What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421315 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 5421315?

Reletting Costs: $1,288.00 awarded to landlord; Rent (In Lieu Of Notice: $214.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421315?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421315?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13284649-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421315 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 5421315?

Reletting Costs: $1,288.00 awarded to landlord; Rent (In Lieu Of Notice: $214.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421315?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421315?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13284649-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421315 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421315 — net $1,502.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent (in lieu of notice to 13 January 2026	$214.29	Rent (in lieu of notice to 13 January 2026
Reletting costs	$1,288.00	Reletting costs
Net award	$1,502.29
Bond	$4,500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,502.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay $1,502.29 from the bond immediately, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Lynch Holdings Limited: $1,502.29 [The tenant/s]: $2,997.71

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy, refund of the bond, and exemplary damages.
The landlord made a cross application for compensation relating to a reduction of the fixed term tenancy. Background
The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy that commenced on 21 December 2025 and was due to end on 22 December 2026.
On 20 December 2025 the tenants went to the property for handover with the property manager and discovered there were fleas at the property together with a cracked window and unsecured garage door. It was verbally agreed by both parties that the tenancy commencement would be delayed by one week until 28 December 2025 to allow the landlord to predominantly fix the flea issue. The tenants were also advised that the garage door would be fixed when the part arrived and that it was still secure.
On the same day, it is submitted that the tenants advised that they no longer wanted to proceed with the tenancy.
On 21 December 2025, the landlord emailed the tenants apologising for the fleas and setting out the plan and timeframe to resolve the issue. The email advised that the first flea treatment had commenced the day prior, that the carpets would then be professionally cleaned, and a second flea treatment would then be carried out.
The landlord advised in writing that the required garage door part had been ordered but that it could still be secured from the inside. The landlord stated that due to it being a fixed term tenancy, if they did want to cancel the tenancy, they would be liable for costs relating to reletting fees, credit checks and rent until a new tenant moved in.
On 22 December 2025 the tenant advised by email that given the flea infestation present at the start of the tenancy and the security concerns, they would not be proceeding to move into the tenancy.
The landlord submits that the cracked window was fixed on the same day.
The keys for the property were returned to the landlord a few days later. The landlord advises that on inspection, there were no fleas present at the property by 24 December 2025.
The property manager proceeded to immediately make arrangements for a replacement tenant, including advertising and on 13 January 2026, replacement tenant(s) moved into the property.
The tenants say that the property’s condition made it uninhabitable, that they were entitled to cancel the agreement in the circumstances and they should therefore be refunded the two weeks rent they paid in advance and the bond.
They say that they were advised by an external health provider that the flea treatment would not be safe for a few days. They also submit that they did not feel safe with the faulty garage door and crack in the window and they were generally worried about inconsistencies between what was promised and the reality of the home.
The tenants also seek exemplary damages in relation to the landlord’s breach of s45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and for requiring a letting fee (included in the landlord’s claimed fixed term reduction costs).
The landlord claims for rent until the new tenant moved in and the reletting costs incurred. They say that the fleas were a minor problem, that they only ever saw a few and that they acted quickly and reasonably in trying to remedy that and other issues raised, and that there was no security risk at the property. They agreed to defer the start date and did not charge any rent for this week and say that if it had taken longer to remedy the flea issue, they would have extended that rent free period and/or covered alternative accommodation.
Both parties provided evidence and this has been reviewed and considered, even if there is no direct reference to it. Issues
The issues for determination are: a. Whether the tenants were entitled to cancel the fixed-term tenancy on the basis that the premises were uninhabitable; and, b. If not, whether the landlord is entitled to the claimed rent and re-letting costs. Relevant law
A fixed term tenancy may only be terminated in accordance with the RTA or by agreement. 1
Where a tenant ends a fixed term tenancy early, the tenant is liable for the landlord’s reasonable costs incurred as a result, including loss of rent and reasonable re-letting expenses. 2 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s50(1)(a), (d), (f). 2 Ibid, s44A.
A landlord is required to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of health and safety. 3
Where a defect arises, the RTA generally contemplates that the landlord be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the issue. Habitability and remediable defects
I accept that, on the commencement date, the tenants observed fleas, a cracked window and a garage door issue. Those matters meant that the premises were not presented in the condition required by s45 of the RTA.
The issue is whether those matters rendered the premises uninhabitable so as to justify immediate termination of a fixed-term tenancy, or whether they were defects requiring remediation.
Not every breach of section 45 of the RTA will entitle a tenant to treat the tenancy as at an end. The Tribunal must assess the nature and seriousness of the defects, and whether they are capable of being remedied within a reasonable timeframe.
Premises are generally regarded as uninhabitable where essential services are unavailable, where there is serious structural or safety risk, or whether conditions make occupation unsafe. Examples include the absence of water or sanitation, significant flooding or fire damage, or untreated conditions posing serious health risks.
On assessment of the evidence, in my view the defects in this case do not fall into that category. The presence of fleas, the cracked window and the garage door issue were matters capable of prompt remediation.
The landlord was not aware of the flea issue prior to commencement. Upon being notified, the landlord responded promptly, agreed to arrange treatment and repair, and agreed that occupation be deferred for one week to allow that work to be completed.
The tenants initially verbally agreed to that deferral. That agreement is inconsistent with the premises being so affected that occupation was not reasonably possible. Rather, it reflects an acceptance that the issues could be remedied within a short timeframe.
The tenants gave notice cancelling the tenancy two days after the issue was identified and before the agreed remedial period had elapsed and before the landlord had an opportunity to complete the work. 3 Ibid, s45(1)(a).
Although I have sympathy for the tenants and the position they found themselves in, I am not satisfied that the tenants were entitled to treat the tenancy as at an end on the basis that the premises were uninhabitable. Early termination and costs
The landlord accepted that the tenancy would not proceed and took reasonable steps to mitigate loss by advertising the premises and securing a replacement tenant.
I am satisfied that the tenancy therefore ended by agreement for the purposes of section 44A of the RTA.
Section s44A entitles a landlord to recover reasonable costs arising from an early termination, including loss of rent and reasonable re-letting expenses.
I accept that, by agreement, rent was not payable during the one-week deferral period while the eradication and cleaning works were undertaken.
The landlord is therefore entitled to rent from the end of the agreed deferral period until the commencement of the new tenancy and reasonable reletting costs. On review of the costing evidence, I consider that the reletting costs were reasonable.
I have therefore awarded rent of $214.29 for rent to 13 January 2026 together with reletting costs of $1,288.00. Exemplary damages Breach of section 45 of the RTA
The tenants seek exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord breached s45(1)(a) of the RTA by failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair at the commencement of the tenancy.
A breach of s45 can constitute an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. However, exemplary damages are discretionary. Their purpose is to punish and deter, rather than to compensate and they are not awarded as a matter of course.
In determining whether to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must consider whether the breach was intentional, whether the landlord knew or ought reasonably to have known the conduct was a breach, and the seriousness of the conduct.
Here, I accept that the landlord was not aware of the flea issue prior to commencement. Upon being notified, the landlord responded promptly, agreed to arrange treatment and repair, and agreed the occupation be deferred to allow the work to be completed.
The breach arose from the condition of the premises at commencement, not from a refusal or failure to remedy once the issue was known.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord’s conduct was not intentional and does not demonstrate disregard for the landlord’s obligations under the RTA.
In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that an award of exemplary damages is justified. A finding of breach is sufficient to mark the landlord’s obligations under section 45 of the RTA.
This claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Letting fee as a reasonable cost under section 44A of the RTA
The tenants also dispute the landlord’s claim for a letting fee, submitting that letting fees are prohibited under the RTA.
The RTA does prohibit a landlord from charging a letting fee in connection with the grant or renewal of a tenancy. However, this prohibition does not determine whether a letting fee may be recovered as a reasonable cost arising from an early termination under s44A of the RTA.
Section 44A permits a landlord to recover reasonable costs actually incurred because of a tenant ending a fixed-term tenancy early. The focus is on causation and reasonableness, rather than the characterisation of the cost at the commencement of a tenant.
As detailed above, the letting fee here was incurred because the tenants elected not to proceed with the tenancy and the landlord was endeavouring to secure a replacement tenant.
It was not charged to the tenants as part of the commencement of their tenancy but was incurred as a direct consequence of the early termination.
This claim for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Other matters
I have not reimbursed the filing fee to either party and consider that these costs should lie where they fall.
The tenants sought name suppression. Although the tenants have not been successful, in considering all circumstances I have determined that the private interests of the tenants outweigh any public interest in publication and name suppression is granted to the tenants. The landlord did not seek name suppression. R Harvey-Lane 13 March 2026

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421315 — net $1,502.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent (in lieu of notice to 13 January 2026	$214.29	Rent (in lieu of notice to 13 January 2026
Reletting costs	$1,288.00	Reletting costs
Net award	$1,502.29
Bond	$4,500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,502.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay $1,502.29 from the bond immediately, as calculated in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Lynch Holdings Limited: $1,502.29 [The tenant/s]: $2,997.71

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy, refund of the bond, and exemplary damages.
The landlord made a cross application for compensation relating to a reduction of the fixed term tenancy. Background
The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy that commenced on 21 December 2025 and was due to end on 22 December 2026.
On 20 December 2025 the tenants went to the property for handover with the property manager and discovered there were fleas at the property together with a cracked window and unsecured garage door. It was verbally agreed by both parties that the tenancy commencement would be delayed by one week until 28 December 2025 to allow the landlord to predominantly fix the flea issue. The tenants were also advised that the garage door would be fixed when the part arrived and that it was still secure.
On the same day, it is submitted that the tenants advised that they no longer wanted to proceed with the tenancy.
On 21 December 2025, the landlord emailed the tenants apologising for the fleas and setting out the plan and timeframe to resolve the issue. The email advised that the first flea treatment had commenced the day prior, that the carpets would then be professionally cleaned, and a second flea treatment would then be carried out.
The landlord advised in writing that the required garage door part had been ordered but that it could still be secured from the inside. The landlord stated that due to it being a fixed term tenancy, if they did want to cancel the tenancy, they would be liable for costs relating to reletting fees, credit checks and rent until a new tenant moved in.
On 22 December 2025 the tenant advised by email that given the flea infestation present at the start of the tenancy and the security concerns, they would not be proceeding to move into the tenancy.
The landlord submits that the cracked window was fixed on the same day.
The keys for the property were returned to the landlord a few days later. The landlord advises that on inspection, there were no fleas present at the property by 24 December 2025.
The property manager proceeded to immediately make arrangements for a replacement tenant, including advertising and on 13 January 2026, replacement tenant(s) moved into the property.
The tenants say that the property’s condition made it uninhabitable, that they were entitled to cancel the agreement in the circumstances and they should therefore be refunded the two weeks rent they paid in advance and the bond.
They say that they were advised by an external health provider that the flea treatment would not be safe for a few days. They also submit that they did not feel safe with the faulty garage door and crack in the window and they were generally worried about inconsistencies between what was promised and the reality of the home.
The tenants also seek exemplary damages in relation to the landlord’s breach of s45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and for requiring a letting fee (included in the landlord’s claimed fixed term reduction costs).
The landlord claims for rent until the new tenant moved in and the reletting costs incurred. They say that the fleas were a minor problem, that they only ever saw a few and that they acted quickly and reasonably in trying to remedy that and other issues raised, and that there was no security risk at the property. They agreed to defer the start date and did not charge any rent for this week and say that if it had taken longer to remedy the flea issue, they would have extended that rent free period and/or covered alternative accommodation.
Both parties provided evidence and this has been reviewed and considered, even if there is no direct reference to it. Issues
The issues for determination are: a. Whether the tenants were entitled to cancel the fixed-term tenancy on the basis that the premises were uninhabitable; and, b. If not, whether the landlord is entitled to the claimed rent and re-letting costs. Relevant law
A fixed term tenancy may only be terminated in accordance with the RTA or by agreement. 1
Where a tenant ends a fixed term tenancy early, the tenant is liable for the landlord’s reasonable costs incurred as a result, including loss of rent and reasonable re-letting expenses. 2 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s50(1)(a), (d), (f). 2 Ibid, s44A.
A landlord is required to provide premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of health and safety. 3
Where a defect arises, the RTA generally contemplates that the landlord be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the issue. Habitability and remediable defects
I accept that, on the commencement date, the tenants observed fleas, a cracked window and a garage door issue. Those matters meant that the premises were not presented in the condition required by s45 of the RTA.
The issue is whether those matters rendered the premises uninhabitable so as to justify immediate termination of a fixed-term tenancy, or whether they were defects requiring remediation.
Not every breach of section 45 of the RTA will entitle a tenant to treat the tenancy as at an end. The Tribunal must assess the nature and seriousness of the defects, and whether they are capable of being remedied within a reasonable timeframe.
Premises are generally regarded as uninhabitable where essential services are unavailable, where there is serious structural or safety risk, or whether conditions make occupation unsafe. Examples include the absence of water or sanitation, significant flooding or fire damage, or untreated conditions posing serious health risks.
On assessment of the evidence, in my view the defects in this case do not fall into that category. The presence of fleas, the cracked window and the garage door issue were matters capable of prompt remediation.
The landlord was not aware of the flea issue prior to commencement. Upon being notified, the landlord responded promptly, agreed to arrange treatment and repair, and agreed that occupation be deferred for one week to allow that work to be completed.
The tenants initially verbally agreed to that deferral. That agreement is inconsistent with the premises being so affected that occupation was not reasonably possible. Rather, it reflects an acceptance that the issues could be remedied within a short timeframe.
The tenants gave notice cancelling the tenancy two days after the issue was identified and before the agreed remedial period had elapsed and before the landlord had an opportunity to complete the work. 3 Ibid, s45(1)(a).
Although I have sympathy for the tenants and the position they found themselves in, I am not satisfied that the tenants were entitled to treat the tenancy as at an end on the basis that the premises were uninhabitable. Early termination and costs
The landlord accepted that the tenancy would not proceed and took reasonable steps to mitigate loss by advertising the premises and securing a replacement tenant.
I am satisfied that the tenancy therefore ended by agreement for the purposes of section 44A of the RTA.
Section s44A entitles a landlord to recover reasonable costs arising from an early termination, including loss of rent and reasonable re-letting expenses.
I accept that, by agreement, rent was not payable during the one-week deferral period while the eradication and cleaning works were undertaken.
The landlord is therefore entitled to rent from the end of the agreed deferral period until the commencement of the new tenancy and reasonable reletting costs. On review of the costing evidence, I consider that the reletting costs were reasonable.
I have therefore awarded rent of $214.29 for rent to 13 January 2026 together with reletting costs of $1,288.00. Exemplary damages Breach of section 45 of the RTA
The tenants seek exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord breached s45(1)(a) of the RTA by failing to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair at the commencement of the tenancy.
A breach of s45 can constitute an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded. However, exemplary damages are discretionary. Their purpose is to punish and deter, rather than to compensate and they are not awarded as a matter of course.
In determining whether to award exemplary damages, the Tribunal must consider whether the breach was intentional, whether the landlord knew or ought reasonably to have known the conduct was a breach, and the seriousness of the conduct.
Here, I accept that the landlord was not aware of the flea issue prior to commencement. Upon being notified, the landlord responded promptly, agreed to arrange treatment and repair, and agreed the occupation be deferred to allow the work to be completed.
The breach arose from the condition of the premises at commencement, not from a refusal or failure to remedy once the issue was known.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord’s conduct was not intentional and does not demonstrate disregard for the landlord’s obligations under the RTA.
In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that an award of exemplary damages is justified. A finding of breach is sufficient to mark the landlord’s obligations under section 45 of the RTA.
This claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. Letting fee as a reasonable cost under section 44A of the RTA
The tenants also dispute the landlord’s claim for a letting fee, submitting that letting fees are prohibited under the RTA.
The RTA does prohibit a landlord from charging a letting fee in connection with the grant or renewal of a tenancy. However, this prohibition does not determine whether a letting fee may be recovered as a reasonable cost arising from an early termination under s44A of the RTA.
Section 44A permits a landlord to recover reasonable costs actually incurred because of a tenant ending a fixed-term tenancy early. The focus is on causation and reasonableness, rather than the characterisation of the cost at the commencement of a tenant.
As detailed above, the letting fee here was incurred because the tenants elected not to proceed with the tenancy and the landlord was endeavouring to secure a replacement tenant.
It was not charged to the tenants as part of the commencement of their tenancy but was incurred as a direct consequence of the early termination.
This claim for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Other matters
I have not reimbursed the filing fee to either party and consider that these costs should lie where they fall.
The tenants sought name suppression. Although the tenants have not been successful, in considering all circumstances I have determined that the private interests of the tenants outweigh any public interest in publication and name suppression is granted to the tenants. The landlord did not seek name suppression. R Harvey-Lane 13 March 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421315 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421315 — Tenancy dispute

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