What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371322 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 5371322?

Advertising Expenses: $333.50 awarded to landlord; Rent (Two Weeks: $1,160.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371322?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13780429-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371322 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 5371322?

Advertising Expenses: $333.50 awarded to landlord; Rent (Two Weeks: $1,160.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371322?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13780429-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5371322 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5371322. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent (two weeks	$1,160.00		Rent (two weeks
Advertising expenses	$333.50		Advertising expenses

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord and the tenant’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned in accordance with the table below

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held video conference.
This was a fixed term tenancy that began on 23 April 2025 and was due to end on 23 April 2026. Rent was $580 per week.
The landlord seeks rent arrears in the amount of $6,048 (rent from 4 October 2025 to 16 December 2025), advertising expenses of $333.50, cleaning costs of $105, repair costs of $31.75, and methamphetamine testing costs of $230.00.
The tenant seeks refund of his bond. Breaking the fixed term
On 18 September 2025 the tenant sent an email to the landlord, advising that he had been offered an employment opportunity out of Auckland and wanted to break the fixed term.
The landlord responded the same date stating:
The tenant responded later that evening agreeing to the open home and separate viewings. He then shared the property details with his WhatsApp group.
The landlord did not list the property for rent. On 20 September 2026 the landlord sent an email saying that they had decided to sell rather than re-let, and proposed that the tenant pay 6 weeks rent as compensation for breaking the fixed term, as that reflected a fair and reasonable timeframe to re-let the property.
The tenant did not agree. He expressed concern that the landlord had not advertised the property for rent and that compensation of six weeks was not fair when the property had not been readvertised for rent and was instead being sold.
The landlord re-iterated that they required compensation of six weeks rent, as in the past it had taken them six-seven weeks to find a new tenant.
The parties attended a joint inspection on 3 October 2025 and the tenant handed back the key. The landlord placed the property on the market for sale on 7 October 2025. The property did not sell. The landlord then advertised the property for rent on 4 December 2025 and entered into a fixed term tenancy with new tenants beginning on 17 December 2025. The ne tenancy was for a fixed term of two years, and the new rent was $590 per week.

What did the parties agree?

The term of a fixed term tenancy can only be reduced by order of the Tribunal or with the agreement of the parties.
A tenancy agreement is a contract and the usual rules of contract interpretation apply.
Tenancy agreements can be varied just as any contract can be varied. If the landlord is represented by a professional property manager, and agree to reduce the fixed term of a tenancy, it is common for the parties to enter into a written document recording a variation to the tenancy agreement.
In this case there is no written document, and so the Tribunal must analyse the parties’ correspondence to determine what has been agreed.
I consider that the tenant’s correspondence to the landlord on 17 September 2026 was a request to vary the tenancy agreement. The landlord’s response the same day accepted that request subject to a condition that the landlord would advertise the property for rent, the tenant would be liable for rent until a new tenant was found (and expenses), and the tenant would allow open homes and viewings. The tenant then responded and agreed.
At that point the parties had concluded a variation to the tenancy agreement. The terms on which the fixed term would end had been agreed.
At that point it was not open to the landlord to decided instead to place the property on the market for sale. The landlord was required to act in good faith and advertise for a new tenant. The tenant then would have been liable to pay rent until a new tenant was found.
It is now not possible to determine what would have happened if the landlord had advertised immediately as agreed. The landlord suggested that previously it had taken six weeks to find a new tenant. However once the landlord did advertise, a new tenant was found and moved in within 14 days. I therefore consider that this is the best evidence as to what would most likely have happened, and I order that the tenant pay compensation for two weeks rent to the landlord. Advertising expenses
Section 44A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where a landlord consents to release the tenant from a fixed term tenancy early 1 the landlord is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the release from the tenancy.
Section 44A(2) provides that a landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant in accordance with section 44A(1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant. 1 This is one of the ways that the landlord can agree to the tenant “parting with possession” pursuant to section 44 RTA
The landlord produced an itemised list of expenses. This was not provided to the tenant prior to this proceeding but I accept that the landlord could not quantify these costs until the property had been re-let and the tenant had agreed to meet these costs.
The costs claimed are reasonable. I order compensation for advertising costs in the amount of $333.50. Methamphetamine testing
The landlord said that the new tenant was a social housing provider and required them to undertake methamphetamine testing prior to the start of the new tenancy.
I do not consider that the cost of methamphetamine testing is an expense that was contemplated by the parties when varying the tenancy agreement. The landlord had not previously had the property tested, as some landlords routinely do. The fact that they did so was because of the particular requirements of the tenant and in my view is not an expense that this outgoing tenant should be responsible for. Cleaning
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The landlord produced some very close up photos from the end of the tenancy showing some small areas where the property was not clean.
The tenant said that he had the property professionally cleaned.
Tenants do not need to leave a property reasonably clean and tidy in absolutely every respect. They only need to leave a property reasonably clean and tidy overall.
Having considered the evidence I do not consider that the landlord has proved that the tenant has not left the property reasonably clean and tidy. The areas that the landlord had identified in the photos were very minor. There were no photos showing that the rest of the property was not reasonably clean and tidy.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord said that the tenant left a dent/hole in the wall where a door handle had banged into the wall. The landlord fixed the hole themselves and seeks the sum of $31.75.
The tenant said that there was no door stop in that particular room (and also another room).
I do not consider that the tenant has been careless. The tenant told the landlord that there were no door stops and asked that door stops could be installed in the bedrooms. The tenant has gone about using the property in the usual way. When doors do not have door stops it is common for the door handle to hit the wall and cause damage. In that case, the damage is accidental.
This claim is therefore not proven and is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
As both parties have had some success in their claims there is no basis on which one party should pay the filing fee of the other party.
As both parties have been successful to some degree (the landlord in obtaining two weeks rent and advertising expenses, and the tenant in defending the full amount sought for rent and expenses and the cleaning and damage claim) I have exercised my discretion to supress both parties’ names pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5371322. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent (two weeks	$1,160.00		Rent (two weeks
Advertising expenses	$333.50		Advertising expenses

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord and the tenant’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned in accordance with the table below

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held video conference.
This was a fixed term tenancy that began on 23 April 2025 and was due to end on 23 April 2026. Rent was $580 per week.
The landlord seeks rent arrears in the amount of $6,048 (rent from 4 October 2025 to 16 December 2025), advertising expenses of $333.50, cleaning costs of $105, repair costs of $31.75, and methamphetamine testing costs of $230.00.
The tenant seeks refund of his bond. Breaking the fixed term
On 18 September 2025 the tenant sent an email to the landlord, advising that he had been offered an employment opportunity out of Auckland and wanted to break the fixed term.
The landlord responded the same date stating:
The tenant responded later that evening agreeing to the open home and separate viewings. He then shared the property details with his WhatsApp group.
The landlord did not list the property for rent. On 20 September 2026 the landlord sent an email saying that they had decided to sell rather than re-let, and proposed that the tenant pay 6 weeks rent as compensation for breaking the fixed term, as that reflected a fair and reasonable timeframe to re-let the property.
The tenant did not agree. He expressed concern that the landlord had not advertised the property for rent and that compensation of six weeks was not fair when the property had not been readvertised for rent and was instead being sold.
The landlord re-iterated that they required compensation of six weeks rent, as in the past it had taken them six-seven weeks to find a new tenant.
The parties attended a joint inspection on 3 October 2025 and the tenant handed back the key. The landlord placed the property on the market for sale on 7 October 2025. The property did not sell. The landlord then advertised the property for rent on 4 December 2025 and entered into a fixed term tenancy with new tenants beginning on 17 December 2025. The ne tenancy was for a fixed term of two years, and the new rent was $590 per week.

What did the parties agree?

The term of a fixed term tenancy can only be reduced by order of the Tribunal or with the agreement of the parties.
A tenancy agreement is a contract and the usual rules of contract interpretation apply.
Tenancy agreements can be varied just as any contract can be varied. If the landlord is represented by a professional property manager, and agree to reduce the fixed term of a tenancy, it is common for the parties to enter into a written document recording a variation to the tenancy agreement.
In this case there is no written document, and so the Tribunal must analyse the parties’ correspondence to determine what has been agreed.
I consider that the tenant’s correspondence to the landlord on 17 September 2026 was a request to vary the tenancy agreement. The landlord’s response the same day accepted that request subject to a condition that the landlord would advertise the property for rent, the tenant would be liable for rent until a new tenant was found (and expenses), and the tenant would allow open homes and viewings. The tenant then responded and agreed.
At that point the parties had concluded a variation to the tenancy agreement. The terms on which the fixed term would end had been agreed.
At that point it was not open to the landlord to decided instead to place the property on the market for sale. The landlord was required to act in good faith and advertise for a new tenant. The tenant then would have been liable to pay rent until a new tenant was found.
It is now not possible to determine what would have happened if the landlord had advertised immediately as agreed. The landlord suggested that previously it had taken six weeks to find a new tenant. However once the landlord did advertise, a new tenant was found and moved in within 14 days. I therefore consider that this is the best evidence as to what would most likely have happened, and I order that the tenant pay compensation for two weeks rent to the landlord. Advertising expenses
Section 44A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where a landlord consents to release the tenant from a fixed term tenancy early 1 the landlord is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the release from the tenancy.
Section 44A(2) provides that a landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant in accordance with section 44A(1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant. 1 This is one of the ways that the landlord can agree to the tenant “parting with possession” pursuant to section 44 RTA
The landlord produced an itemised list of expenses. This was not provided to the tenant prior to this proceeding but I accept that the landlord could not quantify these costs until the property had been re-let and the tenant had agreed to meet these costs.
The costs claimed are reasonable. I order compensation for advertising costs in the amount of $333.50. Methamphetamine testing
The landlord said that the new tenant was a social housing provider and required them to undertake methamphetamine testing prior to the start of the new tenancy.
I do not consider that the cost of methamphetamine testing is an expense that was contemplated by the parties when varying the tenancy agreement. The landlord had not previously had the property tested, as some landlords routinely do. The fact that they did so was because of the particular requirements of the tenant and in my view is not an expense that this outgoing tenant should be responsible for. Cleaning
Landlords are required to provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (see s 45(1)(a) RTA). Tenants must keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy during the tenancy, and they must return them in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy (ss 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA).
In Ace Property Management v Owens (DC Wellington, CIV-2008-085-14441, 17 December 2008) the District Court said: A tenant’s obligation pursuant to the Act to leave a property in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition” does not mean that it will necessarily be up to a standard that a landlord may consider for a new tenant. It is a mistake for landlords to confuse those two matters.
The landlord produced some very close up photos from the end of the tenancy showing some small areas where the property was not clean.
The tenant said that he had the property professionally cleaned.
Tenants do not need to leave a property reasonably clean and tidy in absolutely every respect. They only need to leave a property reasonably clean and tidy overall.
Having considered the evidence I do not consider that the landlord has proved that the tenant has not left the property reasonably clean and tidy. The areas that the landlord had identified in the photos were very minor. There were no photos showing that the rest of the property was not reasonably clean and tidy.
This claim is not proven and is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord said that the tenant left a dent/hole in the wall where a door handle had banged into the wall. The landlord fixed the hole themselves and seeks the sum of $31.75.
The tenant said that there was no door stop in that particular room (and also another room).
I do not consider that the tenant has been careless. The tenant told the landlord that there were no door stops and asked that door stops could be installed in the bedrooms. The tenant has gone about using the property in the usual way. When doors do not have door stops it is common for the door handle to hit the wall and cause damage. In that case, the damage is accidental.
This claim is therefore not proven and is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
As both parties have had some success in their claims there is no basis on which one party should pay the filing fee of the other party.
As both parties have been successful to some degree (the landlord in obtaining two weeks rent and advertising expenses, and the tenant in defending the full amount sought for rent and expenses and the cleaning and damage claim) I have exercised my discretion to supress both parties’ names pursuant to section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371322 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371322 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What did the parties agree?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What did the parties agree?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions