What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5412808 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 5412808?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,085.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $82.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412808?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412808?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13530574-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5412808 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 5412808?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns: $69.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,085.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $82.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412808?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412808?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13530574-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 12, 32 Karori Crescent, Orakei, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5412808 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5412808 — net $2,987.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 December 2025	$3,085.71		Rent arrears to 5 December 2025
Water rates	$82.65		Water rates
Lawns	$69.00		Lawns
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged		$250.00	Bond not lodged
Total award	$3,237.36	$250.00
Net award	$2,987.36
Bond	$3,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,987.36

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Lucie Cheeseman to pay [The landlord/s] $2,987.36 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,987.36 Lucie Cheeseman: $612.64

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 1 May 2026.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards, to be released from the fixed term tenancy and for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates, lawn mowing costs and refund of the bond.
The tenancy began on 28 January 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 5 December 2025.
The tenancy agreement was signed by the tenant but not by the landlord. I am told that this was because the Healthy Homes Standards statement had not been completed. I am satisfied that the tenancy agreement submitted records the agreement between the parties, and this was not disputed at the hearing. In addition, there is email communication between the parties confirming the agreement in relation to the start and end dates for the tenancy which are recorded in the tenancy agreement. Fixed term tenancy
On 29 September 2025 the tenant sent an email to the landlord asking whether the tenancy could end early on 20 November 2025. This would be 14 days earlier than the fixed term end date. That email also suggested a new tenancy from 27 January 2026.
Before this tenancy the premises had been used as an Air BNB and the tenant had presumed that this arrangement would continue over the summer months as the tenancy was not required by this tenant during that period.
What the tenant was not aware of was that the landlord had restructured the mortgage on the premises and there was now a condition that it could not be provided for Air BNB accommodation.
On 3 October 2025 the landlord responded by saying she would reply further the following week. The landlord ended up responding further on 20 October 2025 with an offer that the tenant signs a further agreement for 12 months from 20 November 2025 until 20 November 2026 at a reduced weekly rent of $845.00.
On 27 October 2025 the tenant confirmed that there was no agreement in relation to the fixed term tenancy from November 2025 until November 2026.
On 31 October 2025 the landlord engaged a property manager to advertise for a new tenant and viewings went through until 23 November 2025.
The tenant argues that the landlord took too long to respond to her request to end the fixed term tenancy early. The tenant says that the landlord failed to mitigate their loss.
Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
The law in relation to fixed term tenancies is that it can only be ended early by mutual agreement. The landlord is not obliged to agree to an early termination but must act reasonably in considering the request. If a tenant ends a fixed term tenancy early without the landlord’s agreement, the tenant is generally liable for rent until the end of the fixed term or until a new tenant is found.
The issue here is whether there was agreement to end the tenancy early and if so, whether the landlord acted reasonably in relation to seeking a new tenant and mitigating any loss.
The email from the landlord dated 20 October 2025 confirms that there was agreement on that date for the tenancy to end early, but that does not mean that the tenant’s responsibility ends on the earlier date. The issue is whether the landlord acted reasonably in searching for a new tenant.
On the evidence presented I do not accept that the landlord took too long to respond to the tenant. The parties were in negotiations in relation to the ending of the tenancy and the start of a proposed tenancy for 2026. These two issues were being considered together as both were raised in the 29 September 2025 email. It was not until 27 October 2025 that the tenant confirmed that the offer from the landlord was not accepted.
Very soon afterwards the landlord employed a property manager to advertise and hold viewings for a new tenant. It was unfortunate that a new tenant was not secured before 20 November 2025, but the law is clear that a tenant in a fixed term tenancy remains liable for rent until the end of the fixed term or earlier if a new tenancy commences.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears of $3,085.71 to the period ended 5 December 2025 and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. This amount is awarded. Healthy Homes standards
The tenant claims in respect of the Healthy Homes standards because there was no heating at the premises at the beginning of the tenancy.
This tenancy commenced on 28 January 2025 therefore the Healthy Homes compliance date is 120 days from the commencement date being 28 May 2025.
On 19 April 2025 the tenant enquired about a heat pump and the landlord arranged for one to be installed on 20 May 2025.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes assessment dated 8 December 2025 which confirms that the heat pump installed provides sufficient heating for the area.
As the premises was compliant with the Healthy Homes standards in relation to heating on the compliance date, the landlord is not in breach. The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Bond not lodged
Lucie Cheeseman claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(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 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant paid the bond money to the landlord on 28 January 2025 and the landlord lodged the bond with the Bond Centre on 17 November 2025 1 which is more than nine months after the tenancy began. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant queried about the bond lodgement on 2 November 2025 when relations between the parties had deteriorated after the tenant had asked to end the fixed term tenancy early. The landlord responded by acknowledging that the failure to lodge the bond was an oversight and provided the tenant with confirmation that the landlord had received the bond. The landlord then took steps to lodge the bond.
This was the landlord’s first tenancy, and the subsequent tenancy has the assistance of a property manager. This is relevant because in a situation where an experienced landlord fails to lodge the bond any penalty would be more significant. 1 Date it was acknowledged by the Bond Centre
Given the circumstances I consider that an award of $250.00 is reasonable. Water rates
The landlord claims for unpaid water rates.
During the tenancy the landlord claimed for water consumption charges only and not wastewater consumption charges. This was because the landlord did not think that the tenant was responsible for all wastewater.
At the hearing the landlord produced an email dated 10 December 2025 which is addressed to the tenant. That email states that her water usage from 22 August 2025 to 20 November 2025 is $82.65. It was proposed that this amount would be deducted from the bond.
During the tenancy the landlord would periodically (not monthly), send an email to the tenant with invoices and request payment of an amount for water. This is the amount that the tenant paid.
The landlord did not discover the error until well after the tenancy ended. I note that the landlord should provide the tenant with the full invoice before the due date so that the tenant has an opportunity to query any charges before payment. This did not occur.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, landlords are entitled to recover water rates from tenants if the tenancy agreement provides for this and the charges are for metered water actually supplied to the premises. However, landlords are expected to request payment for water charges in a timely manner and to provide tenants with sufficient information to verify the charges.
In this case, the landlord did not request part of the payment for the water rates during the tenancy, and the tenant was not made aware of the outstanding amounts until several months after the tenancy ended. The delay in seeking payment is due to the landlord’s own error.
The Tribunal has previously found that it is not reasonable to require a tenant to pay water rates that were not requested during the tenancy, particularly where there has been a significant delay, and the tenant was not given an opportunity to verify or budget for the charges at the relevant time. Landlords must act promptly and reasonably when seeking payment for utilities.
The landlord requested a lesser amount in December 2025 and that is the amount awarded. Lawns
The landlord paid for the lawns to be mowed at the beginning of the tenancy and then the tenant took over the responsibility. The tenancy agreement does not specifically mention lawns, but it does confirm the general position that the tenant must keep the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition 2 .
The tenant left the premises on 20 November 2025 but remains liable for it up until 5 December 2025.
The landlord produced a photograph dated 8 December 2025 showing that the lawn was long, and I consider it likely that the lawn would have required mowing on 5 December 2025.
The landlord produced an invoice dated 16 December 2025 for lawn mowing and garden tidy. There is no evidence of the date that the lawn was mowed and the garden tidied.
The photograph dated 8 December 2025 does not show that the garden needed tidying. For this reason, I award the landlord $69.00 3 for the lawn mowing. Filing fee and suppression
The parties both had some success with their applications. For that reason, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.
For the same reason, the landlord’s name is suppressed as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5412808 — net $2,987.36 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 December 2025	$3,085.71		Rent arrears to 5 December 2025
Water rates	$82.65		Water rates
Lawns	$69.00		Lawns
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged		$250.00	Bond not lodged
Total award	$3,237.36	$250.00
Net award	$2,987.36
Bond	$3,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,987.36

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Lucie Cheeseman to pay [The landlord/s] $2,987.36 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,987.36 Lucie Cheeseman: $612.64

All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 1 May 2026.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, a claim in respect of the Healthy Homes standards, to be released from the fixed term tenancy and for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates, lawn mowing costs and refund of the bond.
The tenancy began on 28 January 2025 and was for a fixed term due to end on 5 December 2025.
The tenancy agreement was signed by the tenant but not by the landlord. I am told that this was because the Healthy Homes Standards statement had not been completed. I am satisfied that the tenancy agreement submitted records the agreement between the parties, and this was not disputed at the hearing. In addition, there is email communication between the parties confirming the agreement in relation to the start and end dates for the tenancy which are recorded in the tenancy agreement. Fixed term tenancy
On 29 September 2025 the tenant sent an email to the landlord asking whether the tenancy could end early on 20 November 2025. This would be 14 days earlier than the fixed term end date. That email also suggested a new tenancy from 27 January 2026.
Before this tenancy the premises had been used as an Air BNB and the tenant had presumed that this arrangement would continue over the summer months as the tenancy was not required by this tenant during that period.
What the tenant was not aware of was that the landlord had restructured the mortgage on the premises and there was now a condition that it could not be provided for Air BNB accommodation.
On 3 October 2025 the landlord responded by saying she would reply further the following week. The landlord ended up responding further on 20 October 2025 with an offer that the tenant signs a further agreement for 12 months from 20 November 2025 until 20 November 2026 at a reduced weekly rent of $845.00.
On 27 October 2025 the tenant confirmed that there was no agreement in relation to the fixed term tenancy from November 2025 until November 2026.
On 31 October 2025 the landlord engaged a property manager to advertise for a new tenant and viewings went through until 23 November 2025.
The tenant argues that the landlord took too long to respond to her request to end the fixed term tenancy early. The tenant says that the landlord failed to mitigate their loss.
Section 49 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
The law in relation to fixed term tenancies is that it can only be ended early by mutual agreement. The landlord is not obliged to agree to an early termination but must act reasonably in considering the request. If a tenant ends a fixed term tenancy early without the landlord’s agreement, the tenant is generally liable for rent until the end of the fixed term or until a new tenant is found.
The issue here is whether there was agreement to end the tenancy early and if so, whether the landlord acted reasonably in relation to seeking a new tenant and mitigating any loss.
The email from the landlord dated 20 October 2025 confirms that there was agreement on that date for the tenancy to end early, but that does not mean that the tenant’s responsibility ends on the earlier date. The issue is whether the landlord acted reasonably in searching for a new tenant.
On the evidence presented I do not accept that the landlord took too long to respond to the tenant. The parties were in negotiations in relation to the ending of the tenancy and the start of a proposed tenancy for 2026. These two issues were being considered together as both were raised in the 29 September 2025 email. It was not until 27 October 2025 that the tenant confirmed that the offer from the landlord was not accepted.
Very soon afterwards the landlord employed a property manager to advertise and hold viewings for a new tenant. It was unfortunate that a new tenant was not secured before 20 November 2025, but the law is clear that a tenant in a fixed term tenancy remains liable for rent until the end of the fixed term or earlier if a new tenancy commences.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears of $3,085.71 to the period ended 5 December 2025 and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. This amount is awarded. Healthy Homes standards
The tenant claims in respect of the Healthy Homes standards because there was no heating at the premises at the beginning of the tenancy.
This tenancy commenced on 28 January 2025 therefore the Healthy Homes compliance date is 120 days from the commencement date being 28 May 2025.
On 19 April 2025 the tenant enquired about a heat pump and the landlord arranged for one to be installed on 20 May 2025.
The landlord produced a Healthy Homes assessment dated 8 December 2025 which confirms that the heat pump installed provides sufficient heating for the area.
As the premises was compliant with the Healthy Homes standards in relation to heating on the compliance date, the landlord is not in breach. The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Bond not lodged
Lucie Cheeseman claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(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 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant paid the bond money to the landlord on 28 January 2025 and the landlord lodged the bond with the Bond Centre on 17 November 2025 1 which is more than nine months after the tenancy began. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant queried about the bond lodgement on 2 November 2025 when relations between the parties had deteriorated after the tenant had asked to end the fixed term tenancy early. The landlord responded by acknowledging that the failure to lodge the bond was an oversight and provided the tenant with confirmation that the landlord had received the bond. The landlord then took steps to lodge the bond.
This was the landlord’s first tenancy, and the subsequent tenancy has the assistance of a property manager. This is relevant because in a situation where an experienced landlord fails to lodge the bond any penalty would be more significant. 1 Date it was acknowledged by the Bond Centre
Given the circumstances I consider that an award of $250.00 is reasonable. Water rates
The landlord claims for unpaid water rates.
During the tenancy the landlord claimed for water consumption charges only and not wastewater consumption charges. This was because the landlord did not think that the tenant was responsible for all wastewater.
At the hearing the landlord produced an email dated 10 December 2025 which is addressed to the tenant. That email states that her water usage from 22 August 2025 to 20 November 2025 is $82.65. It was proposed that this amount would be deducted from the bond.
During the tenancy the landlord would periodically (not monthly), send an email to the tenant with invoices and request payment of an amount for water. This is the amount that the tenant paid.
The landlord did not discover the error until well after the tenancy ended. I note that the landlord should provide the tenant with the full invoice before the due date so that the tenant has an opportunity to query any charges before payment. This did not occur.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, landlords are entitled to recover water rates from tenants if the tenancy agreement provides for this and the charges are for metered water actually supplied to the premises. However, landlords are expected to request payment for water charges in a timely manner and to provide tenants with sufficient information to verify the charges.
In this case, the landlord did not request part of the payment for the water rates during the tenancy, and the tenant was not made aware of the outstanding amounts until several months after the tenancy ended. The delay in seeking payment is due to the landlord’s own error.
The Tribunal has previously found that it is not reasonable to require a tenant to pay water rates that were not requested during the tenancy, particularly where there has been a significant delay, and the tenant was not given an opportunity to verify or budget for the charges at the relevant time. Landlords must act promptly and reasonably when seeking payment for utilities.
The landlord requested a lesser amount in December 2025 and that is the amount awarded. Lawns
The landlord paid for the lawns to be mowed at the beginning of the tenancy and then the tenant took over the responsibility. The tenancy agreement does not specifically mention lawns, but it does confirm the general position that the tenant must keep the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition 2 .
The tenant left the premises on 20 November 2025 but remains liable for it up until 5 December 2025.
The landlord produced a photograph dated 8 December 2025 showing that the lawn was long, and I consider it likely that the lawn would have required mowing on 5 December 2025.
The landlord produced an invoice dated 16 December 2025 for lawn mowing and garden tidy. There is no evidence of the date that the lawn was mowed and the garden tidied.
The photograph dated 8 December 2025 does not show that the garden needed tidying. For this reason, I award the landlord $69.00 3 for the lawn mowing. Filing fee and suppression
The parties both had some success with their applications. For that reason, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.
For the same reason, the landlord’s name is suppressed as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412808 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 12, 32 Karori Crescent, Orakei, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412808 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 12, 32 Karori Crescent, Orakei, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions