What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5353161 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 5353161?

Advertising Fees: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,740.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5353161?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5353161?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12823442-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5353161 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 5353161?

Advertising Fees: $199.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $1,740.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5353161?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5353161?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12823442-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5353161 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5353161 — net $1,939.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for loss of rent	$1,740.00	Compensation for loss of rent
Advertising fees	$199.00	Advertising fees
Net award	$1,939.00
Bond	$2,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,939.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of landlords’ and tenants’ name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,939.00 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,939.00 [The tenant/s]: $361.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end in April 2026. Background
The fixed term tenancy began on 21 April 2025 and was due to end on 21 April 2026.
In around August 2025 the tenants advised the landlord that they needed to move out of the property, and in response were told by the landlord that they needed to find replacement tenants due to the fixed term nature of the tenancy. Evidence has been provided from the tenants on the personal reasons they needed to leave the tenancy, but it is not necessary to detail these in this order.
The tenants endeavoured to find a replacement tenant, however, were unsuccessful. They say this was mostly due to the unreasonably high standards the landlords placed on any potential tenants which the landlords’ dispute. Evidence on this process was provided.
Despite no replacement tenants being found, the tenants moved out of the property on 8 October 2025.
The landlords advise that they eventually did find a new tenant, with the new tenancy commencing on 10 November 2025.
The tenants say that due to significant hardship, the tenancy should be terminated on 8 October 2025 and accordingly they should receive their bond back in full. They also seek additional compensation for stress and anxiety.
The landlords say that the tenants are liable for rent until the new tenancy commenced, and they also seek the advertising costs of $199.00 associated with reletting the property. The law
The tenants’ application was originally for a reduction in the fixed term tenancy. The usual legal position with fixed term contracts, is that the term of the contract will be strictly applied, and it will only be in limited circumstances that a decision maker like the Tribunal would interfere with that term.
In the case the residential tenancies, one of these circumstances is found in section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancies. There is a high threshold, and the applicant would usually have to establish that there had been an unforeseen change in their circumstances, and that unforeseen change would result in severe hardship if the tenancy were not ended; and that hardship exceeds the other party’s hardship.
However, here the landlord did consent to the tenants ending the tenancy early (conditional on a suitable replacement tenant being found), and it has since been re-tenanted. Accordingly, it is not necessary for me to undertake the exercise of unforeseen change and comparative hardship required by section 66 of the RTA.
The main point for consideration is instead the recovery of expenses being sought by the landlord.
I note that even if I had ordered that the fixed term tenancy end on 8 October 2025 (as sought by the tenants), I would also have considered the reasonable recovery of landlord expenses in doing so. 1
Section 44A of the RTA provides that where a landlord consents to a termination of a tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d), 2 it is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination.
I consider it appropriate that the tenants pay towards the landlords’ reasonable losses in the tenancy ending early.
In my view, it is reasonable for the tenants to pay a further three weeks rent. It is usual for tenancies not to be continuous and sometime between these tenancies, for maintenance and other works is practicable.
Accordingly, the tenant is to pay the landlord three weeks rent from the bond, amounting to $1,740.00.
I also consider it reasonable that the tenants pay for the landlords’ advertising costs of $199.00.
Although I appreciate and sympathise with the tenants’ difficult circumstances, these losses were only incurred by the landlord because of the tenants needing to end the fixed term tenancy early.
A landlord is not obligated to agree to end a fixed term tenancy, nor is there any obligation on a landlord to accept any replacement tenant.
I have no doubt that the process caused significant stress and anxiety for the tenants, however, I do not consider that it was directly caused by any unreasonableness by the landlord and this claim is dismissed. 1 See section 66(2) of the RTA. 2 Section 50(1)(d) of the RTA refers to where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s consent. Other issues
At the hearing the tenants raised issues around seeking exemplary damages for a failure to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair and a failure to lodge a small portion of the bond.
However, no application was made in respect of these, they were only raised at the hearing.
I therefore have not considered these claims further. I note that the tenants are not prevented from filing a further claim in respect of these issues should they wish.
Both parties sought name suppression. In the circumstances, I consider that in having regard to the interests of the parties it is appropriate to order that both names are suppressed. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 04 December 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5353161 — net $1,939.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for loss of rent	$1,740.00	Compensation for loss of rent
Advertising fees	$199.00	Advertising fees
Net award	$1,939.00
Bond	$2,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,939.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of landlords’ and tenants’ name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,939.00 from the bond, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,939.00 [The tenant/s]: $361.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end in April 2026. Background
The fixed term tenancy began on 21 April 2025 and was due to end on 21 April 2026.
In around August 2025 the tenants advised the landlord that they needed to move out of the property, and in response were told by the landlord that they needed to find replacement tenants due to the fixed term nature of the tenancy. Evidence has been provided from the tenants on the personal reasons they needed to leave the tenancy, but it is not necessary to detail these in this order.
The tenants endeavoured to find a replacement tenant, however, were unsuccessful. They say this was mostly due to the unreasonably high standards the landlords placed on any potential tenants which the landlords’ dispute. Evidence on this process was provided.
Despite no replacement tenants being found, the tenants moved out of the property on 8 October 2025.
The landlords advise that they eventually did find a new tenant, with the new tenancy commencing on 10 November 2025.
The tenants say that due to significant hardship, the tenancy should be terminated on 8 October 2025 and accordingly they should receive their bond back in full. They also seek additional compensation for stress and anxiety.
The landlords say that the tenants are liable for rent until the new tenancy commenced, and they also seek the advertising costs of $199.00 associated with reletting the property. The law
The tenants’ application was originally for a reduction in the fixed term tenancy. The usual legal position with fixed term contracts, is that the term of the contract will be strictly applied, and it will only be in limited circumstances that a decision maker like the Tribunal would interfere with that term.
In the case the residential tenancies, one of these circumstances is found in section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancies. There is a high threshold, and the applicant would usually have to establish that there had been an unforeseen change in their circumstances, and that unforeseen change would result in severe hardship if the tenancy were not ended; and that hardship exceeds the other party’s hardship.
However, here the landlord did consent to the tenants ending the tenancy early (conditional on a suitable replacement tenant being found), and it has since been re-tenanted. Accordingly, it is not necessary for me to undertake the exercise of unforeseen change and comparative hardship required by section 66 of the RTA.
The main point for consideration is instead the recovery of expenses being sought by the landlord.
I note that even if I had ordered that the fixed term tenancy end on 8 October 2025 (as sought by the tenants), I would also have considered the reasonable recovery of landlord expenses in doing so. 1
Section 44A of the RTA provides that where a landlord consents to a termination of a tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d), 2 it is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination.
I consider it appropriate that the tenants pay towards the landlords’ reasonable losses in the tenancy ending early.
In my view, it is reasonable for the tenants to pay a further three weeks rent. It is usual for tenancies not to be continuous and sometime between these tenancies, for maintenance and other works is practicable.
Accordingly, the tenant is to pay the landlord three weeks rent from the bond, amounting to $1,740.00.
I also consider it reasonable that the tenants pay for the landlords’ advertising costs of $199.00.
Although I appreciate and sympathise with the tenants’ difficult circumstances, these losses were only incurred by the landlord because of the tenants needing to end the fixed term tenancy early.
A landlord is not obligated to agree to end a fixed term tenancy, nor is there any obligation on a landlord to accept any replacement tenant.
I have no doubt that the process caused significant stress and anxiety for the tenants, however, I do not consider that it was directly caused by any unreasonableness by the landlord and this claim is dismissed. 1 See section 66(2) of the RTA. 2 Section 50(1)(d) of the RTA refers to where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s consent. Other issues
At the hearing the tenants raised issues around seeking exemplary damages for a failure to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair and a failure to lodge a small portion of the bond.
However, no application was made in respect of these, they were only raised at the hearing.
I therefore have not considered these claims further. I note that the tenants are not prevented from filing a further claim in respect of these issues should they wish.
Both parties sought name suppression. In the circumstances, I consider that in having regard to the interests of the parties it is appropriate to order that both names are suppressed. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 04 December 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5353161 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5353161 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions