What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5308841 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 5308841?

Costs Of Reletting The Property: $734.85 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Refund Of One Day’S Rent: $75.71 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308841?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308841?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12685756-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5308841 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 5308841?

Costs Of Reletting The Property: $734.85 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Refund Of One Day’S Rent: $75.71 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308841?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308841?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12685756-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5308841 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5308841 — net $659.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Costs of reletting the property	$734.85		Costs of reletting the property
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Refund of one day’s rent		$75.71	Refund of one day’s rent
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$762.85	$103.71
Net award	$659.14
Bond	$2,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$659.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5308841 — net $659.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Costs of reletting the property	$734.85		Costs of reletting the property
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Refund of one day’s rent		$75.71	Refund of one day’s rent
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$762.85	$103.71
Net award	$659.14
Bond	$2,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$659.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $659.14 [The tenant/s]: $1,460.86
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $762.85 immediately. [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $103.71 immediately, as set out in the table below.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by both the landlord and the tenants.
[Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared at the hearing for the landlord. The tenants appeared.
We will consider the tenant’s claims then the landlord’s claims. Tenant’s claims
At the hearing the tenant’s confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Reduction of the fixed term of the tenancy. b. Refund of the bond. c. Refund of two weeks rent in advance. d. Compensation for LPG safety certificate and connection fee. e. Reimbursement of the filing fee. Landlord’s claims
At the hearing the landlord confirmed its claims are as follows: a. Rent from 18 July to 30 July 2025. b. Re-letting costs. c. Refund of the bond. d. 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.
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. History of the tenancy
The property was advertised for rent on Trademe.co.nz.
Sometime in mid to late June 2025 the tenant’s attended an open home viewing of the property.
On 23 June 2025 the parties signed a fixed term tenancy agreement. The tenancy was to commence on 18 July 2025 and was due to end on 23 July 2026.
On Friday 18 July 2025 at 7:23 pm the tenant’s sent a text message to the property manager as follows: “Hi [property manager], there is a car parking in our driveway”. “All good, neighbours”.
The property manager responded: “Sorry [tenant], this may be the owner’s car, they just called me regarding the car parking. There is a misunderstanding here regarding the car parking, when they said 9A’s car park off street, I thought it was the area in front of 9A, however, what they said is the area in front of the mailbox, the reason is because they had a tool car which ways [sic] park in front of 9A. Sorry for the inconvenience and misunderstanding, and sorry for the late message...”.
The tenant’s responded “The area in front of mail box is no parking area, and blocks others’ driveway. We will continue to park in front of 9A. If they are not happy with it, feel free to let them talk to me directly. This is not negotiable I am afraid.”
The property manager responded: “No worries, though this is a shared driveway but that area big enough and in the past so many years the previous tenants parked their two cars there, nobody complaint [sic] about it and all your neighbours around have their own garage and parking space.”
At 8:35pm the property manager sent the tenant’s the following message: “Hi [tenant], I called your neighbour, explained to them it’s my misunderstanding about the parking, so no worries now you can feel free to park in front of your house”.
The tenants responded: “Thank you for your messages and for explaining the parking situation. After careful reflection, I’ve decided that I’m no longer comfortable proceeding with the tenancy at [property addrerss redacted]. The parking misunderstanding, along with the fact that the landlord had initially intended to keep the parking space for themselves, has left me feeling uneasy about my ability to peacefully enjoy the property. While I appreciate your efforts to resolve the issue, the experience has affected my confidence in settling in comfortably. I’ve only moved a small number of items into the house and have not begun living there. As the tenancy has just started today and the situation resulted from a genuine misunderstanding, I respectfully request that we terminate the agreement effective immediately. I would also appreciate a full refund of the move-in cost of $3,180 as well as small reimbursement ($200) to cover fuel and LPG settlement expenses related to the move. While I initially indicated over that phone that I would proceed with the tenancy, that was based on the belief that the issue was minor and resolved. However, after reflecting on the situation, I’ve realised I do not feel comfortable living next to the landlord under these circumstances....”.
On 19 July 2025 the tenant’s filed their application with the Tribunal seeking reduction of the fixed term, refund of the bond, reimbursement of two weeks rent in advance, compensation for LPG gas safety certificate and connection costs and reimbursement of the filing fee,
On 21 July 2025 the landlord filed their application with the Tribunal seeking rent and compensation for costs associated with re-letting the property.
On 21 July and 25 July 2025, the property manager held open home viewings for the property.
On 30 July the tenant returned the keys to the property by leaving them in the mailbox.
On 31 July 2025 new tenants moved into the property. Tenant’s claims Reduction of the fixed term
The tenant has applied for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 23 July 2026. The tenants asked the Tribunal to end the tenancy on 18 July 2025 or, in the alternate, 21 July 2025, the day of the first “unauthorised viewing”. Tenant’s evidence: parking dispute
The tenant’s evidence is that the property was advertised as having two off-street carparks. At the open home inspection, the tenants said the property manager told them the parking spaces were located directly in front on the property.
The Tribunal notes that the tenancy agreement records “the maximum number of vehicles parked on the property must not exceed two”.
The tenants said that on the day they went to move into the property they discovered the landlord’s vehicle parked in, what they understood to be, their parking space.
The text exchange between the parties is recorded at para [14] to [20].
The Tenant’s told the Tribunal the carparks for the property were misrepresented by the property manager in the treademe listing, at the open home, and in the tenancy agreement. The tenants said they were told the property came with two off street carparks located directly outside the premises. However, as the landlord wanted to park their vehicle in one of those parks that meant they only had access to one legal off street carpark.
The tenants also took issue with the advice given to them by the property manager about the alternative off-street parking area. The tenants said the property manager initially encouraged them to park illegally, by telling them to park out the front of the property on the berm and on the broken yellow lines. The tenant’s argued that the property should come with two legal parking spaces. By encouraging them to park illegally, the tenants said their trust and confidence in the property manager was undermined meaning they no longer felt comfortable moving into the property. Landlord’s evidence: parking dispute
The property manager told the Tribunal that there was a misunderstanding between herself and the landlord over the location of the properties off-street parking. The property manager said that the parking information provided to the tenants at the time of the viewing was based on that misunderstanding and was not done to mislead the tenants into signing the tenancy agreement.
The property manager told the Tribunal that as soon as the parking issue was raised she worked to quickly resolve the breach, taking approximately 70 minutes, to confirm that the location of car parking spaces were as previously described to the tenant. The property manager told the Tribunal that as the issue was resolved quickly, in favour of the tenants, they do not accept that the parking dispute gives rise to an unforeseen change in circumstances sufficient to justify early termination of the fixed term tenancy.
The landlord further stated that if the parking issue had not been adequately resolved then the appropriate remedy for the tenants was to issue a 14-day breach notice. Unauthorised property viewing Tenant’s evidence
In addition to the dispute over parking the tenant’s argued their fixed term should be reduced because the landlord conducted two unauthorised open home viewings at the property on 21 and 25 July 2025.
The tenants stated that when they filed their application with the Tribunal for a reduction of the fixed term they retained the keys, had paid two weeks rent in advance and had told the landlord that they would be observing the legal status of the contract.
The tenants argued that by conducting open home viewings without their consent the landlord had, in effect, regained possession of the property as the property was no longer under their control. The tenants argued the tenancy should end at the latest on 21 July 2025 and their rent in advance should be refunded along with their bond and gas safety certificate fees.
The tenants further argued that by filing the application with the Tribunal the landlord should have waited for the case to be determined before taking action to re-tenant the property. Landlord’s evidence
The landlord acknowledged conducting two open home viewing at the property on 21 and 25 July 2025 without the tenant’s explicit consent. The landlord said they had informed the tenant of their decision to make efforts to re-let the property after: a. The tenant’s had clearly stated their intention not to continue with the tenancy. b. The tenants had stated they would not be moving into the property. c. The tenant’s had filed an application with the Tribunal. d. The parties could not agree the terms of the break lease or costs. e. The tenants would not assist with the assignment of the tenancy; and f. The tenants had indicated they would not meet their rent obligations under the contract as evidence by a text message saying: “...As this matter is in dispute and pending Tribunal resolution, I will not be making further rent payments for [tenancy address suppressed] at this stage”.
The landlord said they had a duty to mitigate their losses under the Act which was why they acted quickly to re-tenant the property. Analysis and decision
Under section 66 of the Act the Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant’s filed their application seeking a reduction of the fixed term on the basis there was an unforeseen change in their circumstances. Namely, there was a dispute over parking, and this had undermined their trust and confidence in the property manager, so they no longer felt comfortable living in the property.
The Tribunal accepts there was a breach of the tenancy agreement related to off street parking. However, the breach was remedied in approximately 70 minutes with the outcome in favour of the tenants. The Tribunal finds that by remedying the breach the was no ongoing loss of amenity and the property manager and landlord had ultimately complied with the agreed terms of the tenancy. The Tribunal finds that this does not amount to an unforeseen change in circumstance.
The Tribunal does not accept the tenant’s contention that the property managers conduct was so egregious that they no longer felt comfortable living in the property which amounted to a change in circumstances. The Tribunal finds that the property manager acknowledged their error in misunderstanding the location of the available parking and acted swiftly to resolve the breach. The property managers actions showed they were working in the best interests of the tenant.
If the Tribunal is wrong and the parking issue did amount to an unforeseen change in circumstance, then the Tribunal finds the tenants failed to show they would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy was not reduced.
The Tribunal also finds the tenants failed to show that their hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied that there has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The application for a reduction of the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.
Under section 78(1) of the Act, the Tribunal may set aside or vary an agreement where it appears that the agreement has been induced by misrepresentation or mistake and which does not accord with the true agreement.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds that there has been no inducement or misrepresentation. The Tribunal accepts the property managers evidence that there was a genuine misunderstanding over the location of car parking spaces and that the property manager did not deliberately mislead the tenants to induce them into signing the tenancy agreement. Once the mistake was discovered the breach was remedied in favour of the tenants meaning the terms of the agreement were complied with.
The Tribunal declines to set aside the tenancy agreement on that basis.
Section 48 of the Act sets out the landlord’s right of entry. Where a landlord enters a premises other than permitted by the Act they commit an unlawful act (see section 48(4)), and exemplary damages may be awarded.
At the hearing the tenant’s argued the tenancy agreement should be set aside on the basis the landlord held unauthorised property viewings in breach of their tenancy agreement and the Act. The tenants argued that these viewings meant the property was no longer under their control and on that basis the fixed term should end no later than 21 July 2025, the date of the first unauthorised viewing.
The Tribunal declines to end the tenancy on 21 July 2025. If the landlord breaches section 48 of the Act then the remedy available to the tenants is exemplary damages. A claim the tenants did not pursue.
Having dismissed the claim for a reduction of the fixed term under section 66 and refusing to set aside the tenancy agreement under section 78 the Tribunal declines to order the refund of two weeks rent in advance. Compensation for LPG safety certificate and fitting
The tenant seeks $272.58 from the landlord after paying a gas fitter to fit and certify the gas connection at the property. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The tenants said the gas fitting and certification was required before the 45kg gas bottles could be delivered to the property which were required for cooking and hot water.
The landlord states the tenants are responsible for the cost of bottled gas and denies liability for the charge. Analysis and decision
Section 45(1)(c) of the Act requires landlords to ensure that the premises comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment.
If landlords provide gas appliances and installations landlords must ensure that these are safe to use, properly maintained and comply with the Gas (Safety and Measurement) Regulations 2010.
Regulation 75A sets out the responsibilities for landlords for gas appliances, gas fitting and gas installations at rented residential premises.
Under regulations 75A, landlords must not provide or allow any person to use any gas appliance, fitting or installation that is unsafe.
There is no requirement for landlords to provide tenants with formal gas safety certificates for LPG bottle connections. The landlord’s obligations are to ensure the gas appliances, connections and installations that are provided are safe and compliant.
On that basis the Tribunal declines to award compensation for the LPG safety certificate and fitting costs. Landlord’s claims Rent
The landlord seeks rent from 18 July 2025 to 30 July 2025 and an up-to-date rent summary was provided.
The landlord told the Tribunal they arranged for the property to be relet, after the tenants informed them that they would not be continuing with the tenancy due to the parking issues. The landlord’s position is set out earlier in this decision.
The tenant asks the Tribunal to refund their two weeks rent paid in advance and states that as the parties were unable to agree to terms breaking the lease early, the only way the tenancy could have ended was by an order of the Tribunal. The tenant’s position has been set out earlier in this decision. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds that the tenant is liable for rent until 30 March 2025.
Had the Tribunal reduced the fixed term under section 66 of the Act the landlord would have been entitled to reasonable compensation for any loss arising out of that reduction. Similarly, had the parties agreed terms to break the fixed term the landlord would have been entitled to rent until such time as a new tenant was found.
As the tenant’s had paid two weeks rent in advance, the Tribunal finds the landlord is entitled to retain $984.23 rent money but orders the landlord to refund the tenants one day’s rent, totalling $75.71. Compensation for reletting costs
The landlord seeks compensation of $734.85, the cost of arranging for the property to be relet. The costs include: a. Advertising fee $228.85 b. Five tenant screening costs $ 230.00 c. Labour fees for open homes $276.00
The landlord said as the tenants sought to unilaterally end the fixed term early. Had break lease terms been agreed they would have been entitled to compensation for reletting costs. Compensation for reletting costs were also particularized in the tenancy agreement.
The tenant’s position is that they are not liable to pay any re-letting costs. The tenants argue that because the parties could not agree to break lease terms, and as they did not surrender the tenancy, the tenancy could only be ended by an order of the Tribunal. Analysis and decision.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the landlord is entitled to be compensated for the costs associated with re- letting the property.
Had the Tribunal reduced the fixed term under section 66 of the Act the landlord would have been entitled to reasonable compensation for any loss arising out of that reduction. Similarly, had the parties agreed terms to break the fixed term the landlord would have been entitled to compensation under the terms of the tenancy agreement. The amount claimed is reasonable and ordered. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression. Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so. In this case both parties have been substantially successful and are granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308841 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308841 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions