What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5422510?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the previous order released today due to an error in the rent

How much money was awarded in case 5422510?

and intended. ______________________…: $428.57 awarded to landlord; Break Fees: $596.85 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,828.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422510?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422510?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13509518-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5422510?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the previous order released today due to an error in the rent

How much money was awarded in case 5422510?

and intended. ______________________…: $428.57 awarded to landlord; Break Fees: $596.85 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,828.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422510?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422510?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13509518-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 2, 31 Evans Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5422510 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5422510 — net $1,241.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 February 2026	$2,828.57	Rent arrears to 3 February 2026
Cleaning: Garage	$40.00	Cleaning: Garage
and intended. __________________________________________________________________________________ 54225102 Loss of rent:	$428.57	and intended. __________________________________________________________________________________ 54225102 Loss of rent
Break fees	$596.85	Break fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,241.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,241.99

Order

This order replaces the previous order released today due to an error in the rent arrears total, per High Court Rules 2016 11.10 (“slip rule”) 1 . All other orders are unchanged.
Jonathan Joe Samuela and Charles Anderson must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Gabin Investments Ltd $1,241.99 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 (5404888-002) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Gabin Investments Ltd immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord made an application for rent arrears, orally submitting and confirming it as $2,228.57. This was an error in confirmation as the rent summary provided later confirmed the amount as $2,828.57. I am satisfied the error was accidental and it is appropriate to correct the first order accordingly.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants applied for a break in their fixed-term tenancy.
A new tenancy has now formed (as at 4 February 2026).
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. The tenant claim

Should the fixed-term tenancy be reduced?

The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in s 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular the applicant will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in their circumstances b. the change was unforeseen c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
Section 66(2) provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage which results from the reduction of the term.
The Tribunal has held that it cannot reduce the term of a fixed-term tenancy on the application of one of several co-tenants (Derbyshire v Mark & Maggies Property Company Ltd Wellington [2013] NZTT 1477WN).
The weighing of relative hardship is a question of fact to be assessed objectively in each case.
In this instance, I do not consider the tenants have established grounds for a reduction to the fixed-term tenancy. The decision to enter into a further fixed term of twelve months in June 2025 was done in the shadow of their next-door mother and her deteriorating health and mobility. She had already been provided an emergency body alarm (in February 2025) in anticipation of what later ensued, being a fall that required a callout for assistance. Based on a medical assessment at the time Her condition did not mean her premises could not be returned to after her required hospitalisation,. The decision to relocate as a whanau to provide her with better care and more suitable living arrangements is understandable and to be commended.
However, the change cannot be considered as unforeseen. The hurdle facing such claims were discussed and the likely outcome here foreshadowed at the hearing.
The tenants acknowledged a desire for the security of the fixed-term for their own tenure.
The impost on the tenants of paying rent for a premises when of no or little beneficial use or occupation was very real and a situation the tenants would prefer to have avoided. That was well expressed and is understood.
Unfortunately, the obligations of the fixed-term tenancy were clearly stated and should have, or would have, been a factor considered by the tenants in deciding on any subsequent change. A positive was their purchase of a home at that time, rather than entering into a new tenancy.
I do not need to consider the relative hardship given the finding that the change in circumstances was reasonably foreseeable and no grounds for a reduction exist.
The application for a reduction in the fixed-term tenancy is dismissed. That leaves a rent liability to be addressed, along with other landlord claims. The landlord claims

Is rent in arrears?

The landlord provided a rent summary that confirmed the rent liability ended 4 February 2026. At that date, the rent in arrears was confirmed as $2,228.57.
The rent summary accounting was not disputed by the tenant.
The rent in arrears is awarded.
The landlord also sought compensation for the loss of rent to the end of the fixed-term, as the rent was dropped by $20.00 a week to get a new tenancy established when it did. The total sought was $428.57. I am satisfied this is a loss to the landlord and should be compensated. I note the alternative was a possible extended period of rent liability that would have been a greater cost to the tenant than the sum sought here.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants did leave the premises reasonable clean and tidy. The unresolved issue was the need to clean the internal garage. The landlord provided photos and an invoice for $128.38.
I accept the photos evidence the need for further cleaning but I have difficulty aligning the invoiced tasks and effort to the evidence. Having considered the evidence and submissions, I consider $40.00 reflects the proven need to sweep the floor and remove the cobwebs. This is awarded.

Is the tenant liable for break fee costs?

The landlord is entitled to seek recovery of reasonable costs incurred in a break of a fixed-term tenancy. The likely costs were itemised upfront and confirmed at the end. The costs featured caps that reduced the actual costs sought and the final claim for $596.85 is accepted and awarded. Filing fee
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Gabin Investments Ltd has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5422510 — net $1,241.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 3 February 2026	$2,828.57	Rent arrears to 3 February 2026
Cleaning: Garage	$40.00	Cleaning: Garage
and intended. __________________________________________________________________________________ 54225102 Loss of rent:	$428.57	and intended. __________________________________________________________________________________ 54225102 Loss of rent
Break fees	$596.85	Break fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,241.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,241.99

Order

This order replaces the previous order released today due to an error in the rent arrears total, per High Court Rules 2016 11.10 (“slip rule”) 1 . All other orders are unchanged.
Jonathan Joe Samuela and Charles Anderson must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Gabin Investments Ltd $1,241.99 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 (5404888-002) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Gabin Investments Ltd immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord made an application for rent arrears, orally submitting and confirming it as $2,228.57. This was an error in confirmation as the rent summary provided later confirmed the amount as $2,828.57. I am satisfied the error was accidental and it is appropriate to correct the first order accordingly.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants applied for a break in their fixed-term tenancy.
A new tenancy has now formed (as at 4 February 2026).
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. The tenant claim

Should the fixed-term tenancy be reduced?

The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a court or tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in s 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
There is a high threshold to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular the applicant will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in their circumstances b. the change was unforeseen c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
Section 66(2) provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage which results from the reduction of the term.
The Tribunal has held that it cannot reduce the term of a fixed-term tenancy on the application of one of several co-tenants (Derbyshire v Mark & Maggies Property Company Ltd Wellington [2013] NZTT 1477WN).
The weighing of relative hardship is a question of fact to be assessed objectively in each case.
In this instance, I do not consider the tenants have established grounds for a reduction to the fixed-term tenancy. The decision to enter into a further fixed term of twelve months in June 2025 was done in the shadow of their next-door mother and her deteriorating health and mobility. She had already been provided an emergency body alarm (in February 2025) in anticipation of what later ensued, being a fall that required a callout for assistance. Based on a medical assessment at the time Her condition did not mean her premises could not be returned to after her required hospitalisation,. The decision to relocate as a whanau to provide her with better care and more suitable living arrangements is understandable and to be commended.
However, the change cannot be considered as unforeseen. The hurdle facing such claims were discussed and the likely outcome here foreshadowed at the hearing.
The tenants acknowledged a desire for the security of the fixed-term for their own tenure.
The impost on the tenants of paying rent for a premises when of no or little beneficial use or occupation was very real and a situation the tenants would prefer to have avoided. That was well expressed and is understood.
Unfortunately, the obligations of the fixed-term tenancy were clearly stated and should have, or would have, been a factor considered by the tenants in deciding on any subsequent change. A positive was their purchase of a home at that time, rather than entering into a new tenancy.
I do not need to consider the relative hardship given the finding that the change in circumstances was reasonably foreseeable and no grounds for a reduction exist.
The application for a reduction in the fixed-term tenancy is dismissed. That leaves a rent liability to be addressed, along with other landlord claims. The landlord claims

Is rent in arrears?

The landlord provided a rent summary that confirmed the rent liability ended 4 February 2026. At that date, the rent in arrears was confirmed as $2,228.57.
The rent summary accounting was not disputed by the tenant.
The rent in arrears is awarded.
The landlord also sought compensation for the loss of rent to the end of the fixed-term, as the rent was dropped by $20.00 a week to get a new tenancy established when it did. The total sought was $428.57. I am satisfied this is a loss to the landlord and should be compensated. I note the alternative was a possible extended period of rent liability that would have been a greater cost to the tenant than the sum sought here.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants did leave the premises reasonable clean and tidy. The unresolved issue was the need to clean the internal garage. The landlord provided photos and an invoice for $128.38.
I accept the photos evidence the need for further cleaning but I have difficulty aligning the invoiced tasks and effort to the evidence. Having considered the evidence and submissions, I consider $40.00 reflects the proven need to sweep the floor and remove the cobwebs. This is awarded.

Is the tenant liable for break fee costs?

The landlord is entitled to seek recovery of reasonable costs incurred in a break of a fixed-term tenancy. The likely costs were itemised upfront and confirmed at the end. The costs featured caps that reduced the actual costs sought and the final claim for $596.85 is accepted and awarded. Filing fee
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Gabin Investments Ltd has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422510 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 2, 31 Evans Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422510 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 2, 31 Evans Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed-term tenancy be reduced?

Is rent in arrears?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant liable for break fee costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed-term tenancy be reduced?

Is rent in arrears?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant liable for break fee costs?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions