How much money was awarded in case 5375034?

Break Lease Fee: $533.92 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Marketing Cost: $228.85 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,671.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375034?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375034?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12885881-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5375034?

Break Lease Fee: $533.92 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Marketing Cost: $228.85 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,671.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375034?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375034?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12885881-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

23C Pah Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5375034 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375034 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5375034 — net $3,462.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 8 October 2025 to 29 October 2025	$2,671.43	Rent arrears 8 October 2025 to 29 October 2025
Break lease fee	$533.92	Break lease fee
Marketing cost	$228.85	Marketing cost
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,462.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,462.20

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

Zachariah No’o Duncan-Shepherd and Harriet Johnston Grace Duncan- Shepherd must pay [The landlord/s] $3,462.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

The background to this claim is that on 7 September 2025 the tenants signed a tenancy agreement for a fixed term tenancy which was due to begin on 8 October 2025 and to expire in October 2026. Prior to signing the agreement the landlord advised that the gardens would be tidied before the tenants moved in.

On 24 September 2025 the landlord emailed the tenants asking about payment of their move in costs. On 29 September 2025 the tenants advised the landlord that they no longer wished to take up the tenancy because as a result of the garden tidy up the premises were no longer private or sufficiently secure for their children.

The landlord now makes a claim against the tenants seeking payment of the break lease fee, marketing costs, payment of rent until a new tenant was put in place and reimbursement of the filing fee.

At today’s hearing the tenants said that they ought not to have to pay these costs because the property had been misrepresented. The trees had been trimmed/cut to such an extent that made it significantly different to when the property had been viewed.

Simply put, for a misrepresentation to be actionable, one party needed to have made a false or misleading statement of fact, inducing the other to enter into the contract.

On hearing the evidence today I do not consider that the landlord made any kind of misrepresentation. The tenants did not advise that privacy was an issue for them, and the statement that the garden would be tidied up could well have included significant trimming of the trees.

Further to this, if indeed the fence was not secure, (and I make no finding of fact here because the photographs provided by the landlord show a fence in reasonable condition) then the tenants option is to request the landlord remedy this issue, not to cancel the contract.

Having made these findings, the next issue to be determined is how much the tenants ought to pay for cancelling their fixed term contract.

In this situation tenants are required to pay rent until the fixed term expires or to the date a new tenancy begins at the premises, whichever is the earlier.

I accept the evidence indicating that a new tenant began renting the premises on 30 October 2025 and so the tenants are required to pay rent from 8 October 2025 to 29 October 2025 - $2,671.43.

In accordance with their tenancy agreement they are also required to pay the costs of breaking the lease. These are to be reasonable costs.

The landlord claims $844.01 as the break lease fee. This amount has been arrived at by charging out the property manager’s fee at $100.00 per our plus GST. I have reduced this amount by the GST component of $110.09. This is because the tenancy agreement does not say $100.00 plus GST per hour. It merely says $100.00 per hour. In this situation the $100.00 per hour is deemed to be GST inclusive.

I have also reduced the amount claimed by two hours because the things done in those two hours – handing over keys, final inspection, organising contractors, had not been done when the tenancy was canceled and so was not an extra cost to the landlord.

I accept the marketing fee as invoiced. This was a cost that was incurred directly as a result of the tenants not taking up the tenancy.

Further to this I am ordering the tenants to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was substantially successful with the claim against them.

For the same reason I am allowing the landlord’s application for suppression of their name. C ter Haar 17 December 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5375034 — net $3,462.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 8 October 2025 to 29 October 2025	$2,671.43	Rent arrears 8 October 2025 to 29 October 2025
Break lease fee	$533.92	Break lease fee
Marketing cost	$228.85	Marketing cost
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,462.20
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,462.20

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Zachariah No’o Duncan-Shepherd and Harriet Johnston Grace Duncan- Shepherd must pay [The landlord/s] $3,462.20 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The background to this claim is that on 7 September 2025 the tenants signed a tenancy agreement for a fixed term tenancy which was due to begin on 8 October 2025 and to expire in October 2026. Prior to signing the agreement the landlord advised that the gardens would be tidied before the tenants moved in.
On 24 September 2025 the landlord emailed the tenants asking about payment of their move in costs. On 29 September 2025 the tenants advised the landlord that they no longer wished to take up the tenancy because as a result of the garden tidy up the premises were no longer private or sufficiently secure for their children.
The landlord now makes a claim against the tenants seeking payment of the break lease fee, marketing costs, payment of rent until a new tenant was put in place and reimbursement of the filing fee.
At today’s hearing the tenants said that they ought not to have to pay these costs because the property had been misrepresented. The trees had been trimmed/cut to such an extent that made it significantly different to when the property had been viewed.
Simply put, for a misrepresentation to be actionable, one party needed to have made a false or misleading statement of fact, inducing the other to enter into the contract.
On hearing the evidence today I do not consider that the landlord made any kind of misrepresentation. The tenants did not advise that privacy was an issue for them, and the statement that the garden would be tidied up could well have included significant trimming of the trees.
Further to this, if indeed the fence was not secure, (and I make no finding of fact here because the photographs provided by the landlord show a fence in reasonable condition) then the tenants option is to request the landlord remedy this issue, not to cancel the contract.
Having made these findings, the next issue to be determined is how much the tenants ought to pay for cancelling their fixed term contract.
In this situation tenants are required to pay rent until the fixed term expires or to the date a new tenancy begins at the premises, whichever is the earlier.
I accept the evidence indicating that a new tenant began renting the premises on 30 October 2025 and so the tenants are required to pay rent from 8 October 2025 to 29 October 2025 - $2,671.43.
In accordance with their tenancy agreement they are also required to pay the costs of breaking the lease. These are to be reasonable costs.
The landlord claims $844.01 as the break lease fee. This amount has been arrived at by charging out the property manager’s fee at $100.00 per our plus GST. I have reduced this amount by the GST component of $110.09. This is because the tenancy agreement does not say $100.00 plus GST per hour. It merely says $100.00 per hour. In this situation the $100.00 per hour is deemed to be GST inclusive.
I have also reduced the amount claimed by two hours because the things done in those two hours – handing over keys, final inspection, organising contractors, had not been done when the tenancy was canceled and so was not an extra cost to the landlord.
I accept the marketing fee as invoiced. This was a cost that was incurred directly as a result of the tenants not taking up the tenancy.
Further to this I am ordering the tenants to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was substantially successful with the claim against them.
For the same reason I am allowing the landlord’s application for suppression of their name. C ter Haar 17 December 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375034 — Rent arrears at 23C Pah Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375034 — Rent arrears at 23C Pah Road, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions