How much money was awarded in case 5386963?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5386963?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5386963?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13813955-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5386963?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5386963?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5386963?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13813955-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Published tribunal order

Tenancy Tribunal case 5386963 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5386963 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s names and identifying details.

Decided 26 Jun 2026 · Published 26 Jun 2026 · Application 5386963

Rent arrears

Party names are redacted in the official published order.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Gillian Rapson $407.14 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay $570.00 from the bond to Gillian Rapson immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $1,710.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord and (Tenant A) appeared via video. Tenant A was supported by (D). (Tenant B) and (Tenant C) did not join via the video link. I called Tenant B and C at the contact numbers provided, but the calls went straight to voicemail. The notice of hearing was sent to both tenant’s email addresses for service. The hearing has proceeded in the absence of Tenant B and C.
The tenancy commenced on 3 May 2025 for a fixed term ending on 3 May 2026. The tenancy was a joint tenancy between three tenants: A, B, and C. The rent was $570.00 per week. Although each tenant paid an equal share of the rent to the landlord, this was not a term of the agreement, and the rent liability was joint. The bond of $2,280.00 was lodged in the names of all the joint tenants.
In August 2025, Tenant A left the property. Tenants B and C remained. Initially, B and C paid the full rent of $570.00, but from around 11 September 2025, they paid only their share, resulting in rent arrears accruing.
On 30 August 2025, there was a meeting at the property between the landlord and the joint tenants. D was also present at the meeting.
At the meeting, all parties agreed to end the tenancy on 01 October 2025.
The landlord stated they had agreed to end the tenancy because it was no longer viable.
The landlord provided a partially completed bond refund form proposing that rent arrears be deducted from the bond in unequal shares. The landlord proposed that Tenant A be liable for a greater proportion of the rent arrears than the others. Tenant A rejected the bond apportionment.
The landlord stated that, although they had agreed to end the tenancy, they did not believe this extinguished the tenants’ liability for any losses that might arise. The landlord stated that, at the time, they had contemplated seeking compensation for lost rent and reletting costs. However, they did not discuss these possible claims with the tenants, as they believed there was no legal obligation to do so.
After the meeting, the landlord sent Tenant A an email acknowledging Tenant A’s release from the tenancy.
On 01 October 2025, the landlord allowed B and C to remain in the property for 9 days before they moved to another property. B and C made payments of $380.00 and $285.00 to the landlord. This arrangement was not an extension of the joint fixed term.
The landlord advertised the property for rent and entered into another tenancy agreement on 05 November 2025.
On 12 November 2025, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears of $215.00, rent from 01 October 2025 to 05 November 2025 of $2,280.04, reletting costs of $885.50, and compensation for carpet cleaning.
The landlord seeks orders against Tenant A only. The landlord believes that, as Tenant A was ultimately responsible for ending of tenancy, they should be morally obliged to compensate Tenants B and C.
Tenant A denies liability, stating it ended on 01 October 2025, when the landlord agreed to release them from the tenancy, and that any liability should be jointly with the other tenants. Issue
The issue is whether the tenancy was terminated on 01 October 2025 and, if so, whether the tenants remained liable for the losses claimed by the landlord after that date. Law
Under section 13B of the Act, all parties to an agreement, periodic or fixed term, must agree any variation in writing.
A joint tenant is liable under the agreement jointly and severally.
Section 50(1)(d) states: 50 Circumstances in which tenancies are terminated. 1) Subject in the case of a subtenancy to section 57, no tenancy to which this Act applies shall terminate or be terminated otherwise than as follows: ... (a) in the case of a fixed-term tenancy, on the expiry of the term of the tenancy or, if any of sections 55AA, 56A (1), 58(1)(d), (da), 58A, 59, 59A, or 59B apply, by giving notice in accordance with the applicable section: ......... (d) where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.
A fixed-term tenancy cannot be terminated by either party unilaterally or by both parties jointly giving notice. A tenancy agreement, whether periodic or fixed term, may end with the landlord’s written consent.
Section 50(1)(d) requires the landlord’s consent to be in writing. However, this requirement is subject to section 11 of the Act.
Section 11 states: 11 Act generally to apply despite contrary provisions. 1) Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agreement or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to which this Act applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect unless— a) the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction is expressly permitted by this Act; or b) the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction should be permitted. 2) Subsection (1) shall not prevent a landlord from waiving voluntarily all or any of the rights and powers conferred on landlords by this Act, or from voluntarily incurring more or more extensive obligations than those that are imposed on landlords by this Act. 3) Any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred upon tenants by this Act shall be of no effect.
Although an agreement to end a fixed term tenancy may not be in writing, section 11 of the Act allows the Tribunal to permit such an agreement where it would be unjust or unreasonable not to do so.
A tenancy is defined in section 2(1) of the Act as the right to occupy residential premises (whether exclusively or not) in return for rent.
A tenancy agreement is defined as any express or implied agreement where a person grants another the right to occupy residential premises in return for rent. Analysis and decision
The landlord could not release Tenant A from the fixed term without the agreement of Tenants B and C.
There is no dispute that the agreement to terminate the fixed term tenancy was not in writing.
The party’s reference to “termination” is language suggesting an intention to end the tenancy.
It appears the tenants have acted in reliance on the agreement, vacating the property, and entering other tenancy agreements. I am therefore satisfied it would be unjust not to give effect to the intention to “terminate the fixed term”.
After termination, the landlord immediately entered into an agreement, whereby they allowed B and C to remain at the property in exchange for rent. This created a new tenancy agreement, thereby ending the tenant’s liability under the fixed term.
Accordingly, the tenant is jointly liable for rent arrears up to 1 October 2025 only. The claims for rent after this date and for reletting costs are dismissed. Unless there is a corresponding legal basis on which to do so, a moral obligation does not create a legal one. Based on the landlord’s rent summary, Tenant A, B, and C’s joint liability up to 01 October 2025 was $570.00.
The evidence provided does not establish the claim for carpet cleaning. The before and after photographs of the carpet show no discernible difference. The claim is dismissed. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Gillian Rapson $407.14 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay $570.00 from the bond to Gillian Rapson immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $1,710.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord and (Tenant A) appeared via video. Tenant A was supported by (D). (Tenant B) and (Tenant C) did not join via the video link. I called Tenant B and C at the contact numbers provided, but the calls went straight to voicemail. The notice of hearing was sent to both tenant’s email addresses for service. The hearing has proceeded in the absence of Tenant B and C.

The tenancy commenced on 3 May 2025 for a fixed term ending on 3 May 2026. The tenancy was a joint tenancy between three tenants: A, B, and C. The rent was $570.00 per week. Although each tenant paid an equal share of the rent to the landlord, this was not a term of the agreement, and the rent liability was joint. The bond of $2,280.00 was lodged in the names of all the joint tenants.

In August 2025, Tenant A left the property. Tenants B and C remained. Initially, B and C paid the full rent of $570.00, but from around 11 September 2025, they paid only their share, resulting in rent arrears accruing.

On 30 August 2025, there was a meeting at the property between the landlord and the joint tenants. D was also present at the meeting.

At the meeting, all parties agreed to end the tenancy on 01 October 2025.

The landlord stated they had agreed to end the tenancy because it was no longer viable.

The landlord provided a partially completed bond refund form proposing that rent arrears be deducted from the bond in unequal shares. The landlord proposed that Tenant A be liable for a greater proportion of the rent arrears than the others. Tenant A rejected the bond apportionment.

The landlord stated that, although they had agreed to end the tenancy, they did not believe this extinguished the tenants’ liability for any losses that might arise. The landlord stated that, at the time, they had contemplated seeking compensation for lost rent and reletting costs. However, they did not discuss these possible claims with the tenants, as they believed there was no legal obligation to do so.

After the meeting, the landlord sent Tenant A an email acknowledging Tenant A’s release from the tenancy.

On 01 October 2025, the landlord allowed B and C to remain in the property for 9 days before they moved to another property. B and C made payments of $380.00 and $285.00 to the landlord. This arrangement was not an extension of the joint fixed term.

The landlord advertised the property for rent and entered into another tenancy agreement on 05 November 2025.

On 12 November 2025, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears of $215.00, rent from 01 October 2025 to 05 November 2025 of $2,280.04, reletting costs of $885.50, and compensation for carpet cleaning.

The landlord seeks orders against Tenant A only. The landlord believes that, as Tenant A was ultimately responsible for ending of tenancy, they should be morally obliged to compensate Tenants B and C.

Tenant A denies liability, stating it ended on 01 October 2025, when the landlord agreed to release them from the tenancy, and that any liability should be jointly with the other tenants. Issue

The issue is whether the tenancy was terminated on 01 October 2025 and, if so, whether the tenants remained liable for the losses claimed by the landlord after that date. Law

Under section 13B of the Act, all parties to an agreement, periodic or fixed term, must agree any variation in writing.

A joint tenant is liable under the agreement jointly and severally.

Section 50(1)(d) states: 50 Circumstances in which tenancies are terminated. 1) Subject in the case of a subtenancy to section 57, no tenancy to which this Act applies shall terminate or be terminated otherwise than as follows: ... (a) in the case of a fixed-term tenancy, on the expiry of the term of the tenancy or, if any of sections 55AA, 56A (1), 58(1)(d), (da), 58A, 59, 59A, or 59B apply, by giving notice in accordance with the applicable section: ......... (d) where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.

A fixed-term tenancy cannot be terminated by either party unilaterally or by both parties jointly giving notice. A tenancy agreement, whether periodic or fixed term, may end with the landlord’s written consent.

Section 50(1)(d) requires the landlord’s consent to be in writing. However, this requirement is subject to section 11 of the Act.

Section 11 states: 11 Act generally to apply despite contrary provisions. 1) Any agreement or arrangement, or any provision of any agreement or arrangement, entered into in respect of a tenancy to which this Act applies, that is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, or that purports to exclude, modify, or restrict the operation of any such provision, shall be of no effect unless— a) the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction is expressly permitted by this Act; or b) the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction should be permitted. 2) Subsection (1) shall not prevent a landlord from waiving voluntarily all or any of the rights and powers conferred on landlords by this Act, or from voluntarily incurring more or more extensive obligations than those that are imposed on landlords by this Act. 3) Any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred upon tenants by this Act shall be of no effect.

Although an agreement to end a fixed term tenancy may not be in writing, section 11 of the Act allows the Tribunal to permit such an agreement where it would be unjust or unreasonable not to do so.

A tenancy is defined in section 2(1) of the Act as the right to occupy residential premises (whether exclusively or not) in return for rent.

A tenancy agreement is defined as any express or implied agreement where a person grants another the right to occupy residential premises in return for rent. Analysis and decision

The landlord could not release Tenant A from the fixed term without the agreement of Tenants B and C.

There is no dispute that the agreement to terminate the fixed term tenancy was not in writing.

The party’s reference to “termination” is language suggesting an intention to end the tenancy.

It appears the tenants have acted in reliance on the agreement, vacating the property, and entering other tenancy agreements. I am therefore satisfied it would be unjust not to give effect to the intention to “terminate the fixed term”.

After termination, the landlord immediately entered into an agreement, whereby they allowed B and C to remain at the property in exchange for rent. This created a new tenancy agreement, thereby ending the tenant’s liability under the fixed term.

Accordingly, the tenant is jointly liable for rent arrears up to 1 October 2025 only. The claims for rent after this date and for reletting costs are dismissed. Unless there is a corresponding legal basis on which to do so, a moral obligation does not create a legal one. Based on the landlord’s rent summary, Tenant A, B, and C’s joint liability up to 01 October 2025 was $570.00.

The evidence provided does not establish the claim for carpet cleaning. The before and after photographs of the carpet show no discernible difference. The claim is dismissed. Name suppression

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The tenant has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.