What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5402268 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 5402268?

Compensation: $960.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,057.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5402268?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5402268?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13005756-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5402268 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 5402268?

Compensation: $960.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,057.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5402268?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5402268?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13005756-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

64B Silverton Street, Andersons Bay, Dunedin 9013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5402268 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

64B Silverton Street, Andersons Bay, Dunedin 9013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5402268 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5402268 — net $1,217.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 14/12/2025	$2,057.14		Rent arrears to 14/12/2025
Repairs to lounge door	$120.00		Repairs to lounge door
Compensation		$960.00	Compensation
Total award	$2,177.14	$960.00
Net award	$1,217.14
Bond	$1,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,217.14

Claims and awards for application 5402268 — net $1,217.14 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 14/12/2025

Amount: $2,057.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 14/12/2025

Repairs to lounge door

Amount: $120.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs to lounge door

Compensation

Amount: $960.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation

Total award

Landlord $2,177.14 · Tenant $960.00

Net award

Landlord $1,217.14

Bond

Landlord $1,880.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,217.14

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Property damage Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Callisto Property Management Limited $1,217.14 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Callisto Property Management Limited: $1,217.14 [The tenant/s]: $662.86

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord by telephone from overseas.
On 26/11/2025 the tenant filed an application for a reduction in the term of the fixed term tenancy and exemplary damages for the landlord unreasonably failing to agree to an assignment of the tenancy.
As the tenancy ended on 14/12/2025 the issue of reduction of the fixed term was moot at the time of the hearing.
On 1/12/2025 the landlord cross applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 31/1/2025 to 30/1/2026 at $480.00 rent per week.
The tenant vacated on 16/11/2025. Landlord’s claim

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord sought rent arrears of $2,057.14 to 14/12/2025 and provided rent records to support the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
In response the tenant agreed that arrears of $1,920.00 were owed, but suggested this amount had been inflated to the amount claimed due to the landlord’s unreasonable delay in finding new tenants.
I have awarded the amount claimed but deducted compensation as set out below.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies.
The landlord sought compensation of $500.00 for replacement of a lounge door.
In support of the claim the landlord provided two estimates based on photographs which ranged from $360 plus materials to $500-$600 plus GST.
The landlord believed the insurance excess was $1,000.00, although both that amount and $550.00 was recorded in the tenancy agreement originally signed by the owner.
The tenant did not dispute that the door had been damaged when furniture was being removed and had undertaken repairs.
Based on the age and condition of the hollow core door, the repairs undertaken and the fact these had not been indicated as unsatisfactory at the time, the tenant offered $120.00 in compensation.
Where the 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 weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA.
There is no dispute that damage was caused to the internal lounge door during the tenancy.
However, I consider the landlord has failed to prove that the amount claimed for replacement is reasonable.
The amounts in support of the claim were estimates, based on photographs.
The landlord was unsure of the age of the door and the exact insurance excess.
I have awarded the $120.00 offered by the tenant, which I consider is reasonable in the circumstances. Tenant claim

Did the landlord unreasonably refuse to assign the tenancy?

The tenant submitted that the refusal of the landlord to agree to assign the tenancy and instead re-let the premises for a new fixed term resulted in them paying more rent than was necessary.
In response the landlord suggested that the tenant never asked for an assignment but rather wanted to end their tenancy early, so he undertook the process for reletting.
If a tenant makes a written request for the landlord’s consent to an assignment and the request identifies and includes contact details for, the proposed assignee, the landlord must respond in writing to the request within a reasonable period of time. See s. 43B(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 43B(5) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 43B(6) a landlord cannot unreasonably withhold consent or attach unreasonable conditions to the consent.
The email evidence supports that at the time the tenant expressed a wish on 23 September to end their tenancy early they did not have the details of any prospective tenants to give to the landlord.
However, while the landlord’s response to the request was responded to within a reasonable timeframe, I consider it was, at best, ambiguous because it did not set out what each party could do to find “people to take over the property”.
In particular the landlord did not let the tenant know about the assignment process for the balance of the term or that his intention was to re-let the property for a new fixed term.
I find there is no breach of section 43B(3) and exemplary damages are not available to the tenant.

Should compensation be awarded?

While the claim for exemplary damages fails, I consider it is reasonable to award compensation in these circumstances because the tenant was not offered the opportunity to find a new tenant for the balance of the term and when they attempted to do so were advised that assignment was not available to them.
In addition, the evidence provided by the landlord during the hearing confirmed a breach of section 16A.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has been absent from New Zealand since late September 2025 and indeed attended the hearing by telephone from Australia.
While the landlord has contracted a third party to do inspections of the premises, viewings and forward him applications the landlord confirmed he did not formally appoint the third party as his agent, nor did he advise the tenant he was overseas or notify them of the third party’s details until asked to do so.
Moreover, the landlord declined the opportunity for the hearing to be adjourned so he could call the third party to give evidence.
As the tenant did not make a claim under section 16A, because he was unaware of the situation I cannot look at the issue of exemplary damages for the breach.
However, section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
I have awarded compensation equivalent to two weeks rent because I consider had the tenant been aware of the ability to assign the tenancy, they may have been able to find suitable “people to take over the property” more quickly than the landlord did.
In addition, I consider the fact that the landlord continued to manage the premises while out of New Zealand in breach of section 16A extended the period of time it took for new tenants to be found due to the process undertaken by the landlord.
No filing fees are awarded because both parties were partly successful with their claims and the filing fees effectively cancel each other out.
Suppression is granted to the tenant under section 95A(4) because although they were only partly successful with their claim, I consider it is in their interests to do so as they made reasonable attempts to settle the dispute prior to the hearing.
Suppression is not available to the landlord because he was only partly successful with his claim.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5402268 — net $1,217.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 14/12/2025	$2,057.14		Rent arrears to 14/12/2025
Repairs to lounge door	$120.00		Repairs to lounge door
Compensation		$960.00	Compensation
Total award	$2,177.14	$960.00
Net award	$1,217.14
Bond	$1,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,217.14

Claims and awards for application 5402268 — net $1,217.14 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 14/12/2025

Amount: $2,057.14
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 14/12/2025

Repairs to lounge door

Amount: $120.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs to lounge door

Compensation

Amount: $960.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation

Total award

Landlord $2,177.14 · Tenant $960.00

Net award

Landlord $1,217.14

Bond

Landlord $1,880.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $1,217.14

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Property damage Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Callisto Property Management Limited $1,217.14 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Callisto Property Management Limited: $1,217.14 [The tenant/s]: $662.86

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord by telephone from overseas.
On 26/11/2025 the tenant filed an application for a reduction in the term of the fixed term tenancy and exemplary damages for the landlord unreasonably failing to agree to an assignment of the tenancy.
As the tenancy ended on 14/12/2025 the issue of reduction of the fixed term was moot at the time of the hearing.
On 1/12/2025 the landlord cross applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 31/1/2025 to 30/1/2026 at $480.00 rent per week.
The tenant vacated on 16/11/2025. Landlord’s claim

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord sought rent arrears of $2,057.14 to 14/12/2025 and provided rent records to support the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
In response the tenant agreed that arrears of $1,920.00 were owed, but suggested this amount had been inflated to the amount claimed due to the landlord’s unreasonable delay in finding new tenants.
I have awarded the amount claimed but deducted compensation as set out below.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies.
The landlord sought compensation of $500.00 for replacement of a lounge door.
In support of the claim the landlord provided two estimates based on photographs which ranged from $360 plus materials to $500-$600 plus GST.
The landlord believed the insurance excess was $1,000.00, although both that amount and $550.00 was recorded in the tenancy agreement originally signed by the owner.
The tenant did not dispute that the door had been damaged when furniture was being removed and had undertaken repairs.
Based on the age and condition of the hollow core door, the repairs undertaken and the fact these had not been indicated as unsatisfactory at the time, the tenant offered $120.00 in compensation.
Where the 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 weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA.
There is no dispute that damage was caused to the internal lounge door during the tenancy.
However, I consider the landlord has failed to prove that the amount claimed for replacement is reasonable.
The amounts in support of the claim were estimates, based on photographs.
The landlord was unsure of the age of the door and the exact insurance excess.
I have awarded the $120.00 offered by the tenant, which I consider is reasonable in the circumstances. Tenant claim

Did the landlord unreasonably refuse to assign the tenancy?

The tenant submitted that the refusal of the landlord to agree to assign the tenancy and instead re-let the premises for a new fixed term resulted in them paying more rent than was necessary.
In response the landlord suggested that the tenant never asked for an assignment but rather wanted to end their tenancy early, so he undertook the process for reletting.
If a tenant makes a written request for the landlord’s consent to an assignment and the request identifies and includes contact details for, the proposed assignee, the landlord must respond in writing to the request within a reasonable period of time. See s. 43B(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 43B(5) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 43B(6) a landlord cannot unreasonably withhold consent or attach unreasonable conditions to the consent.
The email evidence supports that at the time the tenant expressed a wish on 23 September to end their tenancy early they did not have the details of any prospective tenants to give to the landlord.
However, while the landlord’s response to the request was responded to within a reasonable timeframe, I consider it was, at best, ambiguous because it did not set out what each party could do to find “people to take over the property”.
In particular the landlord did not let the tenant know about the assignment process for the balance of the term or that his intention was to re-let the property for a new fixed term.
I find there is no breach of section 43B(3) and exemplary damages are not available to the tenant.

Should compensation be awarded?

While the claim for exemplary damages fails, I consider it is reasonable to award compensation in these circumstances because the tenant was not offered the opportunity to find a new tenant for the balance of the term and when they attempted to do so were advised that assignment was not available to them.
In addition, the evidence provided by the landlord during the hearing confirmed a breach of section 16A.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has been absent from New Zealand since late September 2025 and indeed attended the hearing by telephone from Australia.
While the landlord has contracted a third party to do inspections of the premises, viewings and forward him applications the landlord confirmed he did not formally appoint the third party as his agent, nor did he advise the tenant he was overseas or notify them of the third party’s details until asked to do so.
Moreover, the landlord declined the opportunity for the hearing to be adjourned so he could call the third party to give evidence.
As the tenant did not make a claim under section 16A, because he was unaware of the situation I cannot look at the issue of exemplary damages for the breach.
However, section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. The Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to the strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.
I have awarded compensation equivalent to two weeks rent because I consider had the tenant been aware of the ability to assign the tenancy, they may have been able to find suitable “people to take over the property” more quickly than the landlord did.
In addition, I consider the fact that the landlord continued to manage the premises while out of New Zealand in breach of section 16A extended the period of time it took for new tenants to be found due to the process undertaken by the landlord.
No filing fees are awarded because both parties were partly successful with their claims and the filing fees effectively cancel each other out.
Suppression is granted to the tenant under section 95A(4) because although they were only partly successful with their claim, I consider it is in their interests to do so as they made reasonable attempts to settle the dispute prior to the hearing.
Suppression is not available to the landlord because he was only partly successful with his claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5402268 — Rent arrears at 64B Silverton Street, Andersons Bay, Dunedin 9013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5402268 — Rent arrears at 64B Silverton Street, Andersons Bay, Dunedin 9013

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord unreasonably refuse to assign the tenancy?

Should compensation be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the landlord unreasonably refuse to assign the tenancy?

Should compensation be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions