What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344155 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 5344155?

Compensation: Breach S43B (4: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344155?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344155?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12854864-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344155 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 5344155?

Compensation: Breach S43B (4: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344155?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344155?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12854864-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5344155 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5344155 — net $328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach s43B (4	$300.00	Breach s43B (4
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$328.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$328.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5344155 — net $328.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Breach s43B (4	$300.00	Breach s43B (4
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$328.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$328.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Worx Property Management Limited As Agent For Onkar Singh must pay [The tenant/s] $328.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

The application has been filed by two vacating tenants on behalf of all tenants. The two remaining tenants did not want the tenancy to end. They wished to remain in the property until the 2 December 2025 when the fixed term ended.
The fixed term has now ended, and the tenancy has ended.
[The tenant/s] applied to the Tribunal on the 14 September 2025 seeking to be released from the tenancy. They say that they could not continue to live in the premises because of [Tenant 1]’s health, and issues with noise and privacy with the other joint tenants. They said that they had found other people to take over their tenancy, but the landlord had made no effort to contact the potential tenants which caused the applicants to miss out on assigning the tenancy to the potential tenants.
This matter was heard by me in two hearings The first hearing was on the 15 November and was by video, both [The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s] attended.
The second hearing was today, again both parties attended. I also heard from Mr Senaderra, who was the property manager between December 2024 and August 2025 and [Tenant 2] who is a joint tenant with [The tenant/s] at the property.
At the hearing on the 15 November the landlord also confirmed that they were seeking an order confirming that the landlord had breached s19(1) by failing to lodge the bond within 23 working days.
In my adjournment order of the 15 November, I identified the questions I considered the Tribunal needed to consider. As the tenancy has now ended, I have amended these to reflect the current position.
The questions that the Tribunal must answer are: a. Did the landlord breach s43B RTA by unreasonably withholding consent to potential assignees? b. Should [The tenant/s] be released from the fixed term tenancy as at 13

August 2025?

i. Have the tenants suffered an unforeseen circumstance? ii. Would they suffer hardship? iii. Is the remaining tenant’s hardship or the landlord’s hardship greater than [The tenant/s]? c. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the property? d. Did the landlord breach s19(1) RTA by failing to lodge the tenant’s bond within 23 working days? Background

In my adjournment order of the 15 November 2025 I set out the background to this matter, which is somewhat unusual and complex, I refer to the relevant portions here.
[The tenant/s] are immigrants from Sri Lanka. [Tenant 1] is studying for her master’s at a tertiary education institution. Before coming to New Zealand, [The tenant/s] contracted [The company] to assist them in relocating to New Zealand. They tell me that [The company] was contracted to help them find a place to live and organise transport etc to pick them up from the airport.
On or about the 19 December 2024 [The company] added Mr Senaderra from Worx Property Management Limited to the What’s app group chat with [The tenant/s].
Mr Senaderra was looking for tenants for several new build houses in the subdivision where this property is located. Mr Senaderra told me that he had worked with [The company] before when finding housing people who were migrating to New Zealand.
The property is a newbuilt three level townhouse. It has one bedroom, bathroom and a living area in the bottom floor, a kitchen and lounge on the middle floor and two bedrooms and a bathroom on the top level.
Mr Senaderra was also working with [The company] to find [The second tenant/s] a property in New Zealand, [The second tenant/s] were also immigrants from Sri Lanka and were looking to move to New Zealand with their two children so [Tenant 2] could attend an educational facility.
[The second tenant/s] wanted to be close to the [tertiary institute], and only wanted to pay $450 for a two-bedroom home. [Tenant 2] gave evidence that Mr Senaderra told them he only had three-bedroom homes in the area, and it was at this stage that the idea of sharing a house with someone else came up. [Tenant 2] says that she was unsure about sharing because she did not want to live with strangers but felt better when she learned that there was another couple [The tenant/s], from Sri Lanka who were interested in the downstairs bedroom.
[The tenant/s] say that they had asked for a flat share.
They understood that they would have somewhat separate living facilities. [The tenant/s] say [The company] and Mr Senaderra then sent them a listing of the tenancy property noting that they would have the ‘downstairs’.
[The tenant/s] asked to be shown the house, but Mr Senaderra was not able to show them the house (by video). They only saw a listing and they claim it was for a different address that the house that they were living in. 1
It is important to note that at this stage [The tenant/s] and [The second tenant/s] were completely unknown to each other, and they were not in the group chat together. There was also some urgency in getting accommodation sorted as [The second tenant/s] and [Tenant 1] were all coming to New Zealand in early January. 1 There is a dispute about whether this house is lot 8 or lot 11.
[The tenant/s] and [The second tenant/s] were sent a tenancy application form by the landlord on or about the 20 December 2024. The landlord accepted them and sent them all a fixed term tenancy agreement to share the same premises as joint tenants 2 through the Renti portal. The tenancy agreement was signed by all the tenants on the 23 and 24 December for a commencement date of the 3 January 2025. The tenancy was fixed until 2 December 2025 with a rental of $790 per week.
Clause 13(b) of the signed tenancy agreement states:
It is notable that despite the parties never having lived in New Zealand before that neither the landlord nor [The company] told them to seek advice on the tenancy agreement before they signed.
[The tenant/s] say that their intention was to live completely separately from the other tenants, and they understood that they could do that in this property. They thought that they would have the bottom floor, and that [The second tenant/s] would have the two top floors.
[Tenant 1] came to New Zealand in January, when she moved into the tenancy premises [The second tenant/s] and their children were already living upstairs.
Mr D came to New Zealand in March.
[The tenant/s] were surprised that they had to share kitchen facilities, and that there was no lock on their bedroom door, that would have meant that they could have privacy or secure their ‘part’ of the house.
[The tenant/s] did not make any complaints to either Mr Senaderra or [The second tenant/s], apart from one occasion when [Tenant 1] says that some visitors of [The second tenant/s]’s tried to come into her bedroom. It appears from the evidence from both [The tenant/s] and [Tenant 2], that they lived relatively harmoniously together, but did not see a lot of each other and did not establish close friendships.
In or about late April Ms D says she started suffering from insomnia and had difficulty sleeping, the problem was made worse by the [The second tenant/s]’s schedules because they would get up early with their children and there would be some noise from the kitchen which was directly above [Tenant 1]’s bedroom and from the children running around. The result of this was that [Tenant 1] says she was only able to get 3 hours sleep per night and this led to a decline in 2 It is important to note that the landlord could have prepared two separate agreements room by room tenancy agreements rather than one joint tenancy. In room by room tenancies, tenants have exclusive use of parts of the house and share other facilities. her physical and mental health. In August she visited health professionals who advised her that she should consider moving to a quieter place.
In or about July 2025 [Tenant 1] asked both the upstairs tenants and Mr Senaderra if she could be released from the tenancy on the basis of [Tenant 1]’s declining health. [The second tenant/s] said that they would agree to this provided that it went through the property manager and Mr Senaderra says that he said that he would agree in principle to [The tenant/s] leaving but that they had to find replacement tenants that were suitable. The law on fixed term tenancies
A tenancy for a fixed term is a binding legal contract and, under normal circumstances, cannot be ended by either party, or one party giving notice to the other.
In certain circumstances, the Tenancy Tribunal may make an order to reduce a fixed term tenancy; s66 RTA. If the tenancy is held jointly and is terminated under s66 RTA, then it is terminated for all tenants, not just the tenants who apply.
A landlord and tenant can agree to end a fixed term tenancy early; section 50(1)(d) RTA.
Also, a tenant has a legal right to assign a tenancy with the prior written consent of a landlord and in accordance with reasonable conditions attached to that consent by the landlord; section 43B(1) RTA.
An “assignment” of a tenancy is a transfer to a person of all the rights that a tenant has under a tenancy agreement; section 2 RTA.
A landlord is entitled to recover from a tenant any expenses reasonably incurred in respect of an assignment or early ending of the tenancy; s44A RTA. Did the landlord breach s43B RTA by unreasonably withholding consent to potential assignees?
When only some of the tenants want to leave a tenancy, then the tenants who seeking to leave usually have to assign their tenancies. This usually requires the permission of both the remaining tenants and the landlord.
The remaining tenants confirmed that they were happy with the applicants assigning the tenancy but wanted it to go through the property manager first.
[The tenant/s] provided evidence that on the 28 July 2025 they sent the landlord both by email and text the phone numbers for two sets of potential tenants that were interested in taking over the tenancy. They made it clear in that communication that each of the tenants only had a short window, where they would be interested in the property. Mr Senaderra confirms that he got those messages, and he says that he called the potential tenants and that they did not return his calls. He provided no records which supported this submission.
Mr Senaderra also says that he told [The tenant/s] on the phone that all potential tenants had to ‘apply’. When I asked how potential tenants would apply, he told me that they would need to apply for another tenancy listed in Trade Me and then go through the Renti portal. [The tenant/s] say that Mr Senaderra never told them that.
I prefer the evidence of [The tenant/s], they provided evidence in the form of text messages from both sets of potential tenants that showed that two days after Mr Senaderra was given their details he had still not contacted them.
Section 43B (4) RTA provides that if a tenant makes a written request for the landlord’s consent to an assignment and the request identifies, and includes contact details for, the proposed assignee, the landlord must respond in writing to the request within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord did respond to the tenant’s email of the 28 July but questioned [The tenant/s]’s reasons for wanting to leave the tenancy. There was no written response to the tenant’s request to assign the tenancy saying if the landlord would agree to the potential assignees of not.
I am satisfied that the landlord committed a breach of s43B(4) RTA by not contacting the potential assignees within a reasonable time . I am satisfied that the failure of the landlord to contact the potential tenants meant that assignees found other tenancies and [The tenant/s] missed their opportunity to have the tenancy assigned to either of these two parties
I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to consent to the assignment or had unreasonable conditions. I say that because the correspondence that the tenant showed me showed that the landlord was trying to understand what exactly had gone wrong between [The tenant/s] and [The second tenant/s] and had to consider that this was a situation where not all of the tenants wanted to leave. I consider it entirely reasonable for the landlord to put a condition on the assignment that the remaining tenants had to agree to any new tenants.
I also do not consider it likely that the landlord told the applicants he had not approved the Indian tenants on the basis of race, because the text exchange about that between the [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] is dated 11 July some 17 days before the tenant asked the landlord in writing and 14 days before [The tenant/s] say that they spoke to Mr Senaderra (recorded in the email of 28 July as having occurred on the 25 July, where Mr Senaderra agreed in principle to the transfer.) for consent for the Indian couple to move in. Should [The tenant/s] be released from the Fixed Term tenancy as at 13

August 2025?

Was the tenant’s situation unforeseen?

The tenants have applied for a reduction of the fixed term tenancy. If the Tribunal reduces a joint and several tenancies on application by a tenant, then it terminates the whole tenancy, not just the tenant’s interest.
[The second tenant/s] are joint tenants with [The tenant/s].
In [The tenant/s]’s application to the Tribunal they say:
I do not consider that the tenants Mr and Mrs D suffered an unforeseen circumstance. In the letters to the landlord of the 28 and 29 July seeking release from the tenancy [The tenant/s] say:
I consider that disputes between tenants about noise and privacy to be usual and foreseeable. I consider it a likely consequence of two families who do not know each other living together.
I do not doubt that the tenant suffered from the conditions that she says she has, but in the evidence it is clear that the tenant had other external stresses such as academic pressure.
The tenant did not seek help from a health practitioner about her sleep until the 7 August, over a week after seeking to be released from the tenancy. The health practitioners’ notes record that the tenant’s insomnia is as a result of both noise, not being able to turn off and academic pressure. It also notes as the tenant reporting she has only had it for one month- not back to April as the tenant told me. It is also noted that the tenant had not yet taken medication to assist with her sleep until then.
The Tribunal has been asked to reduce fixed term tenancies before on the grounds that the tenants are in dispute with each other and the Tribunal does not usually see such disputes as unforeseen.
I understand that the tenants may not see it that way, they may say we did not know what the effect of entering into this tenancy with each other as co-tenants was, but that is the contract that they have signed.
Given that I am not satisfied that this was an unforeseen circumstance, then the tenants are not entitled to a reduction of the fixed term tenancy. I do not need to consider the other questions of each parties’ hardship.

Was there breaches of privacy or quiet enjoyment?

[The tenant/s] say that [The second tenant/s] beached their privacy and quiet enjoyment by allowing other people into their room in April. The Tribunal can only determine issues between landlord and tenant not between tenants and therefore I cannot make any determination on this claim.
The tenants also claim that the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment by asking [The second tenant/s] to check [The tenant/s]’s rooms on the 11 August, the tenants says that although they had moved out at that time, they still had their furniture in the room. They say the landlord instructing the other tenants to look inside the room was a breach of their privacy.
I disagree. [The second tenant/s] and the landlord were not sure if [The tenant/s] had left the property, they wanted to check the property to see if they were still there and to ensure that the property was secure and that there were no leaks – from taps being left on etc. As [The second tenant/s] were joint tenants with [The tenant/s] then they were able to enter the room to check, if [The tenant/s] were still there and to check for leaks.
The tenant’s claim that the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment is dismissed. Remedy
I have found that the landlord breached s43B(4) RTA by not contacting the potential assignees.
The applicants did not seek exemplary damages for this breach in their tenancy application.
I therefore consider that it is best if I deal with this by way of compensation.
Compensation restores a party to the position that they would have been in had the breach not occurred.
The applicants submit that the position that they would have been in, is that one of the two sets of potential tenants would have been assigned the tenancy and they would have been able to move out.
The landlord submits that there is no guarantee that the potential tenants would have been accepted.
We will never know if the proposed tenants would have been suitable because I am satisfied that it is likely Mr Senaderra never contacted them. The purpose of s43B(4) RTA is to ensure that when a tenant requests that an assignment take place that landlords act quickly to contact the potential tenants.
An award of damages is appropriate; it recognises that the landlord has committed a breach and has an obligation to contact potential tenants. In making this award I have considered an award of $300 for this breach to be appropriate. In coming to this amount, I have been mindful of the maximum award for exemplary damages for this breach is $1500.00.
I note that Mr and Mrs D left the property in August and have continued to pay the rent at $250.00 per week. Their share of the rent is disputed by both the landlord and [The second tenant/s], but the tenancy is joint and several and this means that all the tenants are liable for the total of the rent.
After the emails of the 28/ 29 July the tenant did not ask the landlord to seek other tenants or for further permission to assign the tenancy. [The tenant/s] moved their furniture out in September.
[The second tenant/s] moved out at the end of the fixed term on the 2 December 2025.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the applicants paid the bond on or about the 7 January. The landlord did not lodge the bond until the 28 April 2025 this is more than 23 working days after payment, and it should have been lodged before this time. The landlord was unable to tell me any explanation as to why it had not been paid before the 28 April 2025.
The tenant did not seek exemplary damages for this breach in their application. Name suppression.
Both parties have sought name suppression. The tenants have been somewhat successful in their application, and I grant all the tenants name suppression.
I do not grant name suppression to the landlord because I have made two adverse findings against them, and I consider it to be in the public interest to know the names of landlords who do breach s19(1) RTA. Filing fee.
I consider that the tenant has been successful in this application, despite not have having her tenancy term reduced, because they have been successful in proving two claims. I award her the filling fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344155 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344155 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

August 2025?

August 2025?

Was there breaches of privacy or quiet enjoyment?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

August 2025?

August 2025?

Was there breaches of privacy or quiet enjoyment?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions