What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5366843 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 5366843?

Cleaning: $502.55 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $187.16 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,529.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366843?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366843?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13287114-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5366843 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 5366843?

Cleaning: $502.55 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $187.16 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,529.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366843?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366843?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13287114-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5366843 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5366843 — net $1,214.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 28 August 2025	$1,529.71		Rent arrears (to 28 August 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Lock/key replacement: Replacement garage door	$187.16		Lock/key replacement: Replacement garage door
Refund of cleaning costs to be credited to rent		$502.55	Refund of cleaning costs to be credited to rent
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,744.87	$530.55
Net award	$1,214.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,214.32

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,716.87 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

On 15 October 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking outstanding rent arrears following the end of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 23 November 2025, the tenant filed a cross application seeking an order exempting them from liability for rent arrears under the break lease agreement, a full refund of the bond, compensation for breach of the tenant’s right to peace comfort and privacy by the landlord’s contractors, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
At the hearing both parties sought name suppression.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager] and [Property Manager], Property Managers, appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Orders by consent
Following a discussion between the parties the following was agreed: a. The tenant withdrew their claim for refund of the bond. b. The landlord must credit $502.55 (cleaning costs deducted from the bond) to the tenants rent account to offset outstanding rent arrears. c. The tenant must pay compensation of $187.16 to replace a remote garage door opener that was missing at the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 30 August 2024 with the fixed term expiring on 28 August 2025.
On 23 June 2025 the tenant asked to break the fixed term of the tenancy early due to financial hardship and an overseas employment opportunity.
On 24 June 2025 the tenant received a break lease application form to complete.
Between 26 June and 1 July the parties negotiated a break lease agreement.
The tenant vacated the property on 3 August 2025.
The bond has been refunded to the landlord in full. Landlord’s claims

How much is owed for rent?

The parties agreed to end the fixed term early under a break lease agreement. Under the break lease agreement the tenant agreed to remain liable for rent until either a new tenant had been secured for the property or the end of the fixed term (which ever came first).
The Tribunal heard the landlord starting advertising for a new tenant the day after the terms of the break lease were agreed. In total ten open home viewings were completed with an average of three prospective tenants being shown through the property. The landlord said that they only received two applications to rent the property. The first set of prospective tenants later declined to take up the offer of a tenancy. The second prospective tenants moved into the property after the fixed term ended. The landlord said that despite their best efforts they were unable to secure new tenants for the property until after the fixed term ended.
The Tribunal finds the landlord moved quickly to advertise for a new tenants and conducted regular open home viewing in an effort to relet the property. Despite their best efforts they were unable to secure a new tenant until after the fixed term ended. On that basis the tenant is liable for rent until the end of the fixed term.
The landlord seeks rent arrears totalling $1,529.71 to 28 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant stated that she sought to terminate the fixed term early because she could not afford the rent after her partner moved out leaving her to solo parent five children.
The amount claimed is proved. Tenant’s claims Exemption for liability for rent
The tenant argued she should not be liable for rent until the end of the fixed term as the landlord failed to act swiftly to secure a new tenant for the property.
Tribunal has determined the matter at paragraphs [17] - [22]. Did the landlord’s contractors interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them by allowing their contractors to attend at the property unannounced to complete the following work: a. Two independent carpet contractors came to property to measure up to provide a quote for new flooring; and b. An arborist came to the property and spent two hours cutting down a tree. The tenant said that on each occasion the contractors knocked on the door and she allowed them to access the property. However, she felt it was an unfair imposition or herself and her children as it was hard having strangers in her home and having to restrict her children’s access to a room within the property.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord states that every contractor booked to attend the property in instructed to make contact with the tenant first to arrange a mutually suitable time. The landlord said that their Tapi maintenance system also sends out a notification to the tenant to alert them to a contractors visit.
In this case the Tribunal finds the landlord has not breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the property for the following reasons: a. The landlord’s contractors knocked on the door and sought access. b. Access was granted by the tenant on each occasion. c. Where the appropriate notice had not been given by the landlord or their agents the tenant was entitled to decline access to the property. d. The tenant did not refuse entry on the basis appropriate notice had not been given. e. There was no suggestion that any of the contractors behaved inappropriately towards the tenant or her children. On that basis the tenant’s claim for compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
In this case both parties have been substantially successful and are granted name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5366843 — net $1,214.32 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 28 August 2025	$1,529.71		Rent arrears (to 28 August 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Lock/key replacement: Replacement garage door	$187.16		Lock/key replacement: Replacement garage door
Refund of cleaning costs to be credited to rent		$502.55	Refund of cleaning costs to be credited to rent
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,744.87	$530.55
Net award	$1,214.32
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,214.32

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,716.87 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

On 15 October 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking outstanding rent arrears following the end of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 23 November 2025, the tenant filed a cross application seeking an order exempting them from liability for rent arrears under the break lease agreement, a full refund of the bond, compensation for breach of the tenant’s right to peace comfort and privacy by the landlord’s contractors, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
At the hearing both parties sought name suppression.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager] and [Property Manager], Property Managers, appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Orders by consent
Following a discussion between the parties the following was agreed: a. The tenant withdrew their claim for refund of the bond. b. The landlord must credit $502.55 (cleaning costs deducted from the bond) to the tenants rent account to offset outstanding rent arrears. c. The tenant must pay compensation of $187.16 to replace a remote garage door opener that was missing at the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 30 August 2024 with the fixed term expiring on 28 August 2025.
On 23 June 2025 the tenant asked to break the fixed term of the tenancy early due to financial hardship and an overseas employment opportunity.
On 24 June 2025 the tenant received a break lease application form to complete.
Between 26 June and 1 July the parties negotiated a break lease agreement.
The tenant vacated the property on 3 August 2025.
The bond has been refunded to the landlord in full. Landlord’s claims

How much is owed for rent?

The parties agreed to end the fixed term early under a break lease agreement. Under the break lease agreement the tenant agreed to remain liable for rent until either a new tenant had been secured for the property or the end of the fixed term (which ever came first).
The Tribunal heard the landlord starting advertising for a new tenant the day after the terms of the break lease were agreed. In total ten open home viewings were completed with an average of three prospective tenants being shown through the property. The landlord said that they only received two applications to rent the property. The first set of prospective tenants later declined to take up the offer of a tenancy. The second prospective tenants moved into the property after the fixed term ended. The landlord said that despite their best efforts they were unable to secure new tenants for the property until after the fixed term ended.
The Tribunal finds the landlord moved quickly to advertise for a new tenants and conducted regular open home viewing in an effort to relet the property. Despite their best efforts they were unable to secure a new tenant until after the fixed term ended. On that basis the tenant is liable for rent until the end of the fixed term.
The landlord seeks rent arrears totalling $1,529.71 to 28 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant stated that she sought to terminate the fixed term early because she could not afford the rent after her partner moved out leaving her to solo parent five children.
The amount claimed is proved. Tenant’s claims Exemption for liability for rent
The tenant argued she should not be liable for rent until the end of the fixed term as the landlord failed to act swiftly to secure a new tenant for the property.
Tribunal has determined the matter at paragraphs [17] - [22]. Did the landlord’s contractors interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment?
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has harassed them by allowing their contractors to attend at the property unannounced to complete the following work: a. Two independent carpet contractors came to property to measure up to provide a quote for new flooring; and b. An arborist came to the property and spent two hours cutting down a tree. The tenant said that on each occasion the contractors knocked on the door and she allowed them to access the property. However, she felt it was an unfair imposition or herself and her children as it was hard having strangers in her home and having to restrict her children’s access to a room within the property.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord states that every contractor booked to attend the property in instructed to make contact with the tenant first to arrange a mutually suitable time. The landlord said that their Tapi maintenance system also sends out a notification to the tenant to alert them to a contractors visit.
In this case the Tribunal finds the landlord has not breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the property for the following reasons: a. The landlord’s contractors knocked on the door and sought access. b. Access was granted by the tenant on each occasion. c. Where the appropriate notice had not been given by the landlord or their agents the tenant was entitled to decline access to the property. d. The tenant did not refuse entry on the basis appropriate notice had not been given. e. There was no suggestion that any of the contractors behaved inappropriately towards the tenant or her children. On that basis the tenant’s claim for compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
In this case both parties have been substantially successful and are granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366843 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366843 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions