What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5389921 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 (5559075009) to George

How much money was awarded in case 5389921?

Compensation: Fence: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord; Fixed-Term Break Costs: $1,380.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389921?

The primary dispute was Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389921?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13147768-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5389921 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 (5559075009) to George

How much money was awarded in case 5389921?

Compensation: Fence: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord; Fixed-Term Break Costs: $1,380.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389921?

The primary dispute was Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389921?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13147768-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

67 Farringdon Avenue, Rototuna North, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5389921 — Compensation

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5389921. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Fence	$1,380.00		Fence
Fixed-term break costs		$1,380.00	Fixed-term break costs
Total award	$1,380.00	$1,380.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 (5559075009) to George Erasmus and Wilhelmina Erasmus immediately, based on the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The landlord sought compensation for costs pertaining to a tenant instigated break in the fixed-term.
The tenants disputed the quantum of the costs as demanded and sought compensation for an enhancement to the premises.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
There was confusion in various exchanges and agreements between the parties as to this being a break or reassignment of the tenancy. I do not consider much rides on that in this instance but the landlord should ensure better consistency.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

Is the tenant liable for costs?

That this was a fixed-term tenancy was not disputed. Nor did the tenants resile from their responsibility for related costs. The tenants submitted that when the possibility was first floated the verbal indication of associate costs from the agent at that time was circa $500.00. As steps progressed the landlord provided the tenants with an estimated break down of costs of $1,194.60. This was not disputed at the time.
After the break, an invoice for $1,358.78. dated 7 November 2025 was presented to the tenants from the landlord. Line items reflected the previous estimate, with costs increasing to reflect the variable costs incurred per viewing or showing and processing of prospective tenants. While the invoice stated the total was GST inclusive, that was a drafting error and no GST was applied. The invoice was disputed regardless and the matter advanced to an application.
Before this hearing, the drafting error was identified and a GST inclusive invoice raised. That increased the total invoice cost (line-item ex-GST costs remained the same) to $1,562.00.
Section 44A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for reasonable costs associated with the break to be sought. The section requires an itemised invoice be provided. This was done.
The tenants in particular disputed the cost of methamphetamine testing. They do no use methamphetamine. The testing confirmed this. I explained to them that a baseline test is now, for many landlords, “business as usual” and one of several costs absorbed by the landlord at commencement (or based on a clean exit previously). The landlord sought $339.00 for the cost undertaken before 1 March 2026, the expected date when the fixed term was to end (this was a second fixed-term period after the tenancy commenced in February 2023 and an extension agreed).
In my view, the lapsed time over a fixed-term may inform any determination of “reasonable costs”. The upfront establishment costs such as this should form part of rent setting and can be seen as recovered, like other outgoings such as rates and insurance, over the duration of the tenancy.
Given the approximately 70% lapse of this term prior to the premature ending, I consider the cost for testing should be apportioned. The tenant contribution is set at $182.60.
All other costs in the later, GST inclusive, invoice are accepted. In arriving at that I have allowed for the distance from the agent office to the property and expected travel times. As I observed at the hearing, the balance between cost mitigation and ongoing rent liability requires careful consideration. A lower cost approach may have extended tenant rent liability, just one extra week here would have equated to $790.00 of additional rent due. I am satisfied the landlord acted promptly and the costs, while higher than others I see, reflect that effort, at least in part.
The landlord is awarded $1,380.00 compensation for costs associated with the break in the fixed-term.

Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenant?

In short, yes. The agents were seemingly fully aware the tenant and owner had come to an agreement that the owner would compensate the tenant $2,224.00 for the fence constructed by the tenants. $844.00 of this was paid directly with $1,380.00 withheld pending the settling of the dispute over break costs.
The linkage of the two by the owner was unfortunate as I consider the agreement for the fence was a standalone contract, separate from any potential set-off later via the landlord application for compensation.
The agents agreed at the hearing that the email from the owner of 19 November 2025 was a binding agreement.
The balance of $1,380.00 is due and is awarded to the tenant. Filing Fee
As both applications have enjoyed some success I leave each to carry their respective filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has not been wholly successful across both applications, no suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5389921. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Fence	$1,380.00		Fence
Fixed-term break costs		$1,380.00	Fixed-term break costs
Total award	$1,380.00	$1,380.00

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 (5559075009) to George Erasmus and Wilhelmina Erasmus immediately, based on the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The landlord sought compensation for costs pertaining to a tenant instigated break in the fixed-term.
The tenants disputed the quantum of the costs as demanded and sought compensation for an enhancement to the premises.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
There was confusion in various exchanges and agreements between the parties as to this being a break or reassignment of the tenancy. I do not consider much rides on that in this instance but the landlord should ensure better consistency.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

Is the tenant liable for costs?

That this was a fixed-term tenancy was not disputed. Nor did the tenants resile from their responsibility for related costs. The tenants submitted that when the possibility was first floated the verbal indication of associate costs from the agent at that time was circa $500.00. As steps progressed the landlord provided the tenants with an estimated break down of costs of $1,194.60. This was not disputed at the time.
After the break, an invoice for $1,358.78. dated 7 November 2025 was presented to the tenants from the landlord. Line items reflected the previous estimate, with costs increasing to reflect the variable costs incurred per viewing or showing and processing of prospective tenants. While the invoice stated the total was GST inclusive, that was a drafting error and no GST was applied. The invoice was disputed regardless and the matter advanced to an application.
Before this hearing, the drafting error was identified and a GST inclusive invoice raised. That increased the total invoice cost (line-item ex-GST costs remained the same) to $1,562.00.
Section 44A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides for reasonable costs associated with the break to be sought. The section requires an itemised invoice be provided. This was done.
The tenants in particular disputed the cost of methamphetamine testing. They do no use methamphetamine. The testing confirmed this. I explained to them that a baseline test is now, for many landlords, “business as usual” and one of several costs absorbed by the landlord at commencement (or based on a clean exit previously). The landlord sought $339.00 for the cost undertaken before 1 March 2026, the expected date when the fixed term was to end (this was a second fixed-term period after the tenancy commenced in February 2023 and an extension agreed).
In my view, the lapsed time over a fixed-term may inform any determination of “reasonable costs”. The upfront establishment costs such as this should form part of rent setting and can be seen as recovered, like other outgoings such as rates and insurance, over the duration of the tenancy.
Given the approximately 70% lapse of this term prior to the premature ending, I consider the cost for testing should be apportioned. The tenant contribution is set at $182.60.
All other costs in the later, GST inclusive, invoice are accepted. In arriving at that I have allowed for the distance from the agent office to the property and expected travel times. As I observed at the hearing, the balance between cost mitigation and ongoing rent liability requires careful consideration. A lower cost approach may have extended tenant rent liability, just one extra week here would have equated to $790.00 of additional rent due. I am satisfied the landlord acted promptly and the costs, while higher than others I see, reflect that effort, at least in part.
The landlord is awarded $1,380.00 compensation for costs associated with the break in the fixed-term.

Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenant?

In short, yes. The agents were seemingly fully aware the tenant and owner had come to an agreement that the owner would compensate the tenant $2,224.00 for the fence constructed by the tenants. $844.00 of this was paid directly with $1,380.00 withheld pending the settling of the dispute over break costs.
The linkage of the two by the owner was unfortunate as I consider the agreement for the fence was a standalone contract, separate from any potential set-off later via the landlord application for compensation.
The agents agreed at the hearing that the email from the owner of 19 November 2025 was a binding agreement.
The balance of $1,380.00 is due and is awarded to the tenant. Filing Fee
As both applications have enjoyed some success I leave each to carry their respective filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has not been wholly successful across both applications, no suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389921 — Compensation at 67 Farringdon Avenue, Rototuna North, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389921 — Compensation at 67 Farringdon Avenue, Rototuna North, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for costs?

Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for costs?

Is the landlord liable to compensate the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions