What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5364050 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 5364050?

Costs Associated With Breaking Lease…: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,577.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5364050?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5364050?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12999890-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5364050 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 5364050?

Costs Associated With Breaking Lease…: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,577.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5364050?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5364050?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12999890-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 9H, 100 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5364050 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5364050 — net $225.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1/10/2025	$1,577.14	Rent arrears to 1/10/2025
Costs associated with breaking lease/assignment of tenancy	$460.00	Costs associated with breaking lease/assignment of tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$225.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$225.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $0.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,577.14 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears until the end of the tenancy and costs associated with assignment of the tenancy due to the tenant breaking the fixed term agreement.
The tenant has applied for a refund of part of her bond. She acknowledges she must pay two weeks rent from her bond to cover the rent until the end of her notice period but requests a refund of the balance of the bond and that the Tribunal dismiss the landlord’s request for costs associated with the assignment/break lease fee.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was for a fixed term starting 4/8/2025 and due to end 3/8/2026.
The tenant advised the landlord on 4 September 2025 (one month into the 12- month fixed term period) that she wanted to break the fixed term and leave early due to the serious illness of her mother who at that time lived in Australia. The tenant gave notice that she would vacate on 21/9/2025 which she duly did.
The landlord agreed to the early end of the fixed term and (as is standard practise) advised the tenant that she would be responsible for rent until a new tenant was found and that the tenant would be required to pay the costs of finding a new tenant.
The tenant began the process of trying to find a new tenant to assign the tenancy to, including a person she knew who she said was interested in the rental. That person contacted the landlord, but the landlord said that person’s answers to screening questions were suspicious or evasive and a basic google search then confirmed the prospective tenant had a criminal history including a conviction for significant fraud.
The tenant was advised this person was not a suitable replacement and would not therefore be approved.
S43B states that a tenant may assign a tenancy with the consent of the landlord and that the landlord cannot unreasonably withhold consent. Considering the fraud conviction, it was reasonable to conclude that the replacement tenant was unsuitable. There was also no undue delay with this process, the landlord acted quickly when it was confirmed the tenant had viewed the property and was keen to proceed.
The landlord did not in my view unreasonably withhold consent to the assignment of the tenancy to the first applicant or unreasonably delay with providing a response once the prospective tenant applied for the tenancy.
The landlord had in the meantime advertised the property for an increased rent on Trade Me, she said the rent now included an appliance and the owner was hopeful that the market rent may have increased.
The landlord said she held three open days at the property, one before the tenant left on 21/9 and two after this.
It was at the third viewing that another person the tenant knew, viewed the property with the new tenancy commencing 2 October 20225.
The tenant said this person had expressed interest much earlier than the landlord disclosed and the landlord had unreasonably delayed with processing her application. The landlord disputed this and said that she responded to the prospective tenant the same day she expressed interest in viewing, and she attended at a viewing at the property two days later and said she would like to apply for the property.
The new tenant said that she would likely fail a credit check, but when the explained the reasons for this, the landlord agreed to her as a replacement tenant despite this. It was at the new tenant’s request that the tenancy did not commence until 2 October 2025 as she did not want to start her tenancy any earlier.
While the tenant considers that the landlord may have unreasonably delayed the process of approving the assignment, the landlord denies this and says she was proactive and sympathetic to the departing tenant’s plight from the outset.
I am unable to find there was an unreasonable delay in processing or approving either of the applicants for assignment.
The new tenancy was at the same rental. The landlord said this was always envisaged with the assignment process.
While the tenant could have applied to the Tribunal for a reduction of her tenancy term due to an unforeseen change in her circumstances; she would have also needed to establish severe hardship (greater than the landlord’s hardship if the fixed term were reduced) and she would have been required to pay reasonable compensation for any loss the landlord suffered. It is unlikely that process would have ended with a reduced rent liability.
In any event, the tenant did not apply to the Tribunal for an order reducing the fixed term and, she did not find a suitable replacement tenant either until 28 September 2025 when the person she knew viewed the property and agreed to take the tenancy. The new tenant did not want the tenancy to start until 2 October 2025. That was her request and not the landlord’s.
The effect is that the tenant is liable for the rent until 1 October as requested by the landlord and for the reasons set out above.
The fact the landlord initially advertised the property for a higher rent (which was not in fact achieved) does not change this.
The landlord agreed to an assignment of the tenancy which is what ultimately occurred on the basis the tenant pay the rent until the property was relet (which is the rent awarded) and costs associated with finding a replacement tenant. What are the reasonable and actual costs associated with the tenancy assignment
I award compensation of $460 to the landlord, which is the actual Trade Me advertising cost of $238.98 and allowing the balance of $221.02 as reasonable compensation for the landlord’s time to advertise, hold viewings and complete the required tenancy agreement/documentation including inspections. The costs have been incurred because of the breaking of the lease and assignment (are less than the costs on-charged to the owner) and awarded.
The landlord has been successful with the application, so the tenant is also to pay the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression, neither opposed the other’s request and there is minimal public interest in publishing the tenant’s name, given the circumstances. Both requests are therefore approved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5364050 — net $225.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 1/10/2025	$1,577.14	Rent arrears to 1/10/2025
Costs associated with breaking lease/assignment of tenancy	$460.00	Costs associated with breaking lease/assignment of tenancy
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$225.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$225.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $0.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,577.14 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears until the end of the tenancy and costs associated with assignment of the tenancy due to the tenant breaking the fixed term agreement.
The tenant has applied for a refund of part of her bond. She acknowledges she must pay two weeks rent from her bond to cover the rent until the end of her notice period but requests a refund of the balance of the bond and that the Tribunal dismiss the landlord’s request for costs associated with the assignment/break lease fee.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy was for a fixed term starting 4/8/2025 and due to end 3/8/2026.
The tenant advised the landlord on 4 September 2025 (one month into the 12- month fixed term period) that she wanted to break the fixed term and leave early due to the serious illness of her mother who at that time lived in Australia. The tenant gave notice that she would vacate on 21/9/2025 which she duly did.
The landlord agreed to the early end of the fixed term and (as is standard practise) advised the tenant that she would be responsible for rent until a new tenant was found and that the tenant would be required to pay the costs of finding a new tenant.
The tenant began the process of trying to find a new tenant to assign the tenancy to, including a person she knew who she said was interested in the rental. That person contacted the landlord, but the landlord said that person’s answers to screening questions were suspicious or evasive and a basic google search then confirmed the prospective tenant had a criminal history including a conviction for significant fraud.
The tenant was advised this person was not a suitable replacement and would not therefore be approved.
S43B states that a tenant may assign a tenancy with the consent of the landlord and that the landlord cannot unreasonably withhold consent. Considering the fraud conviction, it was reasonable to conclude that the replacement tenant was unsuitable. There was also no undue delay with this process, the landlord acted quickly when it was confirmed the tenant had viewed the property and was keen to proceed.
The landlord did not in my view unreasonably withhold consent to the assignment of the tenancy to the first applicant or unreasonably delay with providing a response once the prospective tenant applied for the tenancy.
The landlord had in the meantime advertised the property for an increased rent on Trade Me, she said the rent now included an appliance and the owner was hopeful that the market rent may have increased.
The landlord said she held three open days at the property, one before the tenant left on 21/9 and two after this.
It was at the third viewing that another person the tenant knew, viewed the property with the new tenancy commencing 2 October 20225.
The tenant said this person had expressed interest much earlier than the landlord disclosed and the landlord had unreasonably delayed with processing her application. The landlord disputed this and said that she responded to the prospective tenant the same day she expressed interest in viewing, and she attended at a viewing at the property two days later and said she would like to apply for the property.
The new tenant said that she would likely fail a credit check, but when the explained the reasons for this, the landlord agreed to her as a replacement tenant despite this. It was at the new tenant’s request that the tenancy did not commence until 2 October 2025 as she did not want to start her tenancy any earlier.
While the tenant considers that the landlord may have unreasonably delayed the process of approving the assignment, the landlord denies this and says she was proactive and sympathetic to the departing tenant’s plight from the outset.
I am unable to find there was an unreasonable delay in processing or approving either of the applicants for assignment.
The new tenancy was at the same rental. The landlord said this was always envisaged with the assignment process.
While the tenant could have applied to the Tribunal for a reduction of her tenancy term due to an unforeseen change in her circumstances; she would have also needed to establish severe hardship (greater than the landlord’s hardship if the fixed term were reduced) and she would have been required to pay reasonable compensation for any loss the landlord suffered. It is unlikely that process would have ended with a reduced rent liability.
In any event, the tenant did not apply to the Tribunal for an order reducing the fixed term and, she did not find a suitable replacement tenant either until 28 September 2025 when the person she knew viewed the property and agreed to take the tenancy. The new tenant did not want the tenancy to start until 2 October 2025. That was her request and not the landlord’s.
The effect is that the tenant is liable for the rent until 1 October as requested by the landlord and for the reasons set out above.
The fact the landlord initially advertised the property for a higher rent (which was not in fact achieved) does not change this.
The landlord agreed to an assignment of the tenancy which is what ultimately occurred on the basis the tenant pay the rent until the property was relet (which is the rent awarded) and costs associated with finding a replacement tenant. What are the reasonable and actual costs associated with the tenancy assignment
I award compensation of $460 to the landlord, which is the actual Trade Me advertising cost of $238.98 and allowing the balance of $221.02 as reasonable compensation for the landlord’s time to advertise, hold viewings and complete the required tenancy agreement/documentation including inspections. The costs have been incurred because of the breaking of the lease and assignment (are less than the costs on-charged to the owner) and awarded.
The landlord has been successful with the application, so the tenant is also to pay the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression, neither opposed the other’s request and there is minimal public interest in publishing the tenant’s name, given the circumstances. Both requests are therefore approved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5364050 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 9H, 100 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5364050 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 9H, 100 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions