the lounge at the end of the tenancy, I find there is insufficient evidence provided to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim. Filing fee
Because [the landlord/s] has been mostly successful with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,613.36 Maddison Lilley and Marina Jessica Choat: $226.64 Suppression
All parties requested name suppression. As the landlord has been successful with their claim, they are entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants did not provide any evidence, nor was there any evidence discussed during the hearing, that would show that the tenants’ interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I do not grant name suppression to the tenants. See section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5303224 — net $1,613.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19.6.2025	$722.86	Rent arrears to 19.6.2025
Break lease costs	$862.50	Break lease costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,613.36
Bond	$1,840.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,613.36

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
Maddison Lilley and Marina Jessica Choat are to pay [the landlord/s] $1,613.36 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,613.36 Maddison Lilley and Marina Jessica Choat: $226.64

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The property manager/s], representing the landlord and the tenants, Ms Choat, with her support person Ms Thompson, and Ms Lilley and her support person Ms Bellam all attended the video and teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This is a fixed-term tenancy that started on 17 February 2025 and was due to expire on 16 February 2026. The tenants asked the landlord to leave the tenancy early.
The landlord said new tenants were found who moved into the property on 20 June 2025, so they indicated the end of the tenancy was on 19 June 2025 from their point of view, given the provisions in the tenancy agreement about tenants being responsible for the property until replacement tenants were found.
The tenants said they left on 3 June 2025 and tried to leave the property earlier. They said there were communication issues with the landlord about this and other matters.
Clause 47 of the tenancy agreement deals with the tenants’ liability for reasonable costs involved in having the property re-rented and for covering rent until replacement tenants move into the property.
Thus, if new tenants moved in on 20 June 2025, the tenants are liable for rent to 19 June 2025.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 19 June 2025, which is $722.86. The tenants did not comment on this amount claimed for rent arrears. Break lease costs
Section 44A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that a landlord who consents to a 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 with parting with possession or termination. A landlord is to provide an itemised account of such expenses to a tenant.
Clause 47 of the tenancy agreement, as outlined above, also addresses this issue.
The landlord claimed $862.50 for the costs of the tenants breaking the lease. This claim is broken down as follows, with all amounts being GST inclusive: a. Advertising the property for reletting - $161.00. b. 2 x viewings - $115. c. 2 x background checks - $126.50. d. Administration time of 5 hours @ $80.00/hour - $460.
The tenants said they had been provided with different amounts for this prior to the hearing. The property manager apologised to the tenants for providing different amounts for this issue prior to the hearing. The amount claimed for this at the hearing was slightly less than indicated by the landlord in documents from before the hearing, so this was to the tenants’ advantage, however. The tenants then did not wish to comment on the amounts claimed for the costs of breaking the lease.
The landlord said that, whilst they had more than 2 applications for a new tenancy, they limited their charges to the tenants to 2 viewings and 2 background checks, which I find to be reasonable. I also find the advertising cost claimed of $161.00 to relet the property to be reasonable.
The landlord said the administration time claimed of 5 hours involved them having to field phone calls and emails from interested parties in the property, processing applications to tenant the property, calls and emails to the tenants about the break lease issues and costs, travel time to the viewings and other matters related to the tenants leaving the property early. Given the evidence, I find this cost reasonable given the amount of administration involved.
As such, I award the landlord $862.50 for the reasonable costs of the tenants breaking the fixed-term lease early.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Carpet stains in lounge
The landlord said the tenants caused multiple large stains in the lounge carpet during the tenancy and claimed $1,913.66 to replace the lounge carpet. The landlord referred to an Entry Inspection Report and Exit Inspection Report and to a quote/invoice from a carpet layer, during the hearing. However, none of these documents were provided to the Tribunal for the hearing, by the landlord to support this claim. No photographs of the lounge carpet were provided to the Tribunal for the hearing either.
The tenants believed there had been one stain on the carpet which had had baking soda put on it. They said they had not received any photographs or Inspection Reports about the carpet damage alleged by the landlord. The tenants said that, if that had been the case, they would have appreciated the opportunity to remediate any issues themselves, as they had also paid a professional carpet cleaner to do the carpets at the end of the tenancy. The tenants queried the need for the carpet to be replaced.
As the landlord did not provide any additional supporting evidence of the carpet stains in the lounge, by way of photographs, inspection reports or invoices or quotes, for example, for the Tribunal to assess whether a replacement carpet was required for the lounge at the end of the tenancy, I find there is insufficient evidence provided to prove this claim and so dismiss this claim. Filing fee
Because [the landlord/s] has been mostly successful with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,613.36 Maddison Lilley and Marina Jessica Choat: $226.64 Suppression
All parties requested name suppression. As the landlord has been successful with their claim, they are entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants did not provide any evidence, nor was there any evidence discussed during the hearing, that would show that the tenants’ interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I do not grant name suppression to the tenants. See section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303224 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5303224 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions