What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5362891 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Progressive Realty Limited as agent

How much money was awarded in case 5362891?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $3,600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362891?

The primary dispute was Lost Rent.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12865143-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5362891 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Progressive Realty Limited as agent

How much money was awarded in case 5362891?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $3,600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362891?

The primary dispute was Lost Rent.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12865143-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

105 Caledonian Road, St Albans, Christchurch 8014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5362891 — Lost Rent

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5362891 — net $828.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for lost rent	$3,600.00	Compensation for lost rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$828.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$828.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Progressive Realty Limited as agent for Mark & Lisa Tinning $828.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (BN-00052873) to Progressive Realty Limited as agent for Mark & Lisa Tinning immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend the hearing and did not respond when telephoned on the Australian numbers ending in 860 and 265.
However, the tenants had advised in writing that they may not be able to attend and had provided written submissions which I have considered in preparation of this order.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The fixed term tenancy commenced on 14 February 2025 and was scheduled to end on 15 February 2025.
The tenants advised the landlord that they wished to end their fixed term tenancy early.
On 8 September 2025 the landlord’s emailed the tenant, acknowledging their intention to apply to break the lease early, and setting out section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
They were provided with a break lease document that advised that the tenants had to agree to several conditions for the landlord to consider the tenants’ application for early release. This included (amongst other things): a. Paying for the expenses the landlord/agent had to incur in the early release. b. Continuing to pay rent until a final rent date was agreed in writing with the property manager to advise of this date. c. A very short period of notice to suit any incoming tenant.
This document was signed by the tenants together with advice from the tenant that they would be flying out (leaving the property) on 28 September 2025.
On 9 September 2025, the tenants received a confirmation of accepted vacate date email that was system generated. It stated, “this is to acknowledge your intention to vacate the above premises on 28/09/2025”, and then proceeded to give advice on final inspection and cleaning, reminding the tenants of their obligations under section 40 the RTA.
The tenants vacated the property on 28 September 2025.
On 8 October 2025 the landlord sent a 14-day notice for unpaid rent.
On 24 October 2025 the landlord advised the tenant that they were able to secure a new tenant who would commence their tenancy on 13 November 2025. Accordingly, the landlord seeks rent until 12 November 2025 and amounting to $4,100.00.
The tenants dispute this amount on that basis that there were several communication issues that led to a misunderstanding of the tenancy end date. They also claim that the landlord failed to mitigate its losses by allowing the new tenancy to commence on 13 November 2025 despite them signing up in October 2025.
The landlord says this was simply due to the incoming tenant being required to give the usual 28 days’ notice to end their existing tenancy.
In summary, the tenants say that the landlord’s communications contained contradictory statements, a system-generated vacate letter that appeared to set the rent end date, repeated misquoting of the break lease clause and a rent ledger that showed the tenancy ended financially on 2 October 2025. These factors, combined with the significant vacancy period despite a tenant being secured earlier, created a genuine misunderstanding. The tenants say they always acted in good faith.
The landlord says that the confirmation of accepted vacate date email referenced the vacate date and not the end of tenancy or rent liability date and that the actual end date of the tenancy was always dependent on the commencement of a new tenancy.
Although the landlord had referenced section 66 of the RTA, I consider that that provision was no longer relevant as there was an agreement to end the fixed term tenancy early, subject to a range of conditions imposed by the landlord on that agreement.
Section 44A of the RTA states, that a landlord who consents to a termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d), 1 is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant, any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination.
I prefer the evidence of the landlord, that the system generated email confirming the vacate date, was not confirming when rent was to be paid until or advising the “final rent date” referred to in the break lease document. Although I entirely accept that the communications would have been confusing, and the release document could have made it clearer that the tenant would be responsible for rent until a new tenancy commenced.
However, it was made clear in the application for early release document that the tenant would be responsible for early release costs and that includes a loss of rent in my view. Other obligations in the document include cooperating fully to show the property to prospective tenants, keeping it reasonably clean and tidy and a short notice period to suit any incoming period. In other words, everything was linked to the replacement tenancy or new tenant.
There is no obligation under the RTA for a landlord to agree to end a fixed term tenancy early at all.
I consider that the loss of rent until a replacement tenant could take over the tenancy was reasonable in the circumstances. 1 Section 50(1)(d) of the RTA refers to when the tenant delivers up vacant possession of the premises to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.
Had the landlord not accepted the incoming tenant who had a notice period with their existing tenancy, it is possible that a replacement tenant would not have been found, and the landlord could be seeking even more rent.
I have therefore awarded the lost rent as compensation to the landlord; however, I have reduced this slightly to reflect that fact that it is also reasonable for there to be some downtime between tenants for maintenance or general inability to perfectly line up tenants. I have deducted five days for this and have awarded $3,600.00 in compensation for loss of rent.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy they were required to clean the shower and bathroom and claim the invoiced amount of $85.00 for this work, and an exterior tidy up (including weeding) at the invoiced cost of $159.50.
