Tenantcheck Insights
Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Decided 4 Jun 2026 · Published 4 Jun 2026 · Application 5385743
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
K Koller
Dispute themes
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Decided 4 Jun 2026 · Published 4 Jun 2026 · Application 5385743
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
K Koller
Dispute themes
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears from 14 July - 22 August 2025 | $2,800.00 | Rent arrears from 14 July - 22 August 2025 | |
| Advertising | $355.35 | Advertising | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $1,223.35 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $1,223.35 |
Claims and awards for application 5385743 — net $1,223.35 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears from 14 July - 22 August 2025
Advertising
Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $1,223.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $1,223.35
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by a director. The tenant had a representative. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The parties had a fixed term tenancy which ended early. There is a process in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) which allows a tenant to apply for the termination of a fixed term tenancy because of hardship. An application under section 66(1) RTA is required. The tenant did not make this application which means I cannot consider hardship as a defence to the landlord’s claims today.
In July 2025 the tenants’ parents emailed the landlord to say the tenant was very unwell and could no longer continue with the tenancy. The landlord, by its actions, accepted the tenancy would end early and started looking for replacement tenants. A tenancy ending this way is provided for in section 50(1)(d) of the RTA which allows a tenancy to end: where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent In situations like this the landlord can claim rent until a new tenant is found. I find the landlord’s email, sent by the property manager on 10 July 2025, made it clear that the fixed term tenancy could end with two conditions – a $300 plus GST admin fee to cover the cost of advertising would be paid, and the rent would be paid until a new tenancy commenced. The tenant submitted that the slippery condition of the steps to the property and the presence of cables slung over the deck would have slowed the process of finding replacement tenants. However, I am not persuaded this would have made a big difference to renting a flat in this city. I have read the correspondence provided and I find that the property manager acted promptly. I find the landlord has proved the new tenancy commenced on 23 August 2025 and the tenant owes rent to that date.
There is a claim for the costs of advertising and a standard fee for the property manager’s time. Section 44A RTA allows a landlord to claim the reasonable expenses incurred with a termination and finding replacement tenants, so long as an itemised account of any expenses incurred is provided to the tenant.
I find there was an invoice sent which itemised the advertising costs. This claim is proved and reasonable. I find the landlord has not provided an itemised account for the property manager’s time. I would usually see an invoice showing, for example, the number of viewings, the costs of the credit check and the time taken to check references. Without an invoice I cannot determine if the claim is reasonable. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.
The landlord submitted that the tenant’s anti social behaviour was the direct cause of the tenants living upstairs leaving their fixed term tenancy early. I was provided with some emails and messages from the upstairs tenants. I do not find this claim is proved because • The tenants did not go to the police at the time and the landlord did not issue any notices to the tenant about his behaviour at the time, and did not file an application to end the tenancy. • The loss is too remote because it was not reasonably foreseeable to the tenant that ending the fixed term tenancy would result in the landlord claiming a cost incurred in renting another flat earlier in the year. • There was no mention of this cost in the 10 July email from the property manager. All claims relating to the upstairs tenants are dismissed. Other orders A request has been sent to the Bond Centre. Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. There are applications for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. The landlord’s name is suppressed became the landlord is the most successful party. The landlord submitted that the tenant’s name should be made public because of his alleged anti social behaviour towards the tenants living upstairs. The landlord has not proved this part of the claim, so I find it is not a valid reason to publish the tenant’s name.
The tenant’s representative submitted that the tenant’s breach was the result of his mental health crisis. He said the tenant has paid rent in his previous tenancies. I have been provided with supporting information to show the tenant is receiving treatment. I find there is no public interest in the tenant’s name at this stage and I allow suppression. The address is also suppressed in case this can identify the tenant.
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
s44A, s50(1), s66(1), s95A
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal
Advertising: $355.35 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord
The primary dispute was Rent arrears.
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13532311-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears from 14 July - 22 August 2025 | $2,800.00 | Rent arrears from 14 July - 22 August 2025 | |
| Advertising | $355.35 | Advertising | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $1,223.35 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $1,223.35 |
Claims and awards for application 5385743 — net $1,223.35 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears from 14 July - 22 August 2025
Advertising
Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $1,223.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $1,223.35
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by a director. The tenant had a representative. The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The parties had a fixed term tenancy which ended early. There is a process in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) which allows a tenant to apply for the termination of a fixed term tenancy because of hardship. An application under section 66(1) RTA is required. The tenant did not make this application which means I cannot consider hardship as a defence to the landlord’s claims today.
In July 2025 the tenants’ parents emailed the landlord to say the tenant was very unwell and could no longer continue with the tenancy. The landlord, by its actions, accepted the tenancy would end early and started looking for replacement tenants. A tenancy ending this way is provided for in section 50(1)(d) of the RTA which allows a tenancy to end: where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent In situations like this the landlord can claim rent until a new tenant is found. I find the landlord’s email, sent by the property manager on 10 July 2025, made it clear that the fixed term tenancy could end with two conditions – a $300 plus GST admin fee to cover the cost of advertising would be paid, and the rent would be paid until a new tenancy commenced. The tenant submitted that the slippery condition of the steps to the property and the presence of cables slung over the deck would have slowed the process of finding replacement tenants. However, I am not persuaded this would have made a big difference to renting a flat in this city. I have read the correspondence provided and I find that the property manager acted promptly. I find the landlord has proved the new tenancy commenced on 23 August 2025 and the tenant owes rent to that date.
There is a claim for the costs of advertising and a standard fee for the property manager’s time. Section 44A RTA allows a landlord to claim the reasonable expenses incurred with a termination and finding replacement tenants, so long as an itemised account of any expenses incurred is provided to the tenant.
I find there was an invoice sent which itemised the advertising costs. This claim is proved and reasonable. I find the landlord has not provided an itemised account for the property manager’s time. I would usually see an invoice showing, for example, the number of viewings, the costs of the credit check and the time taken to check references. Without an invoice I cannot determine if the claim is reasonable. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.
The landlord submitted that the tenant’s anti social behaviour was the direct cause of the tenants living upstairs leaving their fixed term tenancy early. I was provided with some emails and messages from the upstairs tenants. I do not find this claim is proved because • The tenants did not go to the police at the time and the landlord did not issue any notices to the tenant about his behaviour at the time, and did not file an application to end the tenancy. • The loss is too remote because it was not reasonably foreseeable to the tenant that ending the fixed term tenancy would result in the landlord claiming a cost incurred in renting another flat earlier in the year. • There was no mention of this cost in the 10 July email from the property manager. All claims relating to the upstairs tenants are dismissed. Other orders A request has been sent to the Bond Centre. Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. There are applications for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. The landlord’s name is suppressed became the landlord is the most successful party. The landlord submitted that the tenant’s name should be made public because of his alleged anti social behaviour towards the tenants living upstairs. The landlord has not proved this part of the claim, so I find it is not a valid reason to publish the tenant’s name.
The tenant’s representative submitted that the tenant’s breach was the result of his mental health crisis. He said the tenant has paid rent in his previous tenancies. I have been provided with supporting information to show the tenant is receiving treatment. I find there is no public interest in the tenant’s name at this stage and I allow suppression. The address is also suppressed in case this can identify the tenant.
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
s44A, s50(1), s66(1), s95A
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal
Advertising: $355.35 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord
The primary dispute was Rent arrears.
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13532311-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.
