What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335261 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5335261?

Break Lease Costs: $661.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Subsidy: $67.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335261?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335261?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12503373-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335261 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5335261?

Break Lease Costs: $661.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Subsidy: $67.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335261?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335261?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12503373-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Panmure Avenue, Calton Hill, Dunedin 9012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5335261 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5335261 — net $728.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Break lease costs	$661.25	Break lease costs
Rent subsidy	$67.14	Rent subsidy
Net award	$728.39
Bond	$2,260.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$728.39

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited $728.39 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,260.00 (3173335-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Wolfbrook Property Management Limited: $728.39 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,531.61

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for a reduction to a fixed term tenancy and refund of the bond (less an agreed amount for a rent subsidy).

The landlord has applied for the break lease costs incurred in agreeing to reduce the fixed term tenancy. Background

The tenancy commenced on 8 January 2024 and was due to end on 5 December 2025.

On 17 June 2025 the tenant advised the landlord that they had purchased their first home and wished to end the tenancy early, advising that they would be vacating the property on around 10 August 2025.

The landlord provided an agreement for early termination of a fixed term tenancy that was subsequently signed by the tenant on 16 June 2025. This agreement: a. authorised the property managers to advertise the property for rent (and make subsequent arrangements with a new tenant), and b. advised the tenant that they were responsible for paying rent until a new tenant was found, and c. advised the tenant that they were responsible for the costs reasonably incurred to re-tenant the property, and d. provided a breakdown of these estimated cost.

The landlord advertised the property immediately.

A new tenancy commenced on 12 September 2025 and the tenant has paid rent until this date. During the process, and to assist in finding a new tenant, the tenants also agreed to pay a rent subsidy of $25.00 until the end of the fixed term tenancy date. There is an outstanding amount of rent subsidy of $67.14 which the tenant does not dispute.

The total itemised break lease costs came to $1,226.26 however the landlord discounted this to one weeks rent plus GST, totalling $661.25. The landlord provided an itemised account of these expenses to the tenant.

The tenant disputes this amount of the basis that they believe they have already paid the reasonable costs in reducing the fixed term tenancy. They say rent was paid until a new tenant was found and as they have paid the rent subsidy, the landlord has not suffered any further losses, it is as though the tenancy ended when it was intended to. They also do not consider that the landlord went through a thorough and transparent process of obtaining a new tenant and that this delayed the length of time taken to re-tenant. The law

Although the tenant originally applied for a reduction to the fixed term tenancy, this is no longer required as the landlord did agree for the fixed term tenancy to be reduced.

Section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that where a landlord consents to a termination in accordance with section 50(1)(d) of the RTA, they are entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of that termination. 1

Section 44A goes on to provide that a landlord who seeks to recover from a tenant in accordance with subsection (1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant.

I am satisfied that the landlord did provide an itemised account.

The question that remains is whether, in the circumstances, the amount being claimed by the landlord is reasonable.

I am satisfied that it was. This cost was only incurred by the landlord (when it was) because of the tenant wanting to end the fixed term tenancy early.

The tenant had not suffered an unforeseen circumstance in purchasing a new property, and it is therefore unlikely the Tribunal would have determined that the tenant had sufficient grounds to end the fixed term tenancy early. There is also no obligation on a landlord to agree to reduce a fixed term tenancy early.

The landlord advised that it was, and is, a very challenging rental market and that they did work hard to find a new tenant. However, they are also required to carry out due diligence before signing a new tenant. There are no transparency obligations on landlords in these circumstances and I’m not convinced that the tenant’s assistance in finding the eventual tenant changes anything.

The costs sought were provided in the early termination agreement and should not have come as a surprise. 1 Section 50(1)(d) is where a tenant surrenders the tenancy or provides vacant possession to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.

I am satisfied that the amount of $661.25 was reasonable in the circumstances and the amount ordered is proved together with the rent subsidy referred to earlier. R Harvey-Lane 06 October 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5335261 — net $728.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Break lease costs	$661.25	Break lease costs
Rent subsidy	$67.14	Rent subsidy
Net award	$728.39
Bond	$2,260.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$728.39

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Wolfbrook Property Management Limited $728.39 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,260.00 (3173335-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Wolfbrook Property Management Limited: $728.39 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,531.61

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a reduction to a fixed term tenancy and refund of the bond (less an agreed amount for a rent subsidy).
The landlord has applied for the break lease costs incurred in agreeing to reduce the fixed term tenancy. Background
The tenancy commenced on 8 January 2024 and was due to end on 5 December 2025.
On 17 June 2025 the tenant advised the landlord that they had purchased their first home and wished to end the tenancy early, advising that they would be vacating the property on around 10 August 2025.
The landlord provided an agreement for early termination of a fixed term tenancy that was subsequently signed by the tenant on 16 June 2025. This agreement: a. authorised the property managers to advertise the property for rent (and make subsequent arrangements with a new tenant), and b. advised the tenant that they were responsible for paying rent until a new tenant was found, and c. advised the tenant that they were responsible for the costs reasonably incurred to re-tenant the property, and d. provided a breakdown of these estimated cost.
The landlord advertised the property immediately.
A new tenancy commenced on 12 September 2025 and the tenant has paid rent until this date. During the process, and to assist in finding a new tenant, the tenants also agreed to pay a rent subsidy of $25.00 until the end of the fixed term tenancy date. There is an outstanding amount of rent subsidy of $67.14 which the tenant does not dispute.
The total itemised break lease costs came to $1,226.26 however the landlord discounted this to one weeks rent plus GST, totalling $661.25. The landlord provided an itemised account of these expenses to the tenant.
The tenant disputes this amount of the basis that they believe they have already paid the reasonable costs in reducing the fixed term tenancy. They say rent was paid until a new tenant was found and as they have paid the rent subsidy, the landlord has not suffered any further losses, it is as though the tenancy ended when it was intended to. They also do not consider that the landlord went through a thorough and transparent process of obtaining a new tenant and that this delayed the length of time taken to re-tenant. The law
Although the tenant originally applied for a reduction to the fixed term tenancy, this is no longer required as the landlord did agree for the fixed term tenancy to be reduced.
Section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that where a landlord consents to a termination in accordance with section 50(1)(d) of the RTA, they are entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of that termination. 1
Section 44A goes on to provide that a landlord who seeks to recover from a tenant in accordance with subsection (1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant.
I am satisfied that the landlord did provide an itemised account.
The question that remains is whether, in the circumstances, the amount being claimed by the landlord is reasonable.
I am satisfied that it was. This cost was only incurred by the landlord (when it was) because of the tenant wanting to end the fixed term tenancy early.
The tenant had not suffered an unforeseen circumstance in purchasing a new property, and it is therefore unlikely the Tribunal would have determined that the tenant had sufficient grounds to end the fixed term tenancy early. There is also no obligation on a landlord to agree to reduce a fixed term tenancy early.
The landlord advised that it was, and is, a very challenging rental market and that they did work hard to find a new tenant. However, they are also required to carry out due diligence before signing a new tenant. There are no transparency obligations on landlords in these circumstances and I’m not convinced that the tenant’s assistance in finding the eventual tenant changes anything.
The costs sought were provided in the early termination agreement and should not have come as a surprise. 1 Section 50(1)(d) is where a tenant surrenders the tenancy or provides vacant possession to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.
I am satisfied that the amount of $661.25 was reasonable in the circumstances and the amount ordered is proved together with the rent subsidy referred to earlier. R Harvey-Lane 06 October 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335261 — Tenancy dispute at 3 Panmure Avenue, Calton Hill, Dunedin 9012

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335261 — Tenancy dispute at 3 Panmure Avenue, Calton Hill, Dunedin 9012

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.