The difficulty with these amounts is I don’t have any evidence, such as photographs (both pre and post tenancy), proving that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and that this work was required to meet the standard in section 40(1)(e) of the RTA.
Accordingly, these claims are dismissed.
Because Progressive Realty Limited as agent for Mark & Lisa Tinning has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 23 December 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5362891 — net $828.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for lost rent	$3,600.00	Compensation for lost rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$828.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$828.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Progressive Realty Limited as agent for Mark & Lisa Tinning $828.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (BN-00052873) to Progressive Realty Limited as agent for Mark & Lisa Tinning immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend the hearing and did not respond when telephoned on the Australian numbers ending in 860 and 265.
However, the tenants had advised in writing that they may not be able to attend and had provided written submissions which I have considered in preparation of this order.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The fixed term tenancy commenced on 14 February 2025 and was scheduled to end on 15 February 2025.
The tenants advised the landlord that they wished to end their fixed term tenancy early.
On 8 September 2025 the landlord’s emailed the tenant, acknowledging their intention to apply to break the lease early, and setting out section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
They were provided with a break lease document that advised that the tenants had to agree to several conditions for the landlord to consider the tenants’ application for early release. This included (amongst other things): a. Paying for the expenses the landlord/agent had to incur in the early release. b. Continuing to pay rent until a final rent date was agreed in writing with the property manager to advise of this date. c. A very short period of notice to suit any incoming tenant.
This document was signed by the tenants together with advice from the tenant that they would be flying out (leaving the property) on 28 September 2025.
On 9 September 2025, the tenants received a confirmation of accepted vacate date email that was system generated. It stated, “this is to acknowledge your intention to vacate the above premises on 28/09/2025”, and then proceeded to give advice on final inspection and cleaning, reminding the tenants of their obligations under section 40 the RTA.
The tenants vacated the property on 28 September 2025.
On 8 October 2025 the landlord sent a 14-day notice for unpaid rent.
On 24 October 2025 the landlord advised the tenant that they were able to secure a new tenant who would commence their tenancy on 13 November 2025. Accordingly, the landlord seeks rent until 12 November 2025 and amounting to $4,100.00.
The tenants dispute this amount on that basis that there were several communication issues that led to a misunderstanding of the tenancy end date. They also claim that the landlord failed to mitigate its losses by allowing the new tenancy to commence on 13 November 2025 despite them signing up in October 2025.
The landlord says this was simply due to the incoming tenant being required to give the usual 28 days’ notice to end their existing tenancy.
In summary, the tenants say that the landlord’s communications contained contradictory statements, a system-generated vacate letter that appeared to set the rent end date, repeated misquoting of the break lease clause and a rent ledger that showed the tenancy ended financially on 2 October 2025. These factors, combined with the significant vacancy period despite a tenant being secured earlier, created a genuine misunderstanding. The tenants say they always acted in good faith.
The landlord says that the confirmation of accepted vacate date email referenced the vacate date and not the end of tenancy or rent liability date and that the actual end date of the tenancy was always dependent on the commencement of a new tenancy.
Although the landlord had referenced section 66 of the RTA, I consider that that provision was no longer relevant as there was an agreement to end the fixed term tenancy early, subject to a range of conditions imposed by the landlord on that agreement.
Section 44A of the RTA states, that a landlord who consents to a termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d), 1 is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant, any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination.
I prefer the evidence of the landlord, that the system generated email confirming the vacate date, was not confirming when rent was to be paid until or advising the “final rent date” referred to in the break lease document. Although I entirely accept that the communications would have been confusing, and the release document could have made it clearer that the tenant would be responsible for rent until a new tenancy commenced.
However, it was made clear in the application for early release document that the tenant would be responsible for early release costs and that includes a loss of rent in my view. Other obligations in the document include cooperating fully to show the property to prospective tenants, keeping it reasonably clean and tidy and a short notice period to suit any incoming period. In other words, everything was linked to the replacement tenancy or new tenant.
There is no obligation under the RTA for a landlord to agree to end a fixed term tenancy early at all.
I consider that the loss of rent until a replacement tenant could take over the tenancy was reasonable in the circumstances. 1 Section 50(1)(d) of the RTA refers to when the tenant delivers up vacant possession of the premises to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.
Had the landlord not accepted the incoming tenant who had a notice period with their existing tenancy, it is possible that a replacement tenant would not have been found, and the landlord could be seeking even more rent.
I have therefore awarded the lost rent as compensation to the landlord; however, I have reduced this slightly to reflect that fact that it is also reasonable for there to be some downtime between tenants for maintenance or general inability to perfectly line up tenants. I have deducted five days for this and have awarded $3,600.00 in compensation for loss of rent.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA.
The landlord says that at the end of the tenancy they were required to clean the shower and bathroom and claim the invoiced amount of $85.00 for this work, and an exterior tidy up (including weeding) at the invoiced cost of $159.50.
The difficulty with these amounts is I don’t have any evidence, such as photographs (both pre and post tenancy), proving that the property was not left reasonably clean and tidy and that this work was required to meet the standard in section 40(1)(e) of the RTA.
Accordingly, these claims are dismissed.
Because Progressive Realty Limited as agent for Mark & Lisa Tinning has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 23 December 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362891 — Lost Rent at 105 Caledonian Road, St Albans, Christchurch 8014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5362891 — Lost Rent at 105 Caledonian Road, St Albans, Christchurch 8014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.