What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336900 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 5336900?

Break Lease Fee: $1,118.63 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $857.14 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Rent Abatement: $574.29 awarded to tenant; Garage Remote: $99.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $257.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $540.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $90.61 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336900?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13353481-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5336900 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 5336900?

Break Lease Fee: $1,118.63 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $857.14 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Rent Abatement: $574.29 awarded to tenant; Garage Remote: $99.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $257.14 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $540.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $90.61 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5336900?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5336900?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13353481-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 1 Fruitvale Road, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5336900 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336900 — net $288.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 August 2025	$257.14		Rent arrears to 25 August 2025
Break lease fee	$1,118.63		Break lease fee
Water rates	$90.61		Water rates
Cleaning	$300.00		Cleaning
Garage remote	$99.00		Garage remote
Repairs: Wall damage	$540.50		Repairs: Wall damage
Compensation - early termination	$857.14		Compensation - early termination
Compensation: Rent abatement		$574.29	Rent abatement
Total award	$3,263.02	$574.29
Net award	$288.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$288.73

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Re-Bran Limited T/A Propertyscouts Auckland Bays As Agent For Kieran & Nikki Donnelly, $288.73 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Re-Bran Limited T/A Propertyscouts Auckland Bays As Agent For Kieran & Nikki Donnelly, immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 2, 1 Fruitvale Road, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 is reduced and now ends at 11.59pm, Monday 25 August 2025.

The landlord claim for shortfall of the rent for the new tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 23 March 2026.
An earlier hearing was held by video on 6 November 2025. At that hearing the tenant advised that they had filed an application, but at that stage it had not been linked to the landlord application. The hearing was adjourned for both applications to be considered together.
This tenancy commenced on 19 April 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 6 February 2026.
The tenant applied to reduce the fixed term tenancy.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, a break lease fee, the shortfall of rent for the new tenancy, water rates, cleaning, replacement of the garage remote, and wall damage. The landlord offered the tenant a rent abatement due to loss of amenity. Damage to premises
On 18 June 2025 there was an accident where a car smashed through the fence of the adjoining unit and into the front outdoor space of this tenancy. The accident caused damage to the second-floor deck and water storage tank of this tenancy and without a fence the outdoor space was not secure. I note that this property is located on the corner of a four lane and very busy road.
While the outdoor space was not useable and unsafe the only barrier for the tenant and her young toddler was the front door which the tenant says can be opened from the inside even when locked. The landlord said that the lock could be deadbolt locked but I could not determine from the photograph of the door lock whether this is so.
The deck which leads off the open plan kitchen and living area on the middle floor was damaged by the accident. The photographs show that the railing on one side of the deck had detached from the side of the building. The deck is not supported by two posts and instead one post has been installed as a temporary measure to stop the deck from falling. The deck is accessed from the living area by way of a ranch slider with a lock on the handle.
My assessment from the photographs produced is that the deck area and the front space of this tenancy is unsafe and should not be accessed by anyone other than contractors or others involved in assessing or carrying out repairs.
On 25 June 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord and stated, “I’m worried the deck may fall apart and damage more of the property. We also have a toddler living with us and find this to be a safety concern.”
In response the landlord stated, “As mentioned in my text, refrain from using that door until the issue has been remedied.”
There was further communication between the parties related to the insurance claim, quotes and the reasons for delay in the repairs being carried out.
On 10 August 2025 the tenant sent an email to the landlord stating, “I worry this is taking a lot longer than expected and it puts my toddler at risk. We have waited quite patiently but if at any instance our toddler gets on the deck without us realizing, this is a serious matter. Im sure you can understand our worry as an expectant mother.”
On 12 August 2025 the landlord emailed to advise that the repairs would commence on the following day and would take around 4 weeks to complete.
On 14 August 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord to advise that she had moved out of the premises the previous day. She referred to her epilepsy which she said had deteriorated and that she had had a few seizures resulting in her falling down the stairs. She also advised that she “... also had a scare when my toddler managed to open the sliding door and almost got onto the deck, which is partially broken and unsafe. This added to my concerns about staying in the property.”
That tenant moved out on 13 August 2025 and the other tenant moved out on 25 August 2025. Reduction of fixed-term tenancy
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 6 February 2026.
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.
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The car accident which caused damage to the premises and the delay in carrying out repairs is an unforeseen change. The tenant’s deteriorating health is also an unforeseen change.
There is an obligation on the landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety 1 . This includes ensuring that structures like decks are safe and meet building code requirements. Where a deck is awaiting repair, the landlord must ensure that access to the deck is not possible. In this situation the landlord could have, and in my view, should have, installed locks up high on the inside of both the front door and the ranch slider, to ensure that the tenant and her family would remain safe while awaiting repairs. This is especially so given that the landlord was aware that a young, mobile child lived in the premises. In addition, the Body Corporate should have provided temporary fencing for the next-door property to ensure that both properties were secure.
Given the extent of the damage, the delay in carrying out the repairs and the ongoing safety risk (which would likely continue during the repair process) it was understandable that the tenant would want to vacate the tenancy. While the tenant asked to leave the tenancy, the landlord advised that the process would involve a lease assignment. As discussed at the hearing a lease assignment as provided for in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 is when a tenant transfers the tenancy with the landlord’s consent and the new tenant becomes responsible for the tenancy from the date of assignment.
It was not until 26 August 2025 that the landlord agreed to advertise for a new tenant.
The tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. In the email to the landlord dated 14 August 2025 the tenant referred to both the unsafe living situation and her daughter accessing the deck and her health as reasons for leaving the tenancy.
At the hearing the tenant gave evidence that she moved from the tenancy to live with her mother, but she was required to pay $400.00 per week for a unit at her mother’s property. The tenant is a solo mother on a benefit and said that she could not continue to pay rent for both properties. The other tenant did not attend the hearing, so the only evidence provided from the tenant at the hearing 1 Section 45(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 43B(1) was that the other tenant flats with others and receives a student allowance to cover expenses.
The landlord would suffer hardship if the term is reduced. At the hearing the landlord said that the owners would need to pay their mortgage with the rent money. The owners have one other rental property but asked the landlord to find a new tenant as soon as possible.
I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
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.
I award compensation of $857.14 to the landlord, considering the evidence. This amount is calculated for the rent that would have been payable up to 4 September 2025, being 21 days after the 14 August 2025 email (taking account of the rent arrears awarded to 25 August 2025).
While there are grounds to end the fixed-term tenancy early that does not mean that the tenancy can end immediately. I consider it reasonable for the landlord to receive three weeks rent from the date that the tenant advised she was moving out.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

At the hearing the landlord claimed rent arrears to 29 September 2025 as that was the date when the landlord took possession to prepare the premises for the new tenancy due to start on 2 October 2025.
The Tribunal has reduced the fixed- term tenancy to 25 August 2025 and rent arrears are awarded to that date.
The landlord produced water rates invoices and evidence showing the water usage to the end of the tenancy. The amount awarded for water rates is $90.61. Break lease fee
The landlord claimed a break lease fee and submitted an invoice totalling $1,118.63.
When a tenant ends a fixed-term tenancy early and the landlord re-lets the property, the landlord can claim reasonable costs directly related to finding a new tenant. I have considered the contents of the invoice, and I accept that the costs sought are reasonable and actually incurred due to the early termination. The amount sought is awarded. Shortfall for rent
The new tenancy commenced on 2 October 2025. The new tenant is paying a reduced rent, and the landlord is claiming the shortfall from this tenant.
As mentioned above, this situation is not an assignment because an assignment means a transfer to a person of all of the rights that a tenant has under a tenancy agreement 3 .
In this situation the landlord entered into a new tenancy agreement with the new tenant with different terms including the rent payable.
At the hearing the landlord acknowledged that there was no communication with the tenant that a lower rent was being considered or was agreed to. Also, there was no evidence that the landlord acted reasonably in trying to get a reasonable rent. An example of such evidence would be that there had been limited interest in the premises or that it had been advertised for a period before the rent sought was reduced.
Due to the lack of communication and further evidence as to why a reduced rent was accepted, the landlord’s claim for the rent shortfall is dismissed. Vacated costs
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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean. I refer to the photographs produced by the landlord showing that further cleaning was required including in some kitchen cupboards, the oven, the rangehood and the shower.
The tenant acknowledged at the hearing that one of the garage remotes was damaged by her. The replacement cost for the garage remote is awarded.
The landlord produced photographs showing some wall damage at the end of the tenancy. The tenant acknowledged wall damage in the garage from the car doors. There was also wall damage in the stairwell and the bedrooms. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The amounts ordered are proved. Rent abatement 3 Section 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986
As referred to above there was damage to the premises from a car accident which resulted in the tenants not being able to use the front door, the outdoor area at the front and the second-floor deck.
The landlord has offered a rent abatement 4 for the period from 19 June 2025 to 24 August 2025 and that is included in this order. Filing fee and suppression
As both parties have had some success with their claims I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant sought name suppression and as she has had success with her claim, I make such an order accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5336900 — net $288.73 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 August 2025	$257.14		Rent arrears to 25 August 2025
Break lease fee	$1,118.63		Break lease fee
Water rates	$90.61		Water rates
Cleaning	$300.00		Cleaning
Garage remote	$99.00		Garage remote
Repairs: Wall damage	$540.50		Repairs: Wall damage
Compensation - early termination	$857.14		Compensation - early termination
Compensation: Rent abatement		$574.29	Rent abatement
Total award	$3,263.02	$574.29
Net award	$288.73
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$288.73

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Re-Bran Limited T/A Propertyscouts Auckland Bays As Agent For Kieran & Nikki Donnelly, $288.73 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Re-Bran Limited T/A Propertyscouts Auckland Bays As Agent For Kieran & Nikki Donnelly, immediately.
The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 2, 1 Fruitvale Road, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 is reduced and now ends at 11.59pm, Monday 25 August 2025.

The landlord claim for shortfall of the rent for the new tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 23 March 2026.
An earlier hearing was held by video on 6 November 2025. At that hearing the tenant advised that they had filed an application, but at that stage it had not been linked to the landlord application. The hearing was adjourned for both applications to be considered together.
This tenancy commenced on 19 April 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 6 February 2026.
The tenant applied to reduce the fixed term tenancy.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, a break lease fee, the shortfall of rent for the new tenancy, water rates, cleaning, replacement of the garage remote, and wall damage. The landlord offered the tenant a rent abatement due to loss of amenity. Damage to premises
On 18 June 2025 there was an accident where a car smashed through the fence of the adjoining unit and into the front outdoor space of this tenancy. The accident caused damage to the second-floor deck and water storage tank of this tenancy and without a fence the outdoor space was not secure. I note that this property is located on the corner of a four lane and very busy road.
While the outdoor space was not useable and unsafe the only barrier for the tenant and her young toddler was the front door which the tenant says can be opened from the inside even when locked. The landlord said that the lock could be deadbolt locked but I could not determine from the photograph of the door lock whether this is so.
The deck which leads off the open plan kitchen and living area on the middle floor was damaged by the accident. The photographs show that the railing on one side of the deck had detached from the side of the building. The deck is not supported by two posts and instead one post has been installed as a temporary measure to stop the deck from falling. The deck is accessed from the living area by way of a ranch slider with a lock on the handle.
My assessment from the photographs produced is that the deck area and the front space of this tenancy is unsafe and should not be accessed by anyone other than contractors or others involved in assessing or carrying out repairs.
On 25 June 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord and stated, “I’m worried the deck may fall apart and damage more of the property. We also have a toddler living with us and find this to be a safety concern.”
In response the landlord stated, “As mentioned in my text, refrain from using that door until the issue has been remedied.”
There was further communication between the parties related to the insurance claim, quotes and the reasons for delay in the repairs being carried out.
On 10 August 2025 the tenant sent an email to the landlord stating, “I worry this is taking a lot longer than expected and it puts my toddler at risk. We have waited quite patiently but if at any instance our toddler gets on the deck without us realizing, this is a serious matter. Im sure you can understand our worry as an expectant mother.”
On 12 August 2025 the landlord emailed to advise that the repairs would commence on the following day and would take around 4 weeks to complete.
On 14 August 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord to advise that she had moved out of the premises the previous day. She referred to her epilepsy which she said had deteriorated and that she had had a few seizures resulting in her falling down the stairs. She also advised that she “... also had a scare when my toddler managed to open the sliding door and almost got onto the deck, which is partially broken and unsafe. This added to my concerns about staying in the property.”
That tenant moved out on 13 August 2025 and the other tenant moved out on 25 August 2025. Reduction of fixed-term tenancy
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 6 February 2026.
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.
There has been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances. The car accident which caused damage to the premises and the delay in carrying out repairs is an unforeseen change. The tenant’s deteriorating health is also an unforeseen change.
There is an obligation on the landlord to comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety 1 . This includes ensuring that structures like decks are safe and meet building code requirements. Where a deck is awaiting repair, the landlord must ensure that access to the deck is not possible. In this situation the landlord could have, and in my view, should have, installed locks up high on the inside of both the front door and the ranch slider, to ensure that the tenant and her family would remain safe while awaiting repairs. This is especially so given that the landlord was aware that a young, mobile child lived in the premises. In addition, the Body Corporate should have provided temporary fencing for the next-door property to ensure that both properties were secure.
Given the extent of the damage, the delay in carrying out the repairs and the ongoing safety risk (which would likely continue during the repair process) it was understandable that the tenant would want to vacate the tenancy. While the tenant asked to leave the tenancy, the landlord advised that the process would involve a lease assignment. As discussed at the hearing a lease assignment as provided for in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 is when a tenant transfers the tenancy with the landlord’s consent and the new tenant becomes responsible for the tenancy from the date of assignment.
It was not until 26 August 2025 that the landlord agreed to advertise for a new tenant.
The tenant would suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy were not reduced. In the email to the landlord dated 14 August 2025 the tenant referred to both the unsafe living situation and her daughter accessing the deck and her health as reasons for leaving the tenancy.
At the hearing the tenant gave evidence that she moved from the tenancy to live with her mother, but she was required to pay $400.00 per week for a unit at her mother’s property. The tenant is a solo mother on a benefit and said that she could not continue to pay rent for both properties. The other tenant did not attend the hearing, so the only evidence provided from the tenant at the hearing 1 Section 45(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 Section 43B(1) was that the other tenant flats with others and receives a student allowance to cover expenses.
The landlord would suffer hardship if the term is reduced. At the hearing the landlord said that the owners would need to pay their mortgage with the rent money. The owners have one other rental property but asked the landlord to find a new tenant as soon as possible.
I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
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.
I award compensation of $857.14 to the landlord, considering the evidence. This amount is calculated for the rent that would have been payable up to 4 September 2025, being 21 days after the 14 August 2025 email (taking account of the rent arrears awarded to 25 August 2025).
While there are grounds to end the fixed-term tenancy early that does not mean that the tenancy can end immediately. I consider it reasonable for the landlord to receive three weeks rent from the date that the tenant advised she was moving out.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

At the hearing the landlord claimed rent arrears to 29 September 2025 as that was the date when the landlord took possession to prepare the premises for the new tenancy due to start on 2 October 2025.
The Tribunal has reduced the fixed- term tenancy to 25 August 2025 and rent arrears are awarded to that date.
The landlord produced water rates invoices and evidence showing the water usage to the end of the tenancy. The amount awarded for water rates is $90.61. Break lease fee
The landlord claimed a break lease fee and submitted an invoice totalling $1,118.63.
When a tenant ends a fixed-term tenancy early and the landlord re-lets the property, the landlord can claim reasonable costs directly related to finding a new tenant. I have considered the contents of the invoice, and I accept that the costs sought are reasonable and actually incurred due to the early termination. The amount sought is awarded. Shortfall for rent
The new tenancy commenced on 2 October 2025. The new tenant is paying a reduced rent, and the landlord is claiming the shortfall from this tenant.
As mentioned above, this situation is not an assignment because an assignment means a transfer to a person of all of the rights that a tenant has under a tenancy agreement 3 .
In this situation the landlord entered into a new tenancy agreement with the new tenant with different terms including the rent payable.
At the hearing the landlord acknowledged that there was no communication with the tenant that a lower rent was being considered or was agreed to. Also, there was no evidence that the landlord acted reasonably in trying to get a reasonable rent. An example of such evidence would be that there had been limited interest in the premises or that it had been advertised for a period before the rent sought was reduced.
Due to the lack of communication and further evidence as to why a reduced rent was accepted, the landlord’s claim for the rent shortfall is dismissed. Vacated costs
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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean. I refer to the photographs produced by the landlord showing that further cleaning was required including in some kitchen cupboards, the oven, the rangehood and the shower.
The tenant acknowledged at the hearing that one of the garage remotes was damaged by her. The replacement cost for the garage remote is awarded.
The landlord produced photographs showing some wall damage at the end of the tenancy. The tenant acknowledged wall damage in the garage from the car doors. There was also wall damage in the stairwell and the bedrooms. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The amounts ordered are proved. Rent abatement 3 Section 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986
As referred to above there was damage to the premises from a car accident which resulted in the tenants not being able to use the front door, the outdoor area at the front and the second-floor deck.
The landlord has offered a rent abatement 4 for the period from 19 June 2025 to 24 August 2025 and that is included in this order. Filing fee and suppression
As both parties have had some success with their claims I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant sought name suppression and as she has had success with her claim, I make such an order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336900 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 1 Fruitvale Road, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5336900 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 1 Fruitvale Road, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions