What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422548 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,240 from the bond

How much money was awarded in case 5422548?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422548?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422548?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13743401-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422548 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,240 from the bond

How much money was awarded in case 5422548?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422548?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422548?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13743401-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5/26 Cross Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5422548 — Tenancy dispute

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,240 from the bond being unpaid rent.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (BN-00024096) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The tenants’ request for name suppression is refused.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing which was conducted by video conference. Ms Qin translated for the tenants.
The landlord claims the bond for unpaid rent.
The tenants also claim the bond. They claim that the landlord did not take reasonable steps to secure another tenant for the premises after the tenants notified him that they intended vacating the premises early. Background
The parties agreed a fixed term tenancy for one year from 23 December 2024 at a weekly rent of $560.
The premises were newly built, and the developer found and signed up the tenants to the tenancy.
The tenants said that in August 2025 they needed to return to China unexpectedly. They informed the landlord, and he confirmed that he was willing to release them on the usual terms that they would remain responsible for the rent until another tenant was in place and that they would be liable for any expenses associated with reletting the premises.
The tenants said that they would try to find another tenant and they took steps to do so. There was interest in the premises and the tenants referred several prospective tenants to the landlord.
The landlord sent one of those prospective tenants, Jade, a tenancy agreement which she signed. The tenants were unsure why that tenancy did not proceed. The landlord said that the tenant pulled out due to a disagreement with her partner which meant that she could not afford to pay the rent.
The landlord said that in October, he instructed a property manager to find a tenant. They did so and the tenancy began in January. I note that the only written evidence that the landlord provided was the tenancy agreement between him and the tenants.
The tenants paid rent up to 22 September and so, according to the landlord, he has lost rent from then to the end of December. That amounts to $6,720. He has also incurred letting fees. Despite that, he limits his claim to the bond. Evidence Discussion and Decision
The tenants have provided extensive evidence in the form of messages between them and the landlord and between them and prospective tenants. It is clear from these that the tenants made strenuous efforts to find another tenant for the premises.
It seems that they referred numerous prospective tenants to the landlord but according to the landlord, none was suitable. He instructed Irelands property managers from 2 October to take over the search for a tenant. He said that their letting fee was $560.
The landlord said that he has provided evidence with his application but there is nothing on the Tribunal file and Tenancy Services has confirmed that everything the landlord filed has been passed to the Tribunal.
It seems that the best prospect to replace the tenants was Jade, who signed a tenancy agreement sent to her by the landlord and returned it to him. She said in a message to the tenants that after returning the agreement to the landlord, Irelands took over and they were considering other prospective tenants.
According to the messages, Jade would have been ready to move into the premises on or about 3 October.
The legal position is that the tenants could have found someone to take an assignment of the tenancy, and the landlord could not unreasonably refuse. In practice, that can be problematic because an assignment is limited to the remaining term of the tenancy. Generally, in this type of case, a landlord has no obligation to release tenants or any obligation to relet the premises. But where there is an agreement, express or implied, that the landlord will try to relet the premises, there is an implied obligation to act reasonably in relation to the reletting.
If the landlord had granted Jade a tenancy, the soonest it could have started appears to be 3 October. That would leave the tenants owing 10 days rent. Had there been evidence from Jade that she was ready to move in on 3 October and there was no reasonable explanation why the landlord did not proceed, I would have found that the tenants owed 10 days rent plus the landlord’s reasonable expenses (subject to evidence of the expenses). But there was no evidence from Jade to that effect.
I find it unsatisfactory that the landlord has not provided evidence, but the onus of proof is not him, it is on the tenants. On the evidence before me, I am not able to find that the landlord has acted unreasonably. If the landlord was seeking to recover rent to the end of 2025, I would have required more evidence from him, but what is in dispute is 18 days rent and that can easily be explained by market conditions and unsatisfactory applicants.
I have therefore ordered the bond to be paid to the landlord. The good news for the tenants is that is the end of their liability. Suppression
Given the result, there is no good reason to grant the tenants name suppression and therefore their request for it is refused.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing which was conducted by video conference. Ms Qin translated for the tenants.

The landlord claims the bond for unpaid rent.

The tenants also claim the bond. They claim that the landlord did not take reasonable steps to secure another tenant for the premises after the tenants notified him that they intended vacating the premises early. Background

The parties agreed a fixed term tenancy for one year from 23 December 2024 at a weekly rent of $560.

The premises were newly built, and the developer found and signed up the tenants to the tenancy.

The tenants said that in August 2025 they needed to return to China unexpectedly. They informed the landlord, and he confirmed that he was willing to release them on the usual terms that they would remain responsible for the rent until another tenant was in place and that they would be liable for any expenses associated with reletting the premises.

The tenants said that they would try to find another tenant and they took steps to do so. There was interest in the premises and the tenants referred several prospective tenants to the landlord.

The landlord sent one of those prospective tenants, Jade, a tenancy agreement which she signed. The tenants were unsure why that tenancy did not proceed. The landlord said that the tenant pulled out due to a disagreement with her partner which meant that she could not afford to pay the rent.

The landlord said that in October, he instructed a property manager to find a tenant. They did so and the tenancy began in January. I note that the only written evidence that the landlord provided was the tenancy agreement between him and the tenants.

The tenants paid rent up to 22 September and so, according to the landlord, he has lost rent from then to the end of December. That amounts to $6,720. He has also incurred letting fees. Despite that, he limits his claim to the bond. Evidence Discussion and Decision

The tenants have provided extensive evidence in the form of messages between them and the landlord and between them and prospective tenants. It is clear from these that the tenants made strenuous efforts to find another tenant for the premises.

It seems that they referred numerous prospective tenants to the landlord but according to the landlord, none was suitable. He instructed Irelands property managers from 2 October to take over the search for a tenant. He said that their letting fee was $560.

The landlord said that he has provided evidence with his application but there is nothing on the Tribunal file and Tenancy Services has confirmed that everything the landlord filed has been passed to the Tribunal.

It seems that the best prospect to replace the tenants was Jade, who signed a tenancy agreement sent to her by the landlord and returned it to him. She said in a message to the tenants that after returning the agreement to the landlord, Irelands took over and they were considering other prospective tenants.

According to the messages, Jade would have been ready to move into the premises on or about 3 October.

The legal position is that the tenants could have found someone to take an assignment of the tenancy, and the landlord could not unreasonably refuse. In practice, that can be problematic because an assignment is limited to the remaining term of the tenancy. Generally, in this type of case, a landlord has no obligation to release tenants or any obligation to relet the premises. But where there is an agreement, express or implied, that the landlord will try to relet the premises, there is an implied obligation to act reasonably in relation to the reletting.

If the landlord had granted Jade a tenancy, the soonest it could have started appears to be 3 October. That would leave the tenants owing 10 days rent. Had there been evidence from Jade that she was ready to move in on 3 October and there was no reasonable explanation why the landlord did not proceed, I would have found that the tenants owed 10 days rent plus the landlord’s reasonable expenses (subject to evidence of the expenses). But there was no evidence from Jade to that effect.

I find it unsatisfactory that the landlord has not provided evidence, but the onus of proof is not him, it is on the tenants. On the evidence before me, I am not able to find that the landlord has acted unreasonably. If the landlord was seeking to recover rent to the end of 2025, I would have required more evidence from him, but what is in dispute is 18 days rent and that can easily be explained by market conditions and unsatisfactory applicants.

I have therefore ordered the bond to be paid to the landlord. The good news for the tenants is that is the end of their liability. Suppression

Given the result, there is no good reason to grant the tenants name suppression and therefore their request for it is refused.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422548 — Tenancy dispute at 5/26 Cross Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422548 — Tenancy dispute at 5/26 Cross Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions