What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5372365 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Better Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5372365?

Compensation: $520.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $965.71 awarded to landlord; Television Wall Bracket: $454.83 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372365?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372365?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12843309-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5372365 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Better Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 5372365?

Compensation: $520.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $965.71 awarded to landlord; Television Wall Bracket: $454.83 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372365?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372365?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12843309-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 31, 161 Ohaupo Road, Te Awamutu, Te Tenancy Tribunal Case 5372365 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5372365 — net $1,940.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 August 2025	$965.71	Rent arrears to 18 August 2025
Repairs: Television wall bracket	$454.83	Repairs: Television wall bracket
Compensation reduction of fixed term	$520.00	Compensation reduction of fixed term
Net award	$1,940.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,940.54

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Better Property Management Limited As Agent For Angela & Christopher Eastwwood $1940.54 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1940.54 (BN-00118590) immediately apportioned as follows: Better Property Management Limited As Agent For Angela & Christopher Eastwwood: $1940.54 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $139.46

Reasons

Both tenants and the landlord attended the hearing.

The tenants applied for the refund of the balance of their bond and the landlord has applied for rent arrears, break lease fee and refund of the bond. Both sought reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord withdrew the claim for an end of tenancy Methamphetamine test.

The tenants agreed to the cost to repair a wall damaged by a television wall bracket and to pay two weeks rent from the bond.

The tenants dispute their liability for the break lease fee claimed by the landlord, and rent owing until a new tenancy began.

The tenancy began on 25 June 2025 and was for a fixed term to 24 June 2026.The tenants sought a property that had parking and this unit came with a carpark. The landlord confirmed that the unit owners were asked to park in the corresponding unit number carpark. The tenants had a distinctive car and parking was important to them, but it was not established that this was told to the landlord.

The premises were 30-40 units and at the time the tenancy began all the units were not occupied. The landlord said that he never received a complaint that there was not a car park, just that sometimes a unit’s numbered car park was taken.

While living at the premises the tenants discovered that although the units had corresponding carparks their park was regularly taken and they had to park somewhere else. Photographs were provided. They had knocked on doors to find who had parked in their park and had been told that this was a problem and parking was not regulated. Sometimes people who did not live there parked in the spaces.

The tenants were concerned that they were causing issues by knocking on doors all the time and did not want to have to do this after work when they could not park in their spot. They believed that they had signed an agreement which stated that they had an allocated carpark.

The situation escalated when the tenant confronted someone about parking in their spot and was verbally abused. The tenants lodged a Police complaint. No further action was taken by the Police.

The tenants often had young relatives staying with them and this incident was very concerning to them and they felt it was a health and safety matter. They no longer felt safe living there and gave written notice to end the tenancy the day after the incident.

The premises were managed by a body corporate and the landlord said that they tenanted about 9 of the units and had a couple of complaints about parking before the current tenants signed their tenancy agreement. The landlord said that he had no authority to deal with the parking issues or have any ones car removed.

The landlord had then tried to raise the issue and find a solution at body corporate meetings on behalf of the owners and had put forward ideas for monitored parking and other solutions with no success.

The tenants said that this was so important that they would have not signed the contract if they had known parking in their carpark was going to be a problem and so terminated the tenancy on this basis.

The tenants believe that they are only be liable for rent to the day they gave notice because they did not get what they signed up for and they suffered unforeseen consequences.

The landlord said he often was dealing with tenant complaints and at the time the tenants had signed their agreement he had two parking complaints and did not think that was enough to inform prospective tenants about. He did agree that as more units have been rented the parking has become more of an issue.

The tenants were always able to find a park, just not their allocated one. This sometimes had the result of them being accused of using someone else’s park.

Did the landlord misrepresent the parking situation, that is, make a false statement of fact, to the parties before the tenancy began. It was agreed by all parties that the premises came with a carpark, and it did. There was always some car parking available at the premises.

I cannot find a statement made by the landlord that was untrue at the time the tenancy agreement was entered into and no evidence that the tenants had let the landlord know that parking outside their unit was an essential term of their tenancy. I come back to that tenants were always able to park at the premises and find that there was no misrepresentation by the landlord and so no grounds to cancel the tenancy on this basis .

A fixed term tenancy cannot be terminated by notice. The landlord offered a lease break and associated costs as an option for the tenants.

The landlord claimed for rent arrears to 28 August 2025 when a new tenancy began and break lease fee for breaking a fixed term tenancy.

A landlord who consents to termination of a tenancy under section 50 (1)(d) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination. See section 44 A RTA.

A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant. Section 44A (2) RTA.

The tenants were aware of the break lease fee being claimed from 4 August 2025.This was also contained in the tenancy agreement. The tenants came to believe that the landlord was not seeking this because of the contents of an email from the landlord on 22 August. This email was sent after the final inspection and the landlord stated there was only the concern about the repair to the wall in the lounge ....’ Once I've received the invoice for the wall repair, I will be able to provide the bond return form.’

The landlord explained that this was confirming the final inspection was good and the wall required fixing, then they could address the bond. It was not saying that this was the only thing to be claimed from the bond.

The tenants said that they thought the only cost was the wall damage then they would receive the refund of the bond.

I do not agree with the tenants. The tenants knew that their rent arrears would also be taken out of the bond, and this amount was not mentioned either. It was clear that the break lease would be claimed. There was no evidence that the landlord was not going to purse this cost.

The tenants did not apply to the Tribunal for a reduction of their fixed term before they moved out saying that they could not wait and it was a safety issue.

I will consider the reduction of the fixed term. The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The Tribunal is required to consider if the landlord would suffer hardship if the term were reduced, and balance this with the tenant’s hardship.

The tenants had an unforeseen change in circumstances when the increasing pressure on parking caused safety concerns for them and their young relatives, added pressure and stress and worry. This was to the point where they did not feel safe living at the premises and I find this was severe hardship.

The landlord would suffer the loss of rent for the 10 days between tenancy and the tenants if the tenancy was reduced to 18 August 2025, and the associated costs with finding a new tenant.

I find that the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.

Where the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order the tenant to pay the landlord reasonable compensation for any resulting loss. See section 66(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord believed that they had a fixed term for 12 months and this tenancy was reduced to two months. I award compensation of $520.00 being one weeks rent to the landlord, taking into account the extra costs required to relet the premises.

Both parties have been substantially successful and no filing fees are reimbursed.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5372365 — net $1,940.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 18 August 2025	$965.71	Rent arrears to 18 August 2025
Repairs: Television wall bracket	$454.83	Repairs: Television wall bracket
Compensation reduction of fixed term	$520.00	Compensation reduction of fixed term
Net award	$1,940.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,940.54