What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5362067 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 5362067?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362067?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362067?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13170348-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5362067 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 5362067?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362067?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362067?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13170348-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5362067 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Tribunal declares that [Ms E] lawfully withdrew from the tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] on 10 October 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) as follows: a. $1,180.00 from the bond to [Ms E] immediately b. $1,180.00 to Trust Property Group Limited immediately.
Trust Property Group Limited must pay [Ms E] $1,084.29 immediately as outlined in the table below.
[Mr F] must pay Trust Property Group Limited $84.32 immediately as outlined in the table below. Description – [Ms E]LandlordTenant Rent overpayment (9 and 10 October 2025 as agreed at 50% per tenant) $84.29 General damages to [Ms E] only $1,000.00 Total award Trust Property Group Limited to [Ms E] $1,084.29 Description – [Mr F]LandlordTenant Rent overpayment (9 and 10 October 2025 as agreed at 50% per tenant) Total award to [Mr F] $84.29 $84.29 Rent due for two weeks at half rate 11 to 24 October 2025 ([Mr F] only) Rent due at full rate 25 October to 2 November 2025, 9 days at $84.29 per day (Mr Ford only)
00
61 Total award to Trust Property Group Limited Less bond 50% share of [Mr F] (to landlord) Net award [Mr F] to Trust Property Group Limited $1,348.61 $1,180.00
32

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
[Ms E] attended on behalf of the tenants and Mr Plummer attended on behalf of the landlord.
Although the landlord has modified the cross application to claim monies solely from [Mr F], [Ms E] confirmed that [Mr F] was aware of the landlord claim and that she had authority to act on his behalf at this hearing.
The tenant claims refund of the bond, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord claims rent arrears from [Mr F] alone and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background
The tenancy began on 5 May 2025. In August that year the tenant advised the landlord that they would like to pursue a break lease as work obligations now required one tenant to spend considerable time commuting to work each day.
The landlord gave evidence that it had approached the owners and after some persuasion by the property manager (landlord) the owners had agreed to break the lease.
The owner’s reluctance stemmed from concern about loss of income and the landlord had assured the owner that the tenants would be liable for rent until a new tenant was found and for all of the costs associated with that process.
The landlord communicated the owner’s consent, details of the break lease process and the costs associated with that to the tenants within an hour of the initial inquiry.
The tenant accepted the requirements and costs and asked the landlord to initiate the process.
In email correspondence on 12 August, the tenant indicated that they would be looking at more suitable properties to take over within a short time frame. The landlord advised the tenant, in two separate emails, that they should not sign up to a new property as the break lease process could take some time and they would then be liable for rent on two properties.
The tenant paid the break lease initial invoice on 13 August and started the process.
Later the tenant advised (on 29 August 2025) that they had signed up to a new property. The tenant said they would use the “overlapping rent” period to move.
The landlord again warned about the difficulties of paying two lots of rent saying that it could be weeks before a new tenant was found. The tenant responded saying that “our hand got forced” and suggesting that they could manage the costs.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a breakdown of viewings and interest in the property showing that there were 12 viewings at the property and two applications were made.
The first application, made on 29 August 2025 was withdrawn by the applicant. The second application was made on or around 10 October and was accepted with a move in date of 3 November 2025.
On 7 October, the tenant served a notice to withdraw from the tenancy due to family violence with a tenancy end date of 10 October 2025.
The landlord was confused by the family violence withdrawal notice (FVWN) coming as and when it did (after the break lease process had been agreed and begun and after the tenants had left the tenancy address) and was concerned that their owner would now be out of pocket pending a new tenancy beginning.
The landlord acknowledged at the hearing that its interpretation of the requirements of the Act and the relevant sections of the Family Violence Act 2018 (particularly in terms of the definition of family violence) was incorrect.
The landlord accepted that its subsequent behaviour was driven by this misunderstanding and that its response was less than desirable in the circumstances.

Was the tenancy lawfully terminated on 10 October 2025?

The tenant gave notice to withdraw from the fixed term tenancy due to family violence under section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). The notice purported to be on behalf of both tenants, but qualifying information was only provided in relation to [Ms E] (Ms E).
The landlord, in its cross application, initially asked the Tribunal to “overturn” the FVWN.
Following the first day of hearing, where the tenants outlined their claims, the landlord modified its application accepting that the FVWN was valid as regards Ms E but asking the Tribunal to “look at the procedural application of the law” in relation to the notice. The landlord’s concern was in relation to the phrase, “while a tenant of the premises”.
While it may be phrased as a procedural enquiry, the landlord is effectively asking the Tribunal to make enquiries it is not permitted to make.
Section 77(7B) of the Act specifically confirms that the Tribunal: “does not have jurisdiction to determine a dispute so far as it raises a question as to whether, in respect of a tenant who gives notice accompanied by qualifying evidence under section 56B, - (a) The tenant has been a victim of family violence while a tenant of the premises;” [my emphasis]
Given that the FVWN complied with the requirements of the Act in relation to Ms E, no further enquiry of the type the landlord requested can be undertaken by the Tribunal.
As it relates to Ms E, the notice complied with the requirements of the Act and was valid and she withdrew from the property lawfully on 10 October 2025.
Both tenants had left the property before the date of the notice and rent payments were ceased following the expiry date specified in the notice.
The landlord acknowledges that rent had been paid for two days following the expiry of the FVWN and accepted the tenants claim for reimbursement of this amount ($168.58).
This amount is ordered by consent with 50% to each tenant as outlined above.
Having modified its stance regarding the FVWN, the landlord also modified its claim for rent.
The landlord abandoned its initial cross application for rent from both tenants up to the date the property was re-let (3 November 2025) but claimed that [Mr F] (Mr F) should be liable for rent to this date pursuant to the prescribed formula for remaining tenants contained in section 56B of the Act.
The landlord considered that the Mr F, not having provided qualifying evidence with the FVWN, should have remained at the tenancy property following the end of the family violence notice period as a remaining tenant under section 56B of the Act.
The tenant acknowledged that qualifying information had not been provided for Mr F despite his being included on the FVWN.
The tenant considered that in such circumstances, the qualifying information for the withdrawing tenant should be sufficient to cover a new partner who lived at the premises and is in a relationship with the withdrawing tenant.
The tenant considered that it would be unreasonable to expect a person threatened with family violence to leave the tenancy premises without their current partner. The tenant also considered that Mr F would have been able to provide qualifying evidence that he was subject to family violence had they turned their minds to this at the time.
There was no qualifying evidence to confirm that Mr F was a victim of family violence as defined by the Family Violence Act 2018 and the Residential Tenancies Act does not extend family violence notices to other tenants at the premises.
Rather, the Act provides provision for temporary reduced rent for remaining tenants on withdrawal of one tenant under section 56B. It also provides mechanism for any remaining tenants to apply to the Tribunal to have the tenancy terminated where it would be unreasonable to require a remaining tenant to continue with the tenancy (section 56D of the Act).
I find that, although the FVWN was valid as regards Ms E, it could not include Mr F, and he must therefore be a “remaining tenant” under the Act and must be liable for rent as outlined in section 56B.
The tenancy of Mr F did not end until the day prior to the new tenancy beginning, being 2 November 2025.
The landlord consented to repayment of the amount of $168.58 being two days’ rent overpaid by the tenants jointly for 11 and 12 October inclusive (as ordered above).
The withdrawing tenant withdrew on 10 October. As specified in section 56B(5), rent is due from the remaining tenant from 11 to 24 October inclusive (being two weeks) at 50% of the weekly rent ($590.00).
From 25 October to the day before the new tenancy began, 2 November 2025, rent is due at the usual rate being $84.29 per day (9 days).
The total amount due is calculated at $1,348.61 and is ordered to be paid by Mr F (Ms E having no liability for rent from 10 October 2025). Tenant claims for compensation and exemplary damages
The tenant claimed compensation for various costs associated with alleged landlord breaches.
The claims were for: a. Loss of income for Ms E amounting to $30,749.94 b. Rent rebate due to delayed re-tenancy ($2,528.57), c. Face book advertising for re-letting ($15.56), d. Counselling and medical costs (unspecified) e. Administrative burden and inconvenience (unspecified) f. Emotional harm compensation (unspecified) g. Filing fee
Additional amounts were claimed for exemplary damages relating a. Failure to apply the FVWN b. Breach of confidentiality in relation to the family violence notice (s56E(3)) c. Interference with peace comfort and privacy amounting to harassment relating to ongoing contact following the expiry of the FVWN (s38(3)) d. Failure to act in good faith
These monetary claims arise from two central allegations.
Firstly, the tenant alleges that the landlord did not do everything it could to obtain new tenants for the property in a timely way and should be liable for compensation as a result.
The tenant indicated that four weeks should have been sufficient to secure a new tenant, and claims rent abatement accordingly as well as refund of the Facebook advertising costs.
Limited concrete evidence was provided to support this claim, and no specific breach of the Act was relied on in relation to this claim.
The break lease process began on 13 August. The tenants were still in possession of the property and were moving out slowly up to late September.
The landlord acknowledged that dependent children’s illnesses had prevented them from conducting some viewings but said that Mr F had seemed happy to do so on their behalf and confirmed that no calls had gone unanswered as a consequence of this illness.
Messages between the parties refer to the market being “flat” and confirming that no new inquiries had been received.
The landlord was under no obligation (at this time) to release either of the tenants from a fixed term tenancy.
Having agreed to do so, the landlord conducted, either themselves or via the tenants, 13 viewings over a period between 19 August and 10 October (less than 8 weeks). A new tenant (who had viewed the property on or before 10 October 2025) was signed up on around 16 October and moved in less than three months after the initial break lease inquiry was made by the tenants.
This may be longer than the tenant expected or desired but, crucially, there is no proven breach of the Act for which compensation or exemplary damages can be paid in relation to this claim.
Claims for compensation or exemplary damages in relation to the time taken to secure a new tenant for the property are, therefore, dismissed.
This includes the claim for additional Facebook advertising as the tenant was, at this time, responsible for all costs associated with the break lease agreement.
The second allegation central to the tenants’ claims, is that the landlord breached the Act in a number of ways in relation to the family violence withdrawal notice.
The landlord, as mentioned above, accepted that their interpretation of the legislation in regard to FVWN was incorrect and the behaviour of landlord staff following the receipt of this notice was accepted as being far below the level of behaviour desirable in these circumstances.
The landlord gave evidence that, had they been appraised of the family violence situation in the initial discussions regarding breaking the lease, the events would not have unfolded as they did.
Whilst that may be correct, it is also understandable that a tenant, being subject to family violence, may not wish to discuss personal details with strangers, especially if there seems to be another avenue open to them as there was initially in this case.
It is also the case that Ms E did refer to family violence in an earlier text to the landlord although correspondence provided by both parties indicates that this information was overlooked by the landlord at that time.
The landlord accepted that they made inquiries of both the tenants and the person who signed the qualifying evidence (Ms E’s employer) and challenged the factual basis for the notice.
The notice itself used the standard form available through The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and specifically states that the notice and evidence are confidential and cannot be challenged in the Tribunal (amongst other matters).
There is no doubt that the landlord should not have behaved in this way. The landlord acknowledged at the hearing that its response likely exacerbated the tenants’ existing health issues and created additional stress at an already stressful time.
The landlord confirmed that there was no intention to do so and that their response reflected both a misunderstanding of the law (particularly what constitutes family violence) and confusion relating to the way the tenant had initially gone about ending the tenancy. Additionally, the tenant had already left the tenancy premises prior to the notice being given.
The landlord did not accept liability for the amounts claimed by the tenant in relation to loss of income or ongoing counselling and medical costs.
Ms E gave evidence that the challenge to the FVWN and the delay in finding a new tenant combined with existing factors to overwhelm her and caused her health professional to recommend that she step down from her employment. She acknowledges existing health issues but said that this was essentially the final straw.
There are clearly a number of difficult issues facing the tenants and Ms E particularly. The medical evidence provided confirms that the financial and emotional stress caused by the perceived delay in finding a new tenant contributed to this. Undoubtedly the inquiries about the FVWN would have too.
It is, however, not possible to put all of this at the foot of the landlord.
The landlord had agreed to end the tenancy early so that the tenant could find a home closer to work. They had advised the tenant, strongly, against signing up for a new property before a tenant was found to replace them. The tenants had done so anyway and when the FVWN was served the landlord, believing such a notice has to relate to a current intimate relationship only, challenged the notice.
I have already found that there is no proven breach in relation to any perceived delay in reletting the premises so no damages can flow from this claim.
The landlord, in contacting the qualifying person caused distress to Ms E. It was unacceptable behaviour but, on the evidence before me, I cannot see that the landlord disclosed any private information given that the person contacted had provided the information in the first instance. Although the landlord threated to make enquiries further afield, they did not do so and there is no suggestion any discussion was held with any other person regarding the FVWN.
There is no proven breach of privacy in relation to the FVWN and no exemplary damages can therefore flow.
The tenant also claims of interference with reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises under section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 amounting to harassment.
The landlord’s confusion in relation to the notice, although unfortunate, is understandable to some extent at least. Ms E was no longer in any obvious danger in relation to occupancy of the tenancy address as she was no longer residing there. The giving of the FVWN only served to officially end the tenancy (for Ms E anyway) earlier than would have otherwise been the case thereby hoping to mitigate further stress and financial hardship.
I have found above that Mr F was still liable for rent and obliged to maintain the garden and property until his tenancy lawfully ended. Therefore, the landlord’s continual contact after the tenants departed the premises, as regards Mr F was lawful and there can be no breach of quiet enjoyment amounting to harassment.
On the balance of probabilities, the tenant has not proven that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached the Act in any way that could amount to an unlawful act. Exemplary damages are therefore not an available remedy.
As regards compensation, I have found that there was no proven unreasonable delay in reletting the property so as to lead to any compensation claim in that regard.
I have found that the FVWN does not apply to Mr F so any continuing contact and requests for rent and upkeep of the property were valid and cannot amount to harassment under the Act. There was still an ongoing tenancy despite Ms E’s valid withdrawal from it.
However, it is my view that some amount of compensation in the way of general damages is appropriate to reflect the additional harm caused by the landlord’s failure to recognise the valid FVWN as regards Ms E and the ongoing contact following her lawful withdrawal from the tenancy.
It is difficult to allocate an appropriate amount of compensation in relation to this as I have found that Mr F was in fact a remaining tenant and was therefore still liable for rent and other obligations under the tenancy agreement and was properly contacted in relation to that.
Additionally, Ms E has accepted that she was suffering significant stress and associated issues prior to any tenancy matters. Much of her additional stress was associated with the financial and logistical hardship of holding two tenancies for which I have found that the landlord is not liable.
Any damages awarded are to Ms E alone and are only to reflect that additional hardship caused by the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the validity of the FVWN.
This amount reflects the fact that the landlord’s staff: a. Accused Ms E of lying in relation to the FVWN, b. Accused her of arranging for her employer to lie on her behalf by completing the accompanying required evidence, c. Made Ms E feel she had no choice but to reveal more details in relation to the grounds for the FVWN to her employer when she was under no obligation to do so, d. Threatened to hire a private investigator to get to the bottom of the situation, e. Continued to contact Ms E in relation to ongoing obligations under the tenancy.
It was accepted by the landlord at the hearing that these actions on the part of the landlord caused additional stress and hardship to Ms E.
There is no related unlawful act for which exemplary damages are able to be awarded and, in any case, although the landlord misunderstood the law, there is no intention such as would be required for an award of exemplary damages. The landlord genuinely believed the FVWN to be unavailable to Ms E given the circumstances as they understood them to be.
The maximum amount of exemplary damages available in any of the related claims is $3,000.00 per claim. Exemplary damages are not available here, as I have said above, but I consider that an award of $1,000.00 in general damages to MS E alone is appropriate to recognise the additional suffering caused by the landlord’s refusal to accept her lawful FVWN.
The amount ordered is proved.
The tenant also claimed administrative costs and inconvenience. Although bringing matters to the Tribunal can be administratively difficult and time consuming, costs are seldom awarded aside from the filing fee which can be refunded. All parties suffer the burden of preparing their cases and the fees are kept very low to enable broad access to the Tribunal. There is nothing before me to indicate that any costs for the preparation of the case should be awarded here.
The claim for administrative costs and inconvenience is dismissed.
The parties provided much oral and documentary evidence and, although I have not referred to all of the information in this order, it has been reviewed and considered. Filing fees and suppression
As both parties have had some success, filing fees fall where they lie.
Given the very personal nature of the discussion contained in this order, name suppression is granted to the tenants although they have not been entirely successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362067 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362067 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the tenancy lawfully terminated on 10 October 2025?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Was the tenancy lawfully terminated on 10 October 2025?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions