Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5384844 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 11 Feb 2026 · Published 11 Feb 2026 · Application 5384844
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
N Maplesden
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
- The Bond Centre is to pay $870.00 from the bond ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Reasons
- Both tenants and a representative for the landlord attended the video hearing today.
- Both parties have made applications to the Tribunal. The applications relate to the early ending of a fixed term tenancy. Background
- The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy for 12 months starting 28 February 2025 and ending 1 March 2026.
- The tenants purchased their own home part-way through the tenancy and asked the landlord to consent to end the tenancy early.
- Fortunately, the landlord did agree but on certain conditions. The conditions were that the tenants would pay the landlord’s reasonable expenses related to the early ending of the tenancy and continue to pay rent until the property was re-let.
- The tenants returned possession of the property to the landlord on 3 December 2025. They continued to pay rent until the premises were re-let on 5 January 2026 and the landlord confirms there is no rent owing.
- The tenants do not object to covering the rent for this period and have also paid the difference between the rent they contracted to pay ($680 per week) and that the new tenants have agreed to pay ($650 per week).
- The only issue to resolve is whether the tenants should be required to pay $870.00 claimed by the landlord as expenses reasonably incurred in respect of consenting to the early termination. Are the expenses claimed by the landlord related to the early termination of the tenancy?
- Section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) gives a landlord the right to “recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the assignment, subletting, parting with possession, or termination” of a tenancy.
- The landlord must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant; s44A(2) RTA.
- The landlord has supplied in evidence an itemised account, and a record of time spent on the file from the time the early termination was agreed to up until the new tenants were secured.
- The amount claimed is for advertising and credit check costs, and a total of nine hours of agent time at $60 per hour ($540) plus gst. The landlord has itemised time spent finalising this tenancy (exit inspection, bond refund), eleven viewings by prospective new tenants, processing applications and preparing the new tenancy agreement.
- The record of time says “other time spent” included 6 phone calls and 42 emails with tenant, 11 calls and 22 emails with owners but does not say how much time was spent on these activities or what they related to.
- Agent time in phone calls and emails with the tenants and the owners to arrange and obtain consent to the early termination, and to document the early termination (“Agreement for Early Release from a Fixed Term Tenancy”) in my view is related to the tenants asking for the early termination and the owner agreeing to it.
- My decision in the hearing was that the time and expenses claimed by the landlord are reasonable and are recoverable under section 44A RTA.
- As agreed with the parties today, I order payment of the landlord’s expenses from the balance of the bond held at the Bond Centre.
- Neither party’s conduct is in issue in this case. The tenants raised a genuine issue but have complied with their contractual obligations. I consider their interests in privacy outweigh the public interest, and, with the agreement of the landlord, I suppress their names from the published order. The landlord has also acted reasonably and has been successful in the claim, so its name is also suppressed.