What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5405029 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address

How much money was awarded in case 5405029?

At The Rate Of: $30.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405029?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13716988-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5405029 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address

How much money was awarded in case 5405029?

At The Rate Of: $30.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405029?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13716988-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5405029 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5405029 — net $1,504.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
at the rate of	$30.00	at the rate of
Net award	$1,504.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,504.29

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,504.29 at the rate of $30.00 per week commencing 15 June 2026.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams.
[Property manager’s name] attended the hearing for the landlord.
The tenant attended for themselves. Background
The tenant signed a fixed term tenancy agreement for one year commencing 7 November 2025, with a weekly rental of $1,350.00. However, prior to moving in, he found a house more suitable to his needs and advised the landlord he wished to cancel the tenancy agreement.
The property manager advised there was another applicant who was still interested, but they would be paying $100.00 per week less rent that the tenant had contracted for. She offered to agree to cancellation on the basis that the tenant would pay the difference in rent for the period of the fixed term, which would have amounted to over $5,000.00.
The tenant responded to the property manager’s manager, “I do not have the funds to pay the $5,000.00 difference in the two rents for the next 50 weeks.” He sent through three examples of comparable properties, inferring that the weekly rent he had agreed to pay was higher than the market rent for property, which should have been closer to the $1,250.00 figure the new tenants were paying.
He then suggested discussing agreeing to pay a lesser amount than the full $100.00 per week difference: Happy to discuss with you Ben, hopefully we can work out a favourable situation for both parties. I appreciate your help in advance.
The tenant then emailed the property manager to say that he would, “Look forward to your confirmation when the last person has signed please”.
The property manager emailed the tenant the next day to confirm the new tenancy agreement had been signed.
The parties subsequently discussed the outstanding issue of how much the tenant should contribute to the rent shortfall but have not been able to agree on an amount. Discussion
The landlord offered to cancel the tenancy agreement on the terms that the tenant paid the rent until the new tenancy began and the $100.00 per week rent shortfall.
The tenant did not accept that offer. He counteroffered that he would pay the rent until the new tenancy began and hopefully agree to a lesser amount that the $100.00 per week offered.
The landlord accepted the counteroffer by proceeding with the new tenancy agreement with the other applicant.
The tenant had clearly told the property manager he had no capacity to pay $100.00 per week and that he hoped to negotiate a lesser amount. The fact the tenant intimated that the property’s weekly rental was significantly too high by referring to another property that was “Very comparable” at $1,250.00 per week and another property at $1,250.00 had “Better outdoor spaces” would have telegraphed to the property manager he was minded to a figure far less than $100.00 per week.
The Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlord’s and tenants and must determine disputes accruing to the substantial merits and justice of the case. 1
During their later discussions, the tenant agreed to pay the landlord $30.00 per week for the shortfall in rent over the year of the fixed term. That is a fair figure in the circumstances. It was within the range the tenant contemplated when the tenant counteroffered and in keeping with his email that clearly rejected the landlord’s offer and intimated no additional weekly rent ought to be payable (albeit subject to discussion), which the property manager accepted.
An order that the tenant reimburse the tenant at the rate of $30.00 per week for the period is fair. Determination
Therefore, I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord at the rate of $30.00 per week for the remaining period of the fixed term he had agreed to from 21 November 2025 to 6 November 2026. The total amount is $1,504.29.
The tenant is struggling financially. The Tribunal orders that he pay the amount ordered at the rate of $30.00 per week. Non-publication
The parties seek non-publication of their names and identifying details. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 s 85.
Both parties have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of either party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Therefore, non-publication is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5405029 — net $1,504.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
at the rate of	$30.00	at the rate of
Net award	$1,504.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,504.29

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,504.29 at the rate of $30.00 per week commencing 15 June 2026.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams.
[Property manager’s name] attended the hearing for the landlord.
The tenant attended for themselves. Background
The tenant signed a fixed term tenancy agreement for one year commencing 7 November 2025, with a weekly rental of $1,350.00. However, prior to moving in, he found a house more suitable to his needs and advised the landlord he wished to cancel the tenancy agreement.
The property manager advised there was another applicant who was still interested, but they would be paying $100.00 per week less rent that the tenant had contracted for. She offered to agree to cancellation on the basis that the tenant would pay the difference in rent for the period of the fixed term, which would have amounted to over $5,000.00.
The tenant responded to the property manager’s manager, “I do not have the funds to pay the $5,000.00 difference in the two rents for the next 50 weeks.” He sent through three examples of comparable properties, inferring that the weekly rent he had agreed to pay was higher than the market rent for property, which should have been closer to the $1,250.00 figure the new tenants were paying.
He then suggested discussing agreeing to pay a lesser amount than the full $100.00 per week difference: Happy to discuss with you Ben, hopefully we can work out a favourable situation for both parties. I appreciate your help in advance.
The tenant then emailed the property manager to say that he would, “Look forward to your confirmation when the last person has signed please”.
The property manager emailed the tenant the next day to confirm the new tenancy agreement had been signed.
The parties subsequently discussed the outstanding issue of how much the tenant should contribute to the rent shortfall but have not been able to agree on an amount. Discussion
The landlord offered to cancel the tenancy agreement on the terms that the tenant paid the rent until the new tenancy began and the $100.00 per week rent shortfall.
The tenant did not accept that offer. He counteroffered that he would pay the rent until the new tenancy began and hopefully agree to a lesser amount that the $100.00 per week offered.
The landlord accepted the counteroffer by proceeding with the new tenancy agreement with the other applicant.
The tenant had clearly told the property manager he had no capacity to pay $100.00 per week and that he hoped to negotiate a lesser amount. The fact the tenant intimated that the property’s weekly rental was significantly too high by referring to another property that was “Very comparable” at $1,250.00 per week and another property at $1,250.00 had “Better outdoor spaces” would have telegraphed to the property manager he was minded to a figure far less than $100.00 per week.
The Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlord’s and tenants and must determine disputes accruing to the substantial merits and justice of the case. 1
During their later discussions, the tenant agreed to pay the landlord $30.00 per week for the shortfall in rent over the year of the fixed term. That is a fair figure in the circumstances. It was within the range the tenant contemplated when the tenant counteroffered and in keeping with his email that clearly rejected the landlord’s offer and intimated no additional weekly rent ought to be payable (albeit subject to discussion), which the property manager accepted.
An order that the tenant reimburse the tenant at the rate of $30.00 per week for the period is fair. Determination
Therefore, I order the tenant to reimburse the landlord at the rate of $30.00 per week for the remaining period of the fixed term he had agreed to from 21 November 2025 to 6 November 2026. The total amount is $1,504.29.
The tenant is struggling financially. The Tribunal orders that he pay the amount ordered at the rate of $30.00 per week. Non-publication
The parties seek non-publication of their names and identifying details. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 s 85.
Both parties have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of either party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Therefore, non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405029 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405029 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions