What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5423401 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 5423401?

Compensation: $280.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423401?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423401?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13744566-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5423401 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 5423401?

Compensation: $280.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423401?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423401?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13744566-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5423401 — Tenancy dispute | TenantCheck

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423401 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 12 Jun 2026 · Published 12 Jun 2026 · Application 5423401

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Adjudicator

R Woodhouse

Dispute themes

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423401 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 12 Jun 2026 · Published 12 Jun 2026 · Application 5423401

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Adjudicator

R Woodhouse

Dispute themes

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name and identifying details.
Rentcare Property Management Limited Serah Lee must pay [The tenant/s] $308.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Compensation$280.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$308.00
The Bond Centre is to release the bond in full to the tenant.
All other claims are dismissed

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant. The tenant seeks an order reducing the term of her fixed-term tenancy, refund of the bond and compensation.
Both parties appeared at the video hearing today.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered into a fixed-term tenancy, for a tenancy to commence on 13 June 2025, and ending on 12 June 2026. The weekly rental was $599.00.
On 26 December 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord stating that she had a change of circumstances, we were a family member in Australia had terminal cancer, and she wished to relocate in order to support them. The tenant advised she look for properties in Australia, and was intending to leave in April 2026.
The property manager replied on 5 and 7 January 2026, noting that this was a fixed term tenancy until 12 June 2026, but the landlord was agreeable to find a new tenant, to take over the tenancy. The landlord noted that the tenant would be liable for rent until the new tenancy commences, as well as a “break fee” of $500.
The tenant responded on 8 January 2026, agreeing that the landlord could advertise the property, and that she would pay a break lease fee if a new tenant was found, otherwise she would be looking to leave the tenancy by 28 April 2026.
The evidence is that the Property Manager then proceeded to advertise the premises for re-rental. I can see on the file numerous communications between the parties regarding viewings of the premises.
On 2 February 2026, the tenant emailed the landlord advising that she had booked her flights and would be leaving the premises on 25 March 2026.
On or around 5 February 2026, the landlord reduced the advertised rental to $580.00 per week in order to attract more interest from potential tenants.
The tenant states that she departed New Zealand on 25 March 2026.
A new tenant was found and move in on 10 April 2026, but the landlord only seeks rental from the tenant until 2 April 2026.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the tenant confirmed her claims are as follows: a. Reduction of the fixed term tenancy, to end on 25 March 2026. b. General damages and compensation for issues with the dog box being damaged, and inconvenience, and rubbish. The tenant seeks an order of $280.00. c. Full bond refund. d. Filing fee refund

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

I will now consider the claims in turn. Claim 1 – Reduction of fixed-term tenancy.
The tenant seeks an order that the term of the fixed-term tenancy be reduced, for the tenancy to end on 25 March 2026. That is on the basis that the tenant circumstances had changed when she needed to move to Australia to support a family member who had cancer. Further the tenant notes that she would suffer hardship, with needing to pay rent into properties.
In response, the landlords position is that the tenant was in a fixed-term tenancy. While the rent was reduced in the advertisement, that was only to assist in finding a replacement tenant. Analysis
The usual legal position with fixed-term contracts is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it will only be in limited circumstances that a decision maker, like the Tribunal, would interfere with that term. In the case of residential tenancies, one of these circumstances is found in section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements. That provision holds in part: On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.
There is a high threshold that needs 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 his or her circumstances; and b. that change was unforeseen; and c. that unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not ended; and d. the severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term was not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party would suffer if the term was reduced.
However, section 66(2) confirms that if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, that the Tribunal can order the tenant pay compensation to the landlord. That provision holds: Where the Tribunal makes an order under subsection (1), the Tribunal may order that the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy.
In the circumstances of this case, I find that a reduction of the fixture Tenancy could not be ordered, because the tenant has not identified an unforeseen change in her circumstances. The tenant has moved to Australia, she advises me that was in order to support a family member with cancer. The change in circumstances upon which the application is based is not a change of circumstances for the tenant, but a family member.
But if I were wrong in the above finding, I would also need to accept that the change was unforeseen. Moving to Australia and incurring additional costs would not be an unforeseen change, it would result from the deliberate decision on the part of the tenant to relocate to Australia.
I note that even if the tenant was successful in establishing grounds to reduce the fixed term tenancy, as indicated above, section 66(2) would allow the Tribunal to make an order of compensation for the reduction of the fixed term Tenancy, and it is very likely that I would have made an order compensating the landlord at least for a few weeks of rental, under that provision. As it turns out, there is about a week’s difference between the tenant leaving the tenancy on 25 March 2026, and the next tenancy starting, where the landlord is seeking rent only until 2 April 2026. So even if the tenant had succeeded in getting a reduction of her fixed to Tenancy, it is unlikely that as far as the rent is concerned, she would be any better off.
The application for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy is declined. Claim 2 – Compensation and general damages.
The tenant seeks compensation in general damages for issues arising at the tenancy. The tenant states that when she took over the tenancy, they were landlord belongings in the garage, so she did not have full use of the garage. Furthermore, there were security cameras that she was not able to use. The tenant is also concerned that there was rubbish or other landlord belongings at the premises.
In relation to the garage, the landlord states that the garage was useable. While there were landlord items in the tenancy, they were ultimately removed. In terms of the cameras, they were not advertised with the tenancy, and they were not advertised for the tenant to use. The Property Manager confirmed that when they collected the landlord’s goods, there were other items around the house such as pots. There were good intentions to remove those for the tenant, but accepts some things may have been missed. Analysis
The tenant seeks an order of $280 by way of compensation and general damages, I find it must be ordered. The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord has breached various obligations as I will address shortly, and overall the tenants claim for $280 is proportionate if not modest, in relation to the breaches:
There is no dispute that the landlord had belongings in the garage, they needed to be removed early on in the tenancy. Section 37 of the Act relates to vacant possession and requires that the landlord provide vacant possession on the date the tenancy commences. In particular, section 37(1) of the RTA relates to vacant possession, and holds: The tenant shall have vacant possession of the premises on the date on which, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, the tenant is entitled to enter into occupation of the premises.
In the District Court judgment of Kiwi Global Education Ltd v Seo (DC Christchurch CIV-2009-009-1973, 7 December 2009) the Court confirmed that failure by a landlord to remove chattels not included in the tenancy agreement may constitute a breach of the tenants’ entitlement to vacant possession.
In short, the tenant was not getting what she was paying rent to receive, that was a garage with vacant position.
The evidence is further that there were some landlord belongings left outside and around the tenancy, such as pots. Again those needed to be removed prior to the tenancy.
As far as the security cameras are concerned, they were items fixed to the Tenancy, and they needed to work. When the tenant rented the premises, she was entitled to believe that all of the fittings and fixtures worked, and that is not the case with the camera, she should be compensated for that.
Taking the above failures of the consideration, I award compensation as claimed, that is $280. In short, the tenant was not getting what she was paying rent to receive, and the compensation is to reimburse that additional rent paid for that. Claim 3 – Bond
The tenant seeks refund of the bond.
In response the landlord states there are no deductions to come from the landlords bond, other than the outstanding rent. There was no post-tenancy damage. The landlord confirmed there is no landlord claim filed. Last rent payment was on 10 March, and would have covered the rent until 25 March 2026. Analysis
The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenants at the end of the tenancy, seeking recovery of their bond.
Section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies, that provision confirms that: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The effect of this provision is that when the tenant applies to the Tribunal for release of the bond in whole or in part, if the landlord wishes to argue that it has any call on that bond, then the landlord “must” file a counterclaim for it. In the absence of a counterclaim, then the Tribunal must order that the bond be released to the tenants.
This means that if the landlord subsequently wishes to pursue any claim against the tenant, the landlord is still able to do so, but if the landlord is successful in the claim, there would not be any bond that the Tribunal could order be released to go toward the landlord’s claim.
For the above reasons, in the absence of a counterclaim from the landlord, the Tribunal orders that the full bond be refunded to the tenants.

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. Because she has been substantially successful, tenant name suppression is ordered.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been partly successful in her application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name and identifying details.
Rentcare Property Management Limited Serah Lee must pay [The tenant/s] $308.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionTenant Compensation$280.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$308.00
The Bond Centre is to release the bond in full to the tenant.
All other claims are dismissed

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant. The tenant seeks an order reducing the term of her fixed-term tenancy, refund of the bond and compensation.
Both parties appeared at the video hearing today.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered into a fixed-term tenancy, for a tenancy to commence on 13 June 2025, and ending on 12 June 2026. The weekly rental was $599.00.
On 26 December 2025, the tenant emailed the landlord stating that she had a change of circumstances, we were a family member in Australia had terminal cancer, and she wished to relocate in order to support them. The tenant advised she look for properties in Australia, and was intending to leave in April 2026.
The property manager replied on 5 and 7 January 2026, noting that this was a fixed term tenancy until 12 June 2026, but the landlord was agreeable to find a new tenant, to take over the tenancy. The landlord noted that the tenant would be liable for rent until the new tenancy commences, as well as a “break fee” of $500.
The tenant responded on 8 January 2026, agreeing that the landlord could advertise the property, and that she would pay a break lease fee if a new tenant was found, otherwise she would be looking to leave the tenancy by 28 April 2026.
The evidence is that the Property Manager then proceeded to advertise the premises for re-rental. I can see on the file numerous communications between the parties regarding viewings of the premises.
On 2 February 2026, the tenant emailed the landlord advising that she had booked her flights and would be leaving the premises on 25 March 2026.
On or around 5 February 2026, the landlord reduced the advertised rental to $580.00 per week in order to attract more interest from potential tenants.
The tenant states that she departed New Zealand on 25 March 2026.
A new tenant was found and move in on 10 April 2026, but the landlord only seeks rental from the tenant until 2 April 2026.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the tenant confirmed her claims are as follows: a. Reduction of the fixed term tenancy, to end on 25 March 2026. b. General damages and compensation for issues with the dog box being damaged, and inconvenience, and rubbish. The tenant seeks an order of $280.00. c. Full bond refund. d. Filing fee refund

