What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5400833 about?

The tribunal order states: Applications for name suppression has been made in this case, and the

How much money was awarded in case 5400833?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400833?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400833?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13120557-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5400833 about?

The tribunal order states: Applications for name suppression has been made in this case, and the

How much money was awarded in case 5400833?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400833?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400833?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13120557-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5400833 — Rent arrears

Order

Applications for name suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The landlords] must pay [the tenants] $1,260 immediately.
The Bond Centre must pay the bond in the sum of $2,520 to [the tenants] immediately.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.

Reasons

The first named tenant attended the hearing. Representatives of the property managers attended for the respondents.
The tenants seek cancellation of the tenancy agreement for misrepresentation and compensation and exemplary damages for breach by the landlords of some their obligations.
The landlords seek rent arrears and compensation of expenses incurred associated with the tenants’ repudiation of the tenancy agreement. Background
The tenants were moving to Christchurch and were looking for a rental property for them and their large dog.
They found the premises advertised online and agreed to take it. They signed a tenancy agreement in October 2025 for the tenancy to begin on 11 November. On 20 October they paid two weeks rent in advance and four weeks bond.
When they came to move into the premises on 25 November, they were very disappointed. The premises looked very different from the photographs in the advertisement, and they decided that they did not want to accept the premises in the condition they found it in.
They contacted the agents, explained their decision and offered to forfeit the bond if the landlord agreed to release them from the tenancy. The landlord refused, referring to the difficulty of reletting the premises at that time of year. The tenants then offered six weeks rent which the landlord accepted.
The landlord asked the tenants to confirm the agreement in writing. They did not do so. They saw the landlords’ readvertisement of the premises using the same photographs as the previous advertisement. They were unhappy about that, and they decided not to adhere the agreement. They promptly filed their application.
The landlords relet the premises from 3 February 2026. The tenants paid another six weeks rent and the rent statement shows rent arrears of $2,340 to 2 February.
The landlord paid the $2,520 bond to the Bond Centre on 12 January. The tenants have paid a total of eight weeks rent being $5,040. Relevant Law
This case begs consideration of several aspects of tenancy law.
Section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), requires the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
Section 51(1) of the Act sets out the circumstances in which a tenancy can be terminated. Aside from the landlord reletting the premises, the only relevant circumstance is by order of the Tribunal. Section 51(2) states that s51(1) does not limit any other right of termination that may also apply.
Section 56(1) of the Act gives the Tribunal the power to terminate the tenancy for breach if it would be inequitable (unfair) not to do so. If the breach is capable of remedy, the party seeking termination must serve a notice giving at least 14 days for the other party to remedy the breach.
Contract law allows a party to cancel a contract if the other party has committed a serious enough breach of the contract. The test for what is serious enough is whether the breach indicates to the other party that the party in breach is not willing to be bound by the contract. This type of breach is sometimes known as a fundamental breach. This right is enshrined in ss36 -49 of the Commercial and Contracts Law Act 2017.
Section 78 of the Act allows the Tribunal to set aside a tenancy agreement if it has been induced by a misrepresentation.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. Discussion and Findings
The tenants were unhappy about the cleanliness of the premises, what they perceived to be mould in wardrobes, the kitchen floor that was lifting in places and made uneven and inadequate fencing for their dog.
There is no evidence that the discoloration of the wardrobe walls was mould or that there was any serious underlying defect that was causing dampness in the premises.
Carpets had some stains, but the evidence did not prove that the premises were not reasonably clean or at least that it fell seriously short of the required standard.
There was a gap in the fencing in one place and a gate seemed flimsy, but both could be remedied.
The kitchen floor was in an unacceptable condition. The plank flooring had lifted in many places, and it made the floor uneven. It is unclear whether that could have been remedied by sticking the planking back down or whether it would need to be replaced. The premises should not have been provided to the tenants in that condition. The floor was not in a good state of repair, and it was not easily washable and free from crevices, holes and depressions as required by R17 of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947.
I find that these shortcomings were not so serious as to entitle the tenants to cancel the tenancy. The evidence falls far short of proving that the premises were uninhabitable. The most serious problem was the kitchen floor. The immediate problem that it posed could have been mitigated by putting carpet or rugs over the floor until it was properly remedied. The landlord would be expected to do so promptly.
The photographs for the advertisement of the premises were taken from the sale particulars in 2020. They showed the premises fully furnished and staged for sale. The appearance of the premises when the tenants arrived to move into them was very different. As expected, there was no furniture and the premises, in some respects, looked tired and somewhat shabby by comparison.
The agents suggested a viewing but that was declined. They walked around the premises with a mobile phone for nine minutes or so giving one of the tenants a virtual tour of the premises. That tenant did not attend the hearing.
It is not uncommon for landlords and agents to use historic photographs in their advertising of premises. Prospective tenants are likely to be aware that the photographs do not necessarily show the current condition of the premises. That is not a problem if the tenant has viewed the premises.
In this case one of the tenants was able to see, virtually, the premises in its true state. I accept that it was not as revealing as a viewing, but it would certainly have been a reality check if the tenants were expecting the premises to look exactly (minus the furniture) as they were shown in the photographs.
I find, therefore, that the tenants were not induced to enter the tenancy agreement by the landlords using the photographs to misrepresent the condition of the premises. Where tenants accept premises without a viewing, they must, in my view, accept a margin of disparity between the photographs and the reality of the premises.
In my view, the tenants should not have rejected the premises outright. They should have put their concerns to the landlords and required them to remedy the defects. If they failed to do so to their satisfaction, they could have applied to this Tribunal for a remedy whether that was termination, a work order, compensation or any combination of these.
That disposes of the termination issue. The tenancy ended when the landlord relet the premises. But that is not end of this dispute.
The landlords should have paid the bond to the Bond Centre by the end of November. They said that they paid it in as soon as their office opened in January. That is not acceptable, but I have some sympathy for them. The tenants had rejected the premises and there was an agreement that was intended to resolve the issue. That agreement, if the tenants had confirmed it is writing, would have meant that the landlords would receive the bond. There was therefore some justification for the landlords retaining the bond. In any case, I do not think that there was any intention to deprive the tenants of the security of the bond.
It follows that there is no reason to award exemplary damages for the breach.
I have referred to the kitchen floor and I find that the tenants were also entitled to expect the garden to be securely fenced and gated for their dog.
The tenants also assert that the landlords did not comply with their obligations in relation to the Healthy Homes information provided with the tenancy agreement. In my view the statement could have been better completed but there is no obvious falsity or breach of the Healthy Homes Standards. Outcome
I find that there has been fault on both sides here. The landlords did not provide the premises in a satisfactory condition and the tenants came to a hasty and mistaken judgment about the premises.
I could approach this on the basis that the tenants are liable for the rent arrears less compensation and, possibly, exemplary damages for the landlords’ breaches. But I think that the fairest way of resolving both these applications is to hold the parties to the agreement they reached shortly after the tenants took possession of the premises. I was a fair and sensible outcome at the time, and it remains so.
The landlords wanted written confirmation of the agreement from the tenants, no doubt for their own protection, and the tenants decided that rather than affirming the agreement, they would apply to the Tribunal. The tenants repudiated the agreement, and the landlords accepted their repudiation. In making this decision, I invoke s85 of the Act because I see this outcome as according with the substantial merits and justice of the case.
The tenants are therefore liable to the landlords for six weeks rent. They have paid eight weeks and so I have ordered the landlords to repay them two weeks rent being $1,260. The tenants will receive the bond.
Both sides have had some success (and failure) and so I make no order in relation to the filing fees.
In essence I have upheld the settlement reached by the parties and so I grant them both name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400833 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400833 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions