What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318182 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 5318182?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318182?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318182?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12599870-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318182 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 5318182?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318182?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318182?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12599870-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5318182 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenants’ application is dismissed.
Karamjeet Sandhu, Ganga Singh and Paras Singh must pay the landlord $4,715.79 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 10 September 2025$5,714.29 Break Lease costs$690.00 Lawns and garden work Rubbish removal Cleaning $150.00 $74.75 $258.75 Floor repair excess$1,000.00 Blind repair (if repaired by the tenants) Filing fee $0.00 $28.00 Total award$7,915.79 Less Bond$3,200.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,715.79
If the wooden blind is not able to be repaired by the tenants by 30 October 2025, an additional $1,000.00 is to be paid by the tenants which is the insurance excess for the property, making the total to pay, $5,715.79.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for the term of their fixed term tenancy to be reduced and compensation for costs relating to their move from the property.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the premature end of the tenancy.

Should the Tribunal reduce the fixed term tenancy?

The tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy. The tenants want the Tribunal to make an order backdating the termination of the tenancy to the date they left the property. I have considered whether there were grounds for the fixed term to be reduced. There was no agreement between the parties for the tenancy to end at the time the tenants left the property.
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.
Has there been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances? The tenants claim that the property was adversely affecting Karamjeet Sandhu’s health and possibly endangering her pregnancy. She supplied medical records supporting her claim that she was unwell and has had breathing difficulties during the tenancy. She has a mould reading from a blood test.
The landlord disputes that the problems that Karmjeet experienced at the property were caused by the condition of the house. The landlord provided a Mould Analytical Test Report carried out on 29 July 2025. The Report showed that there was no problem of moisture or mould that could be related to the condition of the house. Mould on the window frames and humidity levels in the bedroom were consistent with how the premises was ventilated. No evidence was presented by the tenants that showed the ventilation of the premises breached Healthy Homes Standards.
On the evidence available it is not possible for me to conclude that the health issues being experienced by one of the tenants was caused by the premises. The premises did not cause a problem for the other two occupants. The landlord stated that other tenants have not had a similar problem. Mould readings in blood do not prove that the premises is defective. For people with weakened immune systems, common moulds in the environment can cause problems. There was insufficient evidence that Karmjeet’s mould levels in her blood readings were caused by defective premises.
If the tenants were able to prove that Karmjeet’s health was seriously affected by the premises it could be concluded that this was an unforeseen change in circumstances leading to a severe hardship. The Tribunal would most likely reduce the fixed term to allow Karmjeet to find other accommodation. However in doing so the Tribunal would order the tenants to pay rent until new tenants were found plus the landlord’s costs relating to finding new tenants. That is because, where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. This is reasonable also because the tenants’ actions have caused financial difficulties for the owners.
There was no other reason for ending the tenancy, given by the tenants, that reaches the standard of an unforeseeable change of circumstances.
Therefore, despite the tenants not being successful in their claim for a reduction in the fixed term, by the order today, they have ended up in a similar position financially. Rent is ordered to 19 September 2025. That is the day before the new tenancy. The landlord is compensated for the cost of finding new tenants.
The tenants are not entitled to compensation for loss of income or a refund of rent or moving costs. The landlord is not required to compensate the tenants unless it is proved that the premises is defective. That was not proved.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants did not leave all parts of the premises reasonably clean and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photographs that show the work necessary to clean the premises and remove rubbish. Lawns and gardens needed attention. The work done trimming trees has not been included in the amount tenants must pay for garden work. The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: the wooden floor was scratched and a wooden venetian blind damaged. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
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. The tenancy agreement shows an excess of $1,000.00. Both the damaged items are claimable under the policy. The tenants’ liability is limited to $1,000.00 on each damaged item.
At the hearing on 8 October the tenants were given the opportunity to arrange repair of the blind. If repair is possible this would be cheaper than the landlord’s insurance excess. If the blind is not able to be suitably repaired the tenants must pay the insurance excess for the item which is less than the cost of a replacement blind. I have allowed until 30 October for the repair to be completed. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant. Suppression
Both parties have applied for name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore name suppression is granted.
The tenants have not substantially succeeded with their claim and therefore name suppression is not granted.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318182 — Rent arrears

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318182 — Rent arrears

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal reduce the fixed term tenancy?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal reduce the fixed term tenancy?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?