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

I will now consider the claims in turn. Claim 1 – Reduction of fixed-term tenancy.
The tenant seeks an order that the term of the fixed-term tenancy be reduced, for the tenancy to end on 25 March 2026. That is on the basis that the tenant circumstances had changed when she needed to move to Australia to support a family member who had cancer. Further the tenant notes that she would suffer hardship, with needing to pay rent into properties.
In response, the landlords position is that the tenant was in a fixed-term tenancy. While the rent was reduced in the advertisement, that was only to assist in finding a replacement tenant. Analysis
The usual legal position with fixed-term contracts is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it will only be in limited circumstances that a decision maker, like the Tribunal, would interfere with that term. In the case of residential tenancies, one of these circumstances is found in section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements. That provision holds in part: On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.
There is a high threshold that needs 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 his or her circumstances; and b. that change was unforeseen; and c. that unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not ended; and d. the severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term was not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party would suffer if the term was reduced.
However, section 66(2) confirms that if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, that the Tribunal can order the tenant pay compensation to the landlord. That provision holds: Where the Tribunal makes an order under subsection (1), the Tribunal may order that the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy.
In the circumstances of this case, I find that a reduction of the fixture Tenancy could not be ordered, because the tenant has not identified an unforeseen change in her circumstances. The tenant has moved to Australia, she advises me that was in order to support a family member with cancer. The change in circumstances upon which the application is based is not a change of circumstances for the tenant, but a family member.
But if I were wrong in the above finding, I would also need to accept that the change was unforeseen. Moving to Australia and incurring additional costs would not be an unforeseen change, it would result from the deliberate decision on the part of the tenant to relocate to Australia.
I note that even if the tenant was successful in establishing grounds to reduce the fixed term tenancy, as indicated above, section 66(2) would allow the Tribunal to make an order of compensation for the reduction of the fixed term Tenancy, and it is very likely that I would have made an order compensating the landlord at least for a few weeks of rental, under that provision. As it turns out, there is about a week’s difference between the tenant leaving the tenancy on 25 March 2026, and the next tenancy starting, where the landlord is seeking rent only until 2 April 2026. So even if the tenant had succeeded in getting a reduction of her fixed to Tenancy, it is unlikely that as far as the rent is concerned, she would be any better off.
The application for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy is declined. Claim 2 – Compensation and general damages.
The tenant seeks compensation in general damages for issues arising at the tenancy. The tenant states that when she took over the tenancy, they were landlord belongings in the garage, so she did not have full use of the garage. Furthermore, there were security cameras that she was not able to use. The tenant is also concerned that there was rubbish or other landlord belongings at the premises.
In relation to the garage, the landlord states that the garage was useable. While there were landlord items in the tenancy, they were ultimately removed. In terms of the cameras, they were not advertised with the tenancy, and they were not advertised for the tenant to use. The Property Manager confirmed that when they collected the landlord’s goods, there were other items around the house such as pots. There were good intentions to remove those for the tenant, but accepts some things may have been missed. Analysis
The tenant seeks an order of $280 by way of compensation and general damages, I find it must be ordered. The Tribunal is satisfied that the landlord has breached various obligations as I will address shortly, and overall the tenants claim for $280 is proportionate if not modest, in relation to the breaches:
There is no dispute that the landlord had belongings in the garage, they needed to be removed early on in the tenancy. Section 37 of the Act relates to vacant possession and requires that the landlord provide vacant possession on the date the tenancy commences. In particular, section 37(1) of the RTA relates to vacant possession, and holds: The tenant shall have vacant possession of the premises on the date on which, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, the tenant is entitled to enter into occupation of the premises.
In the District Court judgment of Kiwi Global Education Ltd v Seo (DC Christchurch CIV-2009-009-1973, 7 December 2009) the Court confirmed that failure by a landlord to remove chattels not included in the tenancy agreement may constitute a breach of the tenants’ entitlement to vacant possession.
In short, the tenant was not getting what she was paying rent to receive, that was a garage with vacant position.
The evidence is further that there were some landlord belongings left outside and around the tenancy, such as pots. Again those needed to be removed prior to the tenancy.
As far as the security cameras are concerned, they were items fixed to the Tenancy, and they needed to work. When the tenant rented the premises, she was entitled to believe that all of the fittings and fixtures worked, and that is not the case with the camera, she should be compensated for that.
Taking the above failures of the consideration, I award compensation as claimed, that is $280. In short, the tenant was not getting what she was paying rent to receive, and the compensation is to reimburse that additional rent paid for that. Claim 3 – Bond
The tenant seeks refund of the bond.
In response the landlord states there are no deductions to come from the landlords bond, other than the outstanding rent. There was no post-tenancy damage. The landlord confirmed there is no landlord claim filed. Last rent payment was on 10 March, and would have covered the rent until 25 March 2026. Analysis
The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenants at the end of the tenancy, seeking recovery of their bond.
Section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies, that provision confirms that: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The effect of this provision is that when the tenant applies to the Tribunal for release of the bond in whole or in part, if the landlord wishes to argue that it has any call on that bond, then the landlord “must” file a counterclaim for it. In the absence of a counterclaim, then the Tribunal must order that the bond be released to the tenants.
This means that if the landlord subsequently wishes to pursue any claim against the tenant, the landlord is still able to do so, but if the landlord is successful in the claim, there would not be any bond that the Tribunal could order be released to go toward the landlord’s claim.
For the above reasons, in the absence of a counterclaim from the landlord, the Tribunal orders that the full bond be refunded to the tenants.

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. Because she has been substantially successful, tenant name suppression is ordered.

FILING FEE

Because the applicant has been partly successful in her application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423401 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423401 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

FILING FEE

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Compensation		$280.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement