What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5461551?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,580.00 (BN-00151965) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5461551?

Reletting Fee (Break Fee: $683.10 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $65.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5461551?

The primary dispute was Water Rates. Related themes: Letting Fee.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5461551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13552102-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5461551?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,580.00 (BN-00151965) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5461551?

Reletting Fee (Break Fee: $683.10 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $65.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5461551?

The primary dispute was Water Rates. Related themes: Letting Fee.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5461551?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13552102-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Oakridge Way, Northpark, Auckland 2013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5461551 — Water Rates

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5461551. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$65.17		Water rates
Reletting fee (break fee	$683.10		Reletting fee (break fee

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,580.00 (BN-00151965) immediately apportioned as follows: Uno Property Management Limited As Agent For Jiangyan Chen: $748.27 Chris Bloemhof and Tanja Bloemhof: $2,831.73 Towards these costs: Award table omitted. See the official MoJ PDF for line-item amounts.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for costs to readvertise the premises (fixed term tenancy break fee), rent shortfall and water rates.
The tenant seeks the return of their bond, less the breakfee and water rates.
The tenant accepts the landlord’s claim for costs to readvertise the premises after they broke the fixed term tenancy when they relocated to Australia.
The tenant also accepts the water rates claimed by the landlord.
The property was relet by the landlord on 28 March 2026 at a reduced rent of $795 per week to which the landlord has agreed to forego the difference of $5 per week and on-charge the tenant a shortfall based on $800 per week rent from the $895 original rent to the end of the fixed term on 24 September 2026.
Issue arises on whether the tenant has agreed to the landlord reletting the premises at the reduced rent of $795 at the material time.
While the tenant has authorised the landlord to advertise the premises at a reduced rent of $795 in order to cast the net wider and find replacement tenants quickly, the landlord’s acceptance of the new tenant at the reduced rate is still subject to the outgoing tenant’s agreement.
The outgoing tenant was still making efforts to find replacement tenants at the original rate of $895 and had a prospective tenant coming the next day on 5 March to view the premises.
The landlord and their agent however took it upon themselves to relet the premises at the reduced rate of $795 on 4 March because of the incoming tenant’s imposed deadline of acceptance on that date.
The decision to relet the premises at the lower rate of $795 was therefore unilaterally made by the landlord, without the tenant’s assent.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that they were still keen to try to find replacement tenants at the same rate of rent that they were paying to the end of the fixed term and they still had some time and a few prospects to do so.
In the event the landlord complied with the tenant’s request to delay the signing of the incoming tenant’s tenancy at $795 but the prospect got away with no confirmed tenancy at $795 at the material time, the risk will be on the outgoing tenant to secure new tenants before their move-out date. Naturally the outgoing tenant may be liable for greater loss under those circumstances but the risk remained on the outgoing tenant.
The material fact before me however is the tenant has not expressly consented to the landlord reletting the premises at $795 because the tenant was hopeful of getting replacement tenants at $895 or closer to that amount the next day and beyond.
Under those circumstances, I find that the tenant is not liable for the rental shortfall from 28 March 2026 to the end of the fixed term on 24 September 2026.
It was the landlord’s own decision to relet the premises at the reduced rate. The tenant had not agreed to it and cannot be bound by the landlord reletting the premises at that lower rate.
For those reasons, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for rent shortfall of $2,442.86 against the bond.
In making the above decision, I acknowledge the landlord’s agent Mike Lee’s efforts to do right to both his principal (the landlord) and the tenant. Mr Lee has tried his utmost to minimise the outgoing tenant’s liability as well as ensure that the property is relet.
However, for the outgoing tenant to be liable for the rental shortfall, the outgoing tenant must have agreed with Mr Lee’s advice. Where the advice was either rejected or ignored by the tenant, then the ball will be on the tenant’s court to quickly find replacement tenants at the same rate that they were wanting to get failing which the outgoing tenant will be liable for the loss occasioned by the delay in reletting the premises.
In this instance however, the landlord and his agent have taken the decision out of the tenant’s hands and relet the premises at the reduced rate themselves. Consequently, they cannot now pass on the rental shortfall to the outgoing tenant.
Only the amounts set out in the above table are proved.
The bond will be disbursed to the parties accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5461551. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$65.17		Water rates
Reletting fee (break fee	$683.10		Reletting fee (break fee

Order

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for costs to readvertise the premises (fixed term tenancy break fee), rent shortfall and water rates.
The tenant seeks the return of their bond, less the breakfee and water rates.
The tenant accepts the landlord’s claim for costs to readvertise the premises after they broke the fixed term tenancy when they relocated to Australia.
The tenant also accepts the water rates claimed by the landlord.
The property was relet by the landlord on 28 March 2026 at a reduced rent of $795 per week to which the landlord has agreed to forego the difference of $5 per week and on-charge the tenant a shortfall based on $800 per week rent from the $895 original rent to the end of the fixed term on 24 September 2026.
Issue arises on whether the tenant has agreed to the landlord reletting the premises at the reduced rent of $795 at the material time.
While the tenant has authorised the landlord to advertise the premises at a reduced rent of $795 in order to cast the net wider and find replacement tenants quickly, the landlord’s acceptance of the new tenant at the reduced rate is still subject to the outgoing tenant’s agreement.
The outgoing tenant was still making efforts to find replacement tenants at the original rate of $895 and had a prospective tenant coming the next day on 5 March to view the premises.
The landlord and their agent however took it upon themselves to relet the premises at the reduced rate of $795 on 4 March because of the incoming tenant’s imposed deadline of acceptance on that date.
The decision to relet the premises at the lower rate of $795 was therefore unilaterally made by the landlord, without the tenant’s assent.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that they were still keen to try to find replacement tenants at the same rate of rent that they were paying to the end of the fixed term and they still had some time and a few prospects to do so.
In the event the landlord complied with the tenant’s request to delay the signing of the incoming tenant’s tenancy at $795 but the prospect got away with no confirmed tenancy at $795 at the material time, the risk will be on the outgoing tenant to secure new tenants before their move-out date. Naturally the outgoing tenant may be liable for greater loss under those circumstances but the risk remained on the outgoing tenant.
The material fact before me however is the tenant has not expressly consented to the landlord reletting the premises at $795 because the tenant was hopeful of getting replacement tenants at $895 or closer to that amount the next day and beyond.
Under those circumstances, I find that the tenant is not liable for the rental shortfall from 28 March 2026 to the end of the fixed term on 24 September 2026.
It was the landlord’s own decision to relet the premises at the reduced rate. The tenant had not agreed to it and cannot be bound by the landlord reletting the premises at that lower rate.
For those reasons, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for rent shortfall of $2,442.86 against the bond.
In making the above decision, I acknowledge the landlord’s agent Mike Lee’s efforts to do right to both his principal (the landlord) and the tenant. Mr Lee has tried his utmost to minimise the outgoing tenant’s liability as well as ensure that the property is relet.
However, for the outgoing tenant to be liable for the rental shortfall, the outgoing tenant must have agreed with Mr Lee’s advice. Where the advice was either rejected or ignored by the tenant, then the ball will be on the tenant’s court to quickly find replacement tenants at the same rate that they were wanting to get failing which the outgoing tenant will be liable for the loss occasioned by the delay in reletting the premises.
In this instance however, the landlord and his agent have taken the decision out of the tenant’s hands and relet the premises at the reduced rate themselves. Consequently, they cannot now pass on the rental shortfall to the outgoing tenant.
Only the amounts set out in the above table are proved.
The bond will be disbursed to the parties accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5461551 — Water Rates at 13 Oakridge Way, Northpark, Auckland 2013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5461551 — Water Rates at 13 Oakridge Way, Northpark, Auckland 2013

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions