What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5391102 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5391102?

Break Lease Free: $438.83 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $132.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Funds Already Held By Landlord: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $116.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $797.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391102?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391102?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13089643-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5391102 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5391102?

Break Lease Free: $438.83 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $132.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Funds Already Held By Landlord: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $116.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $797.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391102?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391102?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13089643-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5391102 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5391102 — net $22.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 December 2025	$797.14		Rent arrears to 13 December 2025
Cleaning	$132.25		Cleaning
Repairs	$116.00		Repairs
Break lease free	$438.83		Break lease free
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Funds already held by landlord		$250.00	Funds already held by landlord
Total award	$1,512.22	$250.00
Net award	$22.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$22.22

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5391102 — net $22.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 13 December 2025	$797.14		Rent arrears to 13 December 2025
Cleaning	$132.25		Cleaning
Repairs	$116.00		Repairs
Break lease free	$438.83		Break lease free
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Funds already held by landlord		$250.00	Funds already held by landlord
Total award	$1,512.22	$250.00
Net award	$22.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$22.22

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. 2. 3.

Reasons

The tenant appeared. [Property managers] appeared for the landlord. Both appeared by video link.
On 17 November 2025, the tenant filed a claim alleging that they had entered into a fixed term tenancy under duress, that the landlord had failed to lodge the bond, and had unlawfully entered the property. The tenant seeks a refund of the bond, general damages for stress and suffering, and relocation costs.
On 02 December 2025, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears, costs of breaking the lease and entering a new agreement, and compensation for cleaning and damage. Duress
The property is a furnished one-bedroom, self-contained unit in a block of four others. Each unit has an open plan living/ bedroom, kitchenette, and bathroom. The occupants of the units have access to a shared kitchen / living space which also contains a laundry. There are three units upstairs and one downstairs. There are two carparks assigned to the block. If a tenancy includes a carpark, the cost is reflected in the rent. The number of occupants in the block is four, with each unit having just the one occupant. There is no evidence that the landlord is operating a boarding house.
The tenant stated that they had moved into an upstairs unit on or about 01 June 2023 under a fixed term agreement, that later became periodic. Toward the end of 2024, they became aware that the tenant in the downstairs unit was leaving. Initially, the tenant inquired about the carpark that would become available and then about moving from their upstairs to the downstairs unit. The property manager confirmed that the unit would be available to the tenant. The landlord requested that the tenant pay a relocation fee of $250.00. The tenant questioned the fee but state they were told that the fee had to be paid to relocate.
The tenant stated that they asked another tenant who had relocated within the block whether they had been asked to pay a fee, and that the tenant had stated they had not. The tenant stated that the downstairs unit was more desirable as it was closer to the shared living space where they entertained visitors. Despite questioning the fee, the tenant state they felt pressured, and the fee was paid on or about 14 December 2025. The tenant stated that if they did not pay the fee they would have had to have remained in the upstairs unit.
On 16 January 2025, the landlord sent the tenant a new fixed term tenancy agreement commencing on 12 February 2025 ending 11 February 2026. The tenant signed the agreement on 22 January 2025 and returned it to the landlord, who signed it on 23 January 2025. The new tenancy brought the previous one to an end. The tenant stated that they questioned the conduct of the landlord and the legitimacy of the relocation fee and took their time considering their position before signing the agreement.
During the tenancy, the landlord issued two 14-day breach notices requiring the tenant to return to their unit a couch (chattel) which had been moved into and left in the shared living space contrary to the terms of the agreement. On 11 November 2025, the tenant messaged the landlord asking what notice period was required to end the tenancy. Before the landlord could reply, the tenant sent another message stating that they were giving notice to vacate the property on 25 November 2025 (two weeks’ notice).
The landlord replied that the tenancy was fixed term and could not be ended with notice, and offered to end the tenancy by mutual agreement, which would include a break lease fee and liability for rent until a new tenant was found. The tenant did not accept this offer, the parties did not reach an agreement, and the tenant vacated the property returning the keys on 25 November 2025.
The tenant claims they felt pressured to pay the relocation fee to secure the new tenancy. While they accepted, they had entered into a fixed term, they state that it had not been fully explained, and that the agreement should have been periodic, like their previous agreement, allowing them to give notice.
The landlord acknowledges that the relocation fee was requested in error. Any fee claimed under the new agreement would have been considered key money, which is contrary to the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act). The landlord stated that the property manager at the time, who has since left the landlord’s employment, misunderstood the application of the term in the previous agreement that required a fee to be paid to alter or vary an existing agreement. The landlord stated that the relocation fee should therefore be returned to the tenant. I will offset this amount against any monetary award made in this case.
The landlord denied any pressure had been placed on the tenant. The landlord states that the tenant had ample time, in this case six days, to consider the terms of the agreement, and had signed it voluntarily. They state while the relocation fee had been requested in error, that had it not been paid the tenant’s existing tenancy would have continued. The landlord added that the previous tenancy had been for a fixed term and then converted to a periodic tenancy suggesting that the tenant was fully aware of what a fixed term involved. Law
In contract law, duress occurs where one party applies illegitimate pressure that compels another party to enter into a contract, such that the resulting agreement is not truly voluntary. In McIntyre v Nemesis DBK Ltd [ 2009] NZCA 329, the Court stated the party alleging duress in contract must establish the exertion of illegitimate pressure and that the imposition of that pressure then compelled them to enter the contract. If duress is established the contract is usually voidable by the innocent party.
The onus of establishing that they were compelled by illegitimate pressure rests with the tenant. The standard is on the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish more likely than not they were compelled. Analysis and decision
The pressure in this case is that the tenant was required to pay the relocation fee, or the landlord would not enter into a new tenancy agreement. A landlord is not legally obliged to enter into any tenancy agreement. Refusing to do so, unless considered discriminatory under the Act, is not unlawful. Even though the request to pay a fee may have had no legal basis, this does not automatically result in the request being viewed as illegitimate pressure.
The tenant was not compelled to pay the fee. If the tenant declined to pay, the existing tenancy would have continued. There would have been no loss from refusing. By entering into the new agreement, the tenant obtained a property that they viewed as being more desirable.
I am not satisfied that the tenant was compelled to enter the agreement by illegitimate pressure. I accept the landlord’s submission that the tenant had questioned the fee, that the tenant had ample opportunity to consider the term of the agreement, freely entered into a fixed term tenancy, and had previous tenancy experience. The claim is dismissed. Unlawful entry
The tenant states that having received the second 14 day notice they questioned the legitimacy of the property managers entry into the property, stating that they had not received any inspection notice or given consent.
The landlord denied that their presence was unlawful. They stated that the property manager, who had been at the property to conduct an inspection of one of the other units with the consent of that tenant, had noted a chattel belonging to the tenant, in this case a chair, in the shared area. Law
Section 48 of the Act states that a landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections, repairs, and maintenance.
Section 48(7) states that for the purposes of the provision that “premises” do not include the land or any facilities.
Section 2 (1) of the Act defines facilities as those provided by the landlord for the non-exclusive use and enjoyment of the tenant, otherwise than as part of the premises that are subject of the tenancy agreement, including laundry and cooking facilities and recreational areas. Analysis and decision
While entry into the tenant’s unit requires the landlord to give notice or obtain the tenant’s consent, the shared kitchen, living, and laundry spaces are facilities provided for the non-exclusive use of the tenant and are not part of the tenant’s premises for the purposes of section 48. The landlord was not required to give notice or obtain consent to enter these shared common areas. The claim is dismissed. Failure to lodge bond
In their application the tenant alleged that the landlord had failed to lodge the bond.
The landlord stated that, after the tenancy began, the tenant agreed to release the bond from the previous tenancy to the landlord, to be held in the landlord’s trust account. The parties also agreed that the tenant would pay an additional amount to top up the bond to reflect the increased rent (which included the cost of the carpark). Once the top-up was paid, the full bond would be transferred back to the Bond Centre.
The tenant did not immediately pay the top-up amount as agreed, so the bond was transferred back to the Bond Centre in the original amount on 18 February 2025. On 21 October 2025, the tenant paid the additional amount, which was then transferred to the Bond Centre. Law
Under section 19 of the Act the landlord must lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within 23 workings days of it being received. Analysis and decision
The evidence shows that the bond was transferred to the Bond Centre and the additional amount was forwarded once received. I am satisfied the landlord complied with section 19 of the Act. The claim is dismissed. Other claims
The Tribunal may award damages for losses arising from a breach that are reasonably foreseeable. As I have determined that the tenancy was for a fixed term and that there have been no breaches of the Act concerning entry or lodging of the bond there is no basis to consider general damages for stress and suffering and compensation for relocation costs, as these claims do not arise from any breach of the agreement or provisions of the Act. Landlord’s claims Rent arrears and break lease fee
The landlord is seeking rent arrears of $797.14, and reletting costs of $438.83.
The landlord states that, having been advised by the tenant that they intended to breach the terms of the fixed term by leaving the property on 25 November 2025, they immediately set about re advertising the property for rent. The landlord states that the property was listed on three websites. On 03 December 2025, the landlord entered into a new agreement to commence on 14 December 2025. The landlord is therefore seeking rent to 13 December 2025. The landlord stated that, as the tenancy would have ended two and a half months’ time, they acknowledged that some of the costs should not be claimed in full and accordingly discounted the amount claimed. Law
A fixed term tenancy cannot be terminated by unilateral notice. Section 50(1)(d) of the Act provides that parties to a tenancy, periodic or fixed term, may bring a tenancy to an end where the tenant surrenders the tenancy or offers up vacant possession with the landlord’s written consent.
The Tribunal may award damages for losses arising from a breach that are reasonably foreseeable.
Under section 49 of the Act, if a party to a tenancy agreement suffers a loss due to a breach of the agreement or the Act, they must take all reasonable steps to mitigate (reduce) that loss. If they do not, the Tribunal may reduce the amount of compensation or damages awarded to reflect what could have been avoided by taking reasonable steps. Analysis and Decision
The tenancy was not ended by agreement, the tenant vacated early in breach of the fixed term agreement. Subject to section 49 of the Act the landlord is entitled to seek damages for losses arising from the tenant’s actions that were reasonably foreseeable. Under the terms of the fixed term, the tenant had promised to pay rent until the end of that term. The landlord relied on that promise. The tenant is liable for rent until the property was relet, together with reasonable reletting costs.
In this case, I am satisfied that the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate their loss. Accordingly, I award the rent to 13 December 2025. Having considered the reletting costs, I also find that these are reasonable and are also awarded. Cleaning
The landlord claims the tenant failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord provided an end of tenancy inspection report, including photographs taken on 25 November 2025. The landlord has produced an invoice for cleaning the following areas: behind the television, floor behind the couch, marks / scuffs on walls, shower base, and kitchen floor.
The tenant stated they had cleaned the property before vacating and believed it to be reasonably clean and tidy. Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The Act does not require the premises to be provided in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considered the end of tenancy inspection report, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the areas concerned in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The compensation claimed is awarded. Damage
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for minor damage to a wall and door frame that has occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord has produced a pre tenancy and end of tenancy inspection report, both of which include photographs. The damage consists of four small dents to a wall and a small chip on a door frame. The landlord states the damage likely occurred when the tenant was vacating the property and is likely the result of carelessness. The landlord has produced an invoice for $116.00 to repair the damage, which involved filling the damaged areas, sanding, and paint touch ups. The tenant accepted that the damage had occurred during the tenancy and likely happened while moving out. Law
To succeed with a claim for damage, the landlord must prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, the tenant may avoid liability by proving that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B of the Act.
Fair wear and tear is damage that might reasonably be expected to occur over time through ordinary use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2 KB 283 (CA).
Where damage is caused carelessly and is covered by the landlord’s insurance, the tenant’s liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four week’s rent. See section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
The test for carelessness is objective and considers whether a reasonable and prudent tenant would have exercised the same degree of care in the circumstances.
When awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred, but not placed in a better position. The age, condition, and expected lifespan of the items at the commencement of the tenancy must be considered. Analysis and decision
Having heard from the parties and considered the inspection reports, I am able to make an accurate before and after comparison. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear, and considering the nature of the damage is likely the result of carelessness.
The amount claimed is less than the insurance excesses that would have applied. I make no deduction for betterment, as only the damaged areas were repaired. Costs
As the landlord has been wholly successful with their claim I must order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties seek 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 landlord has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression. There are no grounds on which to suppress the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391102 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391102 — Rent arrears

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