What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344158 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal makes suppression orders in favour of the tenants.

How much money was awarded in case 5344158?

Break Lease Fee: $1,046.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,260.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344158?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344158?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12631474-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344158 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal makes suppression orders in favour of the tenants.

How much money was awarded in case 5344158?

Break Lease Fee: $1,046.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,260.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344158?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344158?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12631474-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

18A Hamon Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5344158 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5344158 — net $5,381.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29/10/25	$4,260.00	Rent arrears to 29/10/25
Break lease fee	$1,046.50	Break lease fee
Gas bottle charges Compensation Exemplary damages breach s45 Reimbursement filing fee	$75.00	Gas bottle charges Compensation Exemplary damages breach s45 Reimbursement filing fee
Net award	$5,381.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,381.50

The Tribunal makes suppression orders in favour of the tenants.

[The tenant/s] must pay Pro Management (Auckland) Limited $5,381.50 from the bond in accordance with the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,853.50 ([Bond number suppressed]) as follows: $2,853.50 to Pro Management (Auckland) Limited. $1,146.50 to [The tenant/s]

Reasons

This order has been amended only so far as the calculations that were incorrect on the initial order issued yesterday. I apologise for any inconvenience caused. 1 This order records the correct amounts owing by both parties as confirmed at the hearing.

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Shi represented the landlord.

The parties had a fixed term tenancy which commenced in February this year for 12 months. In June the tenants wished to leave early, and agreement was reached that they could when replacement tenants were secured. This did not however occur for four and a half months.

The tenants seek relief from the Tribunal now on the following grounds: a. That the landlord did not make all reasonable efforts to secure replacement tenants thereby breaching their side of the agreement to end the fixed term tenancy early. b. That the landlord did not comply with their maintenance obligations.

The parties agree that the tenants still owe the landlord $5,231.50 in rent arrears, break lease costs and gas charges. They agree that any amounts found owing by the landlord in these proceedings can be deducted from this amount and the bond can be released.

I discuss both claims below bearing in mind the burden of proof which lies with the tenants as applicants, and is the balance of probabilities, or stated another way, what is more likely than not. Did the landlord take all reasonable steps to advertise the property and secure replacement tenants?

On 12 June the tenants asked their then property manager Alice Yang, if they could leave the fixed term tenancy early. She agreed that they could, provided they paid break lease costs and rent until a replacement tenancy was secured. In exchange, the landlord would advertise for replacement tenants. This was agreed however the tenants then heard nothing more from Ms Yang.

Three weeks later [Tenant 1] called Ms Yang to discuss the advertising of the property. She agreed it needed to happen. The tenants subsequently followed up by email several times as nothing appeared to be happening. 1 The addition had been incorrect. The calculations noted in [Tenant 2]’s email of 29 September 2025 were confirmed at the hearing by all parties as the agreed amount owing and accordingly those calculations have been recorded here, taking into account the $3000 paid since the agreement.

Between when agreement was reached on 12 June and the replacement property manager Mr Shi was appointed on 5 September, Ms Yang arranged two viewings. She did not attend either viewing but sent her friend who was not competent in English and used a translator app to conduct them. The tenants were present at that first viewing and Ms Yang’s friend asked them to facilitate it as she was not fully appraised of the property nor confident in English.

The tenants consider that Ms Yang was not actively advertising the property or taking proper steps in good faith to re-tenant the property. They sent several emails of complaint and Ms Yang’s manager Johnson told them several times that she was not in the region.

Mr Shi was appointed on 5 September and facilitated 1 to 2 viewings each week thereafter. When he wasn’t able to secure a replacement tenancy within a few weeks, the parties agreed to reduce the rental price, a step they again took a fortnight later. He subsequently obtained replacement tenants, and the tenancy was ended by agreement on 29 October.

Mr Shi says he is not aware of when the property was advertised by Ms Yang or what steps she took to obtain replacement tenants. He does say that the market is slow at the moment for landlords, and it is hard to tenant properties, especially in this price bracket. It was that this reason that they had to reduce the rent twice and it was not until the second reduction that real interest was generated. The law and discussion

Parties enter into a fixed term tenancy for security. For tenants this is security of tenure; they can be sure they have a home for at least the agreed term. For landlords it is security of income; they can rely on a set amount of income from their investment.

If a tenant defaults on that contract, and the landlord accepts the repudiation, then the tenancy ends on the terms agreed. In such a situation of surrender the landlord does not have to agree and can stipulate terms provided they are reasonable. A usual such term is that the landlord will advertise for and choose replacement tenants.

I consider that it is an implied term of such an agreement that the landlord would make reasonable efforts to obtain a replacement tenancy. This means advertising within a reasonable timeframe and on usual platforms. I also consider it means diligent efforts to facilitate viewings and an obligation to keep tenants up to date with progress.

Mr Shi does not have any information about what steps Ms Yang took over this period. Clearly an advertisement was placed on trade me and the company’s website however I consider that two viewings over a three-month period is minimal. Sending a person to facilitate those viewings who does not have a good grasp on English and is not familiar with the property is also not what a reasonable person would consider a diligent effort.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that Ms Yang, representing the landlord, did not take all reasonable steps to readvertise and tenant the property. I accept that the market is flat, and was particularly so during winter, and the rent had to be subsequently reduced to obtain a replacement tenancy, however those steps could also have been taken earlier. Mr Shi was proactive and secured a replacement tenancy within a month of his appointment.

On the evidence I am satisfied that had the property been diligently advertised it may well have been tenanted earlier. This means that the tenants, who had all vacated the property by mid-September, have likely paid rent for a longer period than they would have otherwise.

Accordingly, I accept that due to Ms Yang not completing her agreed obligations, the tenants are financially worse off. They are therefore entitled to compensation.

It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages generally that, so far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of an agreement.

Here the exact loss to the tenants cannot be quantified. The market was undoubtably slow at the relevant time. Having assessed all of the above, I consider that an award of $1,000 compensation is reasonable. This equates to one week’s rental. This is less than the tenants sought however I consider it just 2 in the circumstances. If a party wishes to leave a fixed term tenancy early, they would be wise not to enter into a replacement tenancy until they have a clear end date for their current tenancy.

Did the landlord breach their maintenance obligations?

The tenants say that the landlord has failed in their maintenance obligations. The evidence is that in March they advised Ms Yang of the shower wall bowing inwards and that it was never investigated by the landlord.

Then on 23 June they sent Ms Yang an email detailing maintenance concerns that they had previously raised with her. The concerns were: a. The front gate falling over into the driveway. b. Three light fittings were hanging from the ceiling. c. There was an apparent roof leak behind the chimney. 2 See section 85 of the RTA d. The kitchen sink tap leaked while in use. e. A large broken umbrella was strewn in the garden that required disposal. f. There were potential moth plants growing in the garden.

They say that whilst Ms Yang acknowledged the concerns, no action was undertaken other than her looking at several of them.

Then on 16 July the gas hob ignition became stuck in the ignition state. This meant that the hob element sparked rapidly when in use and when not in use. This was a safety concern for the tenants as they were not sure whether it was safe to use. They had to turn the isolator off at the wall in between uses to ensure a fire did not occur.

Despite the safety concerns this raised, it was not investigated at any stage during the remainder of the tenancy.

Mr Shi says that when he was appointed, he was not told of any of the maintenance concerns by Ms Yang and the tenants had to explain them to him. He was primarily focused on securing a replacement tenancy as the tenants had all moved out. He did raise the concerns with the owner but is unsure whether any action has been taken. The law and discussion

Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under section 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be.

Section 45 of the RTA does not impose absolute liability on a landlord, and the courts and Tribunal have adopted a “common sense” approach when assessing a landlord’s responsibility for maintenance issues. Bearing on this approach is how any issue affects a tenant but also that the landlord, as owner of the property, is entitled to choose their own tradespeople, provided they are of a professional standard.

It is accepted that none of the raised maintenance concerns have been repaired by the landlord. Some investigation may have occurred so far as the property manager observing the issue, but there is no evidence of any attempts to remediate. The most serious of these issues are the hob and the gate. Given the fault with the hob relates to the ignition, it may well present a safety risk for the tenants. Further, the gates had fallen over the driveway and as such impeded use of the driveway until the tenants tied it up.

The other raised matters were not urgent but did require investigation. The umbrella is large and unwieldy and had been on the premise from the tenancy commencement. As it was the landlord’s, it should have been moved, especially after it was broken in bad weather. The tap leak was not insignificant.

Having carefully assessed the evidence provided I am satisfied that the landlord has breached their obligation under section 45 to investigate and repair where necessary issues of maintenance within a reasonable period. This is an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.

The landlord is a property management company and therefore is deemed to be aware of their legal obligations. The tenants have established in evidence that they made the landlord aware of these concerns by notifying Ms Yang by email and text.

I consider it just that an award of exemplary damages be made in these circumstances. The tenants were attempting to ensure the property was functioning well and therefore would be attractive to prospective tenants. They were meeting their obligation in notifying the landlord of required repairs and yet the landlord was not sufficiently responding nor investigating their concerns.

This was a frustration and inconvenience to the tenants. They had to take their own steps to secure the gate away from the driveway and use the gas hob in a safe way. They had to mop up the water leaks from the tap and move the umbrella.

I accept Mr Shi’s submission that when he was employed, the primary focus was on replacing the tenants, and safety concerns were mitigated due to the fact that the tenants had moved or were moving out. The period of concern is really the time between when Ms Yang was notified in March, June and July, and when Mr Shi was appointed in September. This is an unreasonable, although not excessive, length of time.

I accept the tenants’ submission that prospective tenants viewing a house that had a gate tied up with a cable tie, a broken umbrella in the garden, a leaking tap and hanging light fittings may well not consider the home favourably. These unattended maintenance issues therefore may have elongated the re-letting process.

Having assessed all the evidence very carefully I am satisfied that an award of $1,500 in exemplary damages is just the circumstances.

As the tenants were successful in their claims, I must award reimbursement of the filing fee and approve their application for suppression orders.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5344158 — net $5,381.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 29/10/25	$4,260.00	Rent arrears to 29/10/25
Break lease fee	$1,046.50	Break lease fee
Gas bottle charges Compensation Exemplary damages breach s45 Reimbursement filing fee	$75.00	Gas bottle charges Compensation Exemplary damages breach s45 Reimbursement filing fee
Net award	$5,381.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,381.50

The Tribunal makes suppression orders in favour of the tenants.

[The tenant/s] must pay Pro Management (Auckland) Limited $5,381.50 from the bond in accordance with the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,853.50 ([Bond number suppressed]) as follows: $2,853.50 to Pro Management (Auckland) Limited. $1,146.50 to [The tenant/s]

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Shi represented the landlord.

Accordingly, I accept that due to Ms Yang not completing her agreed obligations, the tenants are financially worse off. They are therefore entitled to compensation.

Did the landlord breach their maintenance obligations?

They say that whilst Ms Yang acknowledged the concerns, no action was undertaken other than her looking at several of them.

Despite the safety concerns this raised, it was not investigated at any stage during the remainder of the tenancy.

Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Having assessed all the evidence very carefully I am satisfied that an award of $1,500 in exemplary damages is just the circumstances.

As the tenants were successful in their claims, I must award reimbursement of the filing fee and approve their application for suppression orders.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344158 — Rent arrears at 18A Hamon Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344158 — Rent arrears at 18A Hamon Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their maintenance obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord breach their maintenance obligations?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions