What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343888 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 5343888?

Costs To Terminate Fixed Term Contra…: $29.10 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343888?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13260988-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343888 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 5343888?

Costs To Terminate Fixed Term Contra…: $29.10 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343888?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343888?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13260988-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343888 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343888 — net $57.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Costs to terminate fixed term contract early	$29.10	Costs to terminate fixed term contract early
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$57.10
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$57.10

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343888 — net $57.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Costs to terminate fixed term contract early	$29.10	Costs to terminate fixed term contract early
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$57.10
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$57.10

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and the Tenants’ names and the address of the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $57.10 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The tenants’ application is dismissed as is the remainder of the landlord’s claim.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video.
The Tribunal was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter. Background
On 3 August 2025 the tenants attended a viewing of the tenancy premises. They viewed the premises a second time on 5 August and signed a fixed term tenancy agreement on the same day. Under the tenancy agreement the tenancy started on 16 August 2025 and was due to end on 15 August 2026.
On 7 August 2025 the tenants contacted the property manager wanting to cancel the tenancy agreement. Several communications by phone and text occurred that day and the days that followed. The parties do not agree on what was said during the phone conversations and on what was agreed to. The claims
Both parties have filed a claim. The landlord claims the costs to end the fixed term early totalling $811.09.
The tenants seek for the Tribunal to reduce the term of the tenancy, and claim exemplary damages on the grounds that a) the premises was not in a reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy and b) the agent’s statements that the ‘property had no issues’ was a misrepresentation.
The applicant/s under each claim are required to establish the claim, or put another way, must prove their claim. An applicant is required to establish their claim on the balance of probabilities. That means they must show that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Where an applicant does not provide sufficient evidence and reasoning to establish their claim on the balance of probability the claim needs to be dismissed.
To determine the parties’ claims the following issues need to be considered: a) Should the Tribunal reduce the fixed term tenancy? b) If not, is the landlord entitled to the costs claimed to end the fixed term early? c) Are the tenants entitled to exemplary damages as claimed?

Should the Tribunal reduce the fixed term tenancy?

The usual legal position with a fixed term tenancy contract is that the term of the contract is strictly applied. A fixed term tenancy can only be broken by agreement between the parties or by an order from the Tribunal. It is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with a fixed term lease contract.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy under s 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular the applicant will need to establish: a. there has been a change in their circumstances; and b. the change was unforeseen; and c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and d. the severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
"Unforeseen" is not defined in the Act and has a meaning in accordance with its dictionary definition. The term “unforeseen” has a dictionary definition of “unexpected” and “without warning”. In a legal context, it must also be taken as the reverse of what is “foreseen”; that is: “not liable to result”, “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk” 1 .
The Tribunal has previously terminated tenancies for unforeseen circumstances, including on the death of one of the tenants or their immediate family; a tenant having to relocate for cancer treatment; a tenant’s parent becoming terminally unwell requiring the tenant to move to look after the family member. It is clear from the pattern of these cases that they arise from circumstances that are beyond the control of the tenants. There are unfortunate circumstances that have happened to the tenants not of their own making.
The tenants state in their application that the reason they want the fixed term reduced is that “the property is not in reasonable condition”. They believe the premises has moisture issues as when they viewed the premises on 5 August the bedroom carpet smelled damp and mouldy, and was wet. The tenants said the wet carpet caused [Tenant 1] socks to get wet and turn yellow. Overall they said the property was not suitable for tenants.
The landlord says the tenants were offered the property after seeing it on 3 August and had asked for the carpet is be cleaned. The carpet was cleaned before the second viewing on 5 August, however the carpet had not dried by the time the tenants went through the premises.
I find that the damp carpet, as a result of a clean requested by the tenants, does not meet the threshold required by section 66. It is not an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances.
It is totally acceptable that the carpet would still be wet after it was cleaned. I note that the tenants have not provided any evidence that the carpet caused the tenant’s socks to turn yellow. As I commented at the hearing, if they turned yellow I would need to rule out that this was not caused by the damp socks reacting to the inside of the tenant’s shoes. The tenants provided no other evidence supporting that the premises were damp, mouldy or unfit in any way to house tenants. 1 Bond v Tang, Invercargill TT, 09/00583/IN, 25 August 2009
In any event the tenants signed the tenancy agreement, outside of the premises, immediately after viewing the property on 5 August. If the tenants were so concerned about the damp carpet or any other aspect of the tenancy it is inconceivable that they would sign the tenancy.
In my view the tenant’s email to the landlord on 7 August gives the real reason the tenants wanted to cancel the tenancy agreement. It states that after sharing the details and conditions of the property with one of the tenant’s parents, they raised strong concerns about the condition and age of the property. As a result the tenants said they were under significant family pressure and felt unable to proceed with the tenancy. Given that the tenants also stated in the email that the parents are very involved in their living arrangements I do not see that this amounts to unforeseen pressure either. Regardless the tenants did not raise this as grounds for the fixed term to be reduced.
As the tenants have failed to make out the first element of s 66, being that there was an unforeseen change in their circumstances, their application to reduce the fixed term fails and the application is dismissed.
In any event the landlord agreed to releasing the tenants from the tenancy as set out below.

Is the landlord entitled to the costs claimed to end the fixed term early?

After considering all of the evidence presented by both parties, I find the emails between the parties establish that the landlord agreed on 8 August to release the tenants on the condition that the tenants paid $811.09 for credit check and background checking costs ($25.30+gst) and a re-assignment fee and agent fee ($680+gst).
I am satisfied the tenants agreed to this condition in the email replying: Thanks for reaching out to me. Please terminate the tenancy agreement immediately.
The tenants have refused to pay any costs to the landlord as [Tenant 1] says his reply did not specifically state that he agreed to pay the costs outlined, but only that he agreed to the tenancy being terminated immediately.
I fail to see that the tenant’s reply can be anything other than any agreement to pay the costs set out by the landlord. That is the condition the landlord has agreed to end the tenancy on.
However I am also mindful that the agreement includes payment of a re- assignment fee. The RTA was amended effective from 11 February 2021 2 , to enable a landlord who consents to a tenant assigning, subletting or otherwise 2 See section 44A, RTA parting with the possession of the premises to recover any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord. This amendment saw the end of the landlord’s ability to charge a fee such as the re-assignment fee, of one week’s rent plus gst, that the landlord has charged in this instance.
While the parties agreed on this payment, section 11(1) RTA provides that any agreement between a landlord and a tenant that is inconsistent with the provisions of the RTA is of no effect unless the inconsistency is expressly permitted by the RTA or the Tribunal finds it should be permitted. Section 11 goes on to state that a landlord is able to voluntarily waive any or all rights they have, or to voluntarily incur more extensive obligations they have as a landlord under the RTA 3 , but that any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred by tenants is of no effect 4 .
The agreement that the tenants pay one week’s rent plus gst is inconsistent with s 44A as it is not a reasonable expenses that was incurred under s44A. That is, only the expenses reasonably incurred as a result of the agreement to part with possession can be incurred. Therefore that part of the agreement is of no effect.
I understand the landlord was able to re-let the premises to someone who had also viewed the premises on 3 August. The credit check and background check costs of $29.10 is awarded.

Are the tenants entitled to exemplary damages as claimed?

The RTA sets out wide ranging obligations on tenants and landlords. Parliament has determined that some of those obligations are so important, that if the obligation is breached, then the Tribunal can order exemplary damages be paid by the wrongdoing landlord or tenant. The RTA confirms that certain breaches are deemed to be “unlawful acts”, and if such a breach applies, then the Tribunal can consider whether exemplary damages can be ordered under section 109, which relates to unlawful acts. The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct. 3 See 11(2) 4 See 11(3)
The tenants’ claim the landlord breached s 45 as it did not provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair as the premises was damp and mouldy and the carpet in the bedroom was wet.
As I have set out above, the tenants did not provide any evidence in support of this allegation. As a breach of s 45 has not been established the claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The tenant’s claim under s 13A is also founded on the carpet being wet when the tenant walked on it. The tenants believed the tenancy agreement should have contained a statement about that. In doing so I understand they are relying on the subsections in s13A relating to complying with healthy homes standards.
I find the landlord has not breached s 13A for the same reasons given for dismissing the claim for reducing the term of the tenancy and for exemplary damages for section 45. Therefore this claim is also dismissed. Conclusion
The tenants’ application is dismissed in its entirety.
The landlord’s claim for the re-assignment fee is dismissed as it does not fall within the costs able to be awarded under s 44A. As a consequence the tenants are liable only for the credit and background check costs.
As the landlord has been successful in part of its claim I award reimbursement of the filing fee for the landlord.
On its own initiative the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and the tenants’ names and the address of the premises. In doing so I have had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest and do not consider there is any public interest in having the names of the parties published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343888 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343888 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal reduce the fixed term tenancy?

Is the landlord entitled to the costs claimed to end the fixed term early?

Are the tenants entitled to exemplary damages as claimed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal reduce the fixed term tenancy?

Is the landlord entitled to the costs claimed to end the fixed term early?

Are the tenants entitled to exemplary damages as claimed?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions