What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328574 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Moving Spaces Limited Kevin Sharp $5,433.95

How much money was awarded in case 5328574?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5235091 D…: $3,107.00 awarded to landlord; Re-Letting Costs: $533.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,765.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328574?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328574?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12712358-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328574 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Moving Spaces Limited Kevin Sharp $5,433.95

How much money was awarded in case 5328574?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5235091 D…: $3,107.00 awarded to landlord; Re-Letting Costs: $533.70 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,765.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328574?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328574?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12712358-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 4, Unit/Flat A, 37 West Tamaki Road, St Heliers, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328574 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328574 — net $5,433.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5235091 dated 25/06/2025	$3,107.00	Previous order application 5235091 dated 25/06/2025
Rent arrears (31 July 2025	$1,765.25	Rent arrears (31 July 2025
Re-letting costs	$533.70	Re-letting costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,433.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,433.95

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Moving Spaces Limited Kevin Sharp $5,433.95 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

On 19 August 2025, the landlord applied to the Tribunal for an order for outstanding rent arrears, break lease costs, Tribunal preparation and appearance costs, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Mr Sharp, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear, and unsuccessful attempts were made to join them to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. Background of the tenancy
The tenancy was a “room by room” let commencing on 1 February 2025, with the fixed term expiring on 31 July 2025. Rent was $440.00 per week and the tenant paid a bond of $1,760.00.
The tenant moved out of the property on 8 April 2025, relocating to Australia.
On 29 April 2025, the tenant filed an application with the Tribunal seeking a reduction of the fixed term of the tenancy due to an unforeseen change in circumstance. Namely, the tenant relocated to Melbourne for a job that fell through and as a result she was under significant financial hardship.
The landlord filed a cross application seeking rent arrears as they had been unable to find a new tenant for the property.
At the hearing, the landlord told the Tribunal the tenant had been informed that she needed to pay rent until a new tenant could be found and, that she would also have to pay the landlord’s expenses incurred in trying to re-let the property.
At that hearing the Tribunal dismissed the tenant’s application to reduce the fixed term finding that while there had been a change in the tenant’s circumstances the changes were not unforeseen.
The Tribunal granted the landlord’s claim, ordered rent, and rent arrears to 27 June 2025. 1 No order was made in respect of the landlord’s costs incurred in re- tenanting the property as an expense claim was not included in the previous application. Rent arrears
The landlord states that despite repeated attempts to re-let the property they were unable to do so and seeks rent from 28 June 2025 to 31 July 2025 (the end of the fixed term tenancy) totalling $2,137.14.
The landlord produced evidence of various listings and enquiries made in respect of the property. The landlord states the property was eventually let on 5 September 2025 for the reduced price of $365.00 per week including furniture.
The landlord provided an up-to-date rent record.
The records prove the total amount of rent due under the tenancy agreement was $11,377.14.
The total amount of rent paid was $6,531.89. That included the bond which was refunded to the landlord on 13 August 2025. It also included an additional payment of $371.89, paid by the tenant to the landlord on 8 October 2025.
The earlier Tribunal order 2 awarded the landlord $3,107.00. This included a cost award of $27.00. This has left a rent shortfall, to the end of the tenancy, of $1,765.25 and that is what is ordered. Re-letting costs
The landlord states the tenant paid the initial break lease costs totalling $507.05. The payments stopped after the tenant relocated to Australia. The landlord now seeks re-letting costs totalling $533.70 and provided invoices in the amounts claimed. The landlord states that these invoices were e-mailed to the tenant but remain unpaid.
The costs include: a. Renewal of Trademe and Facebook advertising April 2025 - $73.50 b. Roomies and Trademe advertising costs June/July - $115.20 c. Property viewings on 12 May x 2, 14 May, 14 June, and 9 July 2025 (at $50 each) totalling - $287.50 1 Moving Spaces Limited v [The tenant/s] [2025] NZTT 5235091, 5259660 2 Ibid d. Property viewing 15 April 2025 - $57.50
Section 50(1)(d) of the Act states that tenancies may be terminated where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.
Section 44A(1) of the Act states that landlords are entitled to recover from the tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination of the tenancy.
The tenant previously accepted liability for the break lease costs. The Tribunal finds that the costs have been reasonably incurred by the landlord and the amounts claimed are ordered. Tribunal attendance preparation and appearance fees and costs
The landlord seeks $603.75 from the tenant for the following: a. Issuing a 14-day breach notice on 14 April 2025 – $28.75 b. Tenancy Tribunal Application and appearance at hearing – $460.00 c. Attendance at mediation - $115.00
An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord relies on clause 17 of the tenancy agreement for the cost award.
Clause 17 of the tenancy agreement states: Collection costs – If at the end of the tenancy there is an unsatisfied debt, then the tenant agrees that the tenant be liable for and pay for all costs of recovery of the debt, which costs shall be collected by a debt collection agency. Costs payable by the debtor shall include, legal fees, commissions, fees and disbursements, and/or court filing fees and disbursements.
The landlord may recover from the tenant reasonable private debt collection costs incurred in enforcing the Tribunal orders for debt repayment.
The costs claimed do not relate to the recovery of a debt at the end of the tenancy. They relate to the cost of bringing an application for an order for costs associated with issuing a 14-day breach notice, an order for rent owing at the end of the tenancy and break lease costs.
Costs are not routinely awarded to parties to compensate for their time and costs associated with appearing before the Tenancy Tribunal. It is usual for parties to bear their own expenses. The claim is dismissed.
Because Moving Spaces Limited Kevin Sharp has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord seeks name suppression. Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
This matter flows from application 5235091 and 5259660. The details of that case were not suppressed and are in the public domain. As the names and details of the parties and the reasons for termination of the tenancy are in the public domain, the Tribunal declines to order name suppression

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328574 — net $5,433.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5235091 dated 25/06/2025	$3,107.00	Previous order application 5235091 dated 25/06/2025
Rent arrears (31 July 2025	$1,765.25	Rent arrears (31 July 2025
Re-letting costs	$533.70	Re-letting costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,433.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,433.95

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Moving Spaces Limited Kevin Sharp $5,433.95 immediately, as calculated in the table below:

Reasons

On 19 August 2025, the landlord applied to the Tribunal for an order for outstanding rent arrears, break lease costs, Tribunal preparation and appearance costs, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Mr Sharp, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenant did not appear, and unsuccessful attempts were made to join them to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. Background of the tenancy
The tenancy was a “room by room” let commencing on 1 February 2025, with the fixed term expiring on 31 July 2025. Rent was $440.00 per week and the tenant paid a bond of $1,760.00.
The tenant moved out of the property on 8 April 2025, relocating to Australia.
On 29 April 2025, the tenant filed an application with the Tribunal seeking a reduction of the fixed term of the tenancy due to an unforeseen change in circumstance. Namely, the tenant relocated to Melbourne for a job that fell through and as a result she was under significant financial hardship.
The landlord filed a cross application seeking rent arrears as they had been unable to find a new tenant for the property.
At the hearing, the landlord told the Tribunal the tenant had been informed that she needed to pay rent until a new tenant could be found and, that she would also have to pay the landlord’s expenses incurred in trying to re-let the property.
At that hearing the Tribunal dismissed the tenant’s application to reduce the fixed term finding that while there had been a change in the tenant’s circumstances the changes were not unforeseen.
The Tribunal granted the landlord’s claim, ordered rent, and rent arrears to 27 June 2025. 1 No order was made in respect of the landlord’s costs incurred in re- tenanting the property as an expense claim was not included in the previous application. Rent arrears
The landlord states that despite repeated attempts to re-let the property they were unable to do so and seeks rent from 28 June 2025 to 31 July 2025 (the end of the fixed term tenancy) totalling $2,137.14.
The landlord produced evidence of various listings and enquiries made in respect of the property. The landlord states the property was eventually let on 5 September 2025 for the reduced price of $365.00 per week including furniture.
The landlord provided an up-to-date rent record.
The records prove the total amount of rent due under the tenancy agreement was $11,377.14.
The total amount of rent paid was $6,531.89. That included the bond which was refunded to the landlord on 13 August 2025. It also included an additional payment of $371.89, paid by the tenant to the landlord on 8 October 2025.
The earlier Tribunal order 2 awarded the landlord $3,107.00. This included a cost award of $27.00. This has left a rent shortfall, to the end of the tenancy, of $1,765.25 and that is what is ordered. Re-letting costs
The landlord states the tenant paid the initial break lease costs totalling $507.05. The payments stopped after the tenant relocated to Australia. The landlord now seeks re-letting costs totalling $533.70 and provided invoices in the amounts claimed. The landlord states that these invoices were e-mailed to the tenant but remain unpaid.
The costs include: a. Renewal of Trademe and Facebook advertising April 2025 - $73.50 b. Roomies and Trademe advertising costs June/July - $115.20 c. Property viewings on 12 May x 2, 14 May, 14 June, and 9 July 2025 (at $50 each) totalling - $287.50 1 Moving Spaces Limited v [The tenant/s] [2025] NZTT 5235091, 5259660 2 Ibid d. Property viewing 15 April 2025 - $57.50
Section 50(1)(d) of the Act states that tenancies may be terminated where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.
Section 44A(1) of the Act states that landlords are entitled to recover from the tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination of the tenancy.
The tenant previously accepted liability for the break lease costs. The Tribunal finds that the costs have been reasonably incurred by the landlord and the amounts claimed are ordered. Tribunal attendance preparation and appearance fees and costs
The landlord seeks $603.75 from the tenant for the following: a. Issuing a 14-day breach notice on 14 April 2025 – $28.75 b. Tenancy Tribunal Application and appearance at hearing – $460.00 c. Attendance at mediation - $115.00
An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord relies on clause 17 of the tenancy agreement for the cost award.
Clause 17 of the tenancy agreement states: Collection costs – If at the end of the tenancy there is an unsatisfied debt, then the tenant agrees that the tenant be liable for and pay for all costs of recovery of the debt, which costs shall be collected by a debt collection agency. Costs payable by the debtor shall include, legal fees, commissions, fees and disbursements, and/or court filing fees and disbursements.
The landlord may recover from the tenant reasonable private debt collection costs incurred in enforcing the Tribunal orders for debt repayment.
The costs claimed do not relate to the recovery of a debt at the end of the tenancy. They relate to the cost of bringing an application for an order for costs associated with issuing a 14-day breach notice, an order for rent owing at the end of the tenancy and break lease costs.
Costs are not routinely awarded to parties to compensate for their time and costs associated with appearing before the Tenancy Tribunal. It is usual for parties to bear their own expenses. The claim is dismissed.
Because Moving Spaces Limited Kevin Sharp has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord seeks name suppression. Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
This matter flows from application 5235091 and 5259660. The details of that case were not suppressed and are in the public domain. As the names and details of the parties and the reasons for termination of the tenancy are in the public domain, the Tribunal declines to order name suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328574 — Rent arrears at Room 4, Unit/Flat A, 37 West Tamaki Road, St Heliers,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328574 — Rent arrears at Room 4, Unit/Flat A, 37 West Tamaki Road, St Heliers,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions