What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5411588 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares the tenancy terminated on 24 November 2025, but the

How much money was awarded in case 5411588?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5411588?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5411588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12898106-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5411588 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal declares the tenancy terminated on 24 November 2025, but the

How much money was awarded in case 5411588?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5411588?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5411588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12898106-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Bordeaux Parade, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5411588 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal declares the tenancy terminated on 24 November 2025, but the tenant remained in possession of the premises until 19 December 2025, so they are liable for rent payments to that date.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay Que Property Management Limited as agent for Mr Jafari, the sum of $2,307.14, being rent arrears as of 19 December 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (BN-00050337) immediately apportioned as follows:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by both the tenants and landlord. While the tenant’s claim is extensive, at the hearing the only claims Que Property Management Limited As Agent For Mr Jafari: $2,307.14 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $1,092.86 advanced by the tenants were whether the tenancy should be terminated early, and the bond released. The landlord’s only claim is rent arrears, but that turns on the outcome of the tenant’s claim.
Both parties (Mr Johar for the tenants and Mr Bray for the landlord) appeared at the hearing in Waitakere today.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the landlord as “Mr Jafari” by way of a property manager, “Que Property Management”. The co-tenants are [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]. The tenancy is a fixed-term tenancy commencing on 10 March 2025 and ending on 10 March 2026.
From the commencement of the tenancy, there has been some degree of conflict between the tenants and the landlord. The day after the tenancy commenced, the tenant sent a range of requests to the landlord for maintenance. Some of those were completed, but some have proven to be bones of contention.
Of particular relevance, is a dispute around the kitchen benchtop. The tenant considers that the bench surface was inadequate. The landlord proposed having the benchtop coated with a proprietary product from a specialist bench repair company. The tenant was not satisfied with that, suggesting that it presented health and safety issues for him and his family. The bench repair became an impasse, where the tenant wanted a new bench installed, but the landlord would not agree to that.
The issues around the bench went on for some time, and on 3 October 2025, the tenant issued a 14-day notice in relation to the benchtop.
On 13 October 2025, the landlord (property manager) wrote to the tenant maintaining that the products that were proposed to be used on the benchtop were safe, and an adequate remedy, but in addition stated: In addition to this I have discussed with the owner and they would be happy to terminate the tenancy early if this is what you would like. Have a read and let me know what you would like to do.
On 28 October 2025, the landlord sent an updated email, stating: We understand that you would like to end your tenancy agreement early. Could you advise a termination date, a date that the house will be empty, cleaned and ready for a final inspection. From there we will seek agreement with the owner. On their agreement we can terminate the tenancy agreement, arrange the final inspection and bond refund.
On 3 November 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord: We intended to leave on 24 November 2025.
The tenants appointed a legal representative, Gautam Jindal. The tenant wrote to the landlord on 4 November 2025 advising of that appointment, and that he would not be paying rent until a resolution is reached, and his relocation costs addressed.
Gautam Jindal wrote to the landlord (date not recorded on email provided to the Tribunal), proposing that the landlord pay the tenants $3,500 due to misrepresentation, and advising that the tenants had proposed to stop paying rent.
On 5 November 2025, the property manager wrote to the tenants noting that the tenancy agreement was with the tenants, and the property manager would therefore be engaging with the tenants directly, not the tenants’ representative. The property manager also states: Moving on, I don’t understand why you are bringing up the kitchen repair when we had discussed and decided you would be moving out over this trivial matter. As this no longer appears to be the case let me remind you of your obligations under the tenancy agreement. The agreement is a fixed term tenancy expiring 10.3.26.
On 22 November 2025, the tenant wrote to the landlord advising that payment for three weeks of rent had been made to the landlord, and an early termination form was attached, for the last date of the tenancy being 7 December 2025.
The landlord responded (date not showing on email provided): Thank you for your rental payments. Regard to the early termination, unfortunately the owner does not agree to this. As per the email sent to you 5.11.25 we stated the tenancy would remain in place as per the tenancy agreement. We were entertaining the idea of an early termination however as you refuse to communicate from that date we were unable to make plans and provide the owner with a solution prior to December in the end of the year.
Ultimately, the tenants moved out in early December 2025, and have taken the position that the Tenancy has come to an end. Conversely, the landlord’s position is that there is a continuing fixed term tenancy, and that is the crux of the dispute at the Tribunal today. Applications to the Tribunal
On 26 November 2025, the tenant filed an application with the Tribunal, and subsequently amended the claim seeking the following orders: a. Declarations around: i. Section 45 – landlords duty to provide premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. ii. Section 40 – duty to maintain the premises iii. Section 38 covenant of quite enjoyment iv. Section 13 duty to act in good faith b. Compensation for bench top and time and labour required by the tenant. c. Compensation for “forced relocation”. d. Exemplary damages: i. Offering only minimal repairs ii. Retaliatory and oppressive conduct
On 10 December 2025, the landlord filed a counterclaim, but that only related to rent arrears.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

In short, the tenant’s position is that the landlord had agreed to reduce the term of the tenancy, and that was open-ended. Ultimately the tenants agreed that the tenancy should come to an end and gave notice of that to the landlord. The tenants consider that they should be able to rely on the landlord’s offer, and their acceptance.
The landlord on the other hand, states that when a tenant requests to end a fixed-term tenancy early, they are always open to that, and will put the request to the owner. In this case, the tenants did not get back to the property manager, rather there was an escalation of the dispute around the benchtop, culminating in the tenants asking for money in relation to that. The landlord's position is that the position of the tenants changed, and therefore the offer to reduce the term of the tenancy was no longer on the table.
The landlord also notes that given the time of the year, it is very difficult to find replacement tenants so close to Christmas, which would make it unreasonable to end the tenancy at this time.
The landlord’s position is that when a tenant requests to end the fixed-term tenancy early, they are always open to that, and take the offer to the owner. In this case the landlord did not hear from the tenants, and there was a continued dispute over the benchtop and the tenant wanting money. The landlord states that they had communicated to the tenant that the offer was no longer on the table, any offer was withdrawn, so they then took the position that the tenancy was a fixed-term agreement that stands.
The tenant handed the keys back to the landlord at the hearing today.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal must consider claims from both the tenants and landlord. The tenant filed extensive, and legally complex claims against the landlord, but on the day of the hearing, only requested orders in relation to the early termination of the tenancy and bond release. Termination date
The Tenancy was a fixed-term tenancy due to end on 10 March 2026. A fixed-term tenancy, is a tenancy which runs for a fixed period of time, and except in very limited circumstances, cannot be ended simply by giving notice. However, there is no reason why a landlord and tenant cannot agree to vary the term of the fixed term, to have the Tenancy end early.
In this case, plainly there was disquiet between the tenants and landlords around various matters, such as the benchtop, leading to the property manager confirming on 13 October 2025 that “I have discussed with the owner and they would be happy to terminate the tenancy early if this is what you would like”, and then asking the tenant what they would like to do.
In my assessment, the landlord was making an offer to the tenants to vary the term of the tenancy contract-that is to bring the end date forward to terminate the tenancy early. What is notable about that email, is that it does not provide any specific restrictions around the termination. The offer simply required that the tenant get back to the landlord and advise what they would like to do. I note also that the property manager confirmed that the landlord had approved an early termination. Any reasonable tenant who received that communication would have interpreted it as meaning the early termination had been agreed to by the landlord.
I am not persuaded that the landlord has revoked that offer. While there was a further email on 28 October 2025, which I accept is inconsistent with the 13 October offer, I cannot see that the 13 October offer has been withdrawn.
What then happened was on 3 November 2025. The tenants wrote to the landlord advising that they intended to leave on 24 November 2025, which I find was acceptance of the offer for early termination on 13 October.
I agree there were later communications from the tenant around compensation and rent, but that was after the tenant had accepted the offer on 3 November 2025, so are not relevant here.
I find therefore, that the landlord had offered to end the tenancy early, the tenant accepted that, giving a termination date of 24 November 2025. Rent arrears claim
It is the case that the tenants did not vacate the premises as required on 24 November 2025, it was not until early December they left. But that is not the end of their responsibility, because the tenants continued to have possession of the premises; it was only at the hearing that they returned the keys and possession to the landlord.
Section 60 of the RTA relates to the situation of a tenant remaining in possession following the termination of the tenancy. That provision confirms that the tenant continues to have all obligations on the tenant, as if the Tenancy continued in force, which means an obligation to pay rent to the landlord. I find the tenant is liable for rent payments until 19 December 2025, when possession was returned to the landlord.
The landlord provided a rent ledger at the hearing. The tenant confirmed that the rent payments recorded were correct, and to that extent, I accept that the rent ledger is accurate. The landlord has calculated that as of 21 December 2025, the rent arrears for the premises would be $2,550.00. Deducting two days of rent payment from that ($242.86), to calculate the rent arrears as of the hearing date, I have determined the rent arrears owed by the tenants are $2,307.14. Bond
I direct the Bond Centre release $2,307.14 to the landlord, to cover the renters, and the balance to the tenants. Other claims
The tenant has not prosecuted the other claims, they are therefore dismissed.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenant has applied for name suppression; the landlord has not.
The application for name suppression is declined. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in their application; the large majority of the claims were not argued, they were abandoned, and I can see no basis for exercising my discretion to otherwise order name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5411588 — Rent arrears at 9 Bordeaux Parade, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

Tenancy Tribunal case 5411588 — Rent arrears at 9 Bordeaux Parade, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Property management

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Property management