What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5479075 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 5479075?

Compensation: $1,300.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5479075?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5479075?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13641128-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5479075 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 5479075?

Compensation: $1,300.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5479075?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5479075?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13641128-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit 4, 17 Bishop Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5479075 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5479075 — net $1,100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 April 2026	$2,400.00		Rent arrears to 23 April 2026
Compensation		$1,300.00	Compensation
Total award	$2,400.00	$1,300.00
Net award	$1,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,100.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
It is declared that the tenant validly cancelled the tenancy agreement on 23 April 2026.
[The tenant] to pay Brooksfield Property Management Limited as Agent for Anneke Price $1,100 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre must, from the bond, pay Brooksfield Property Management Limited as Agent for Anneke Price $1,100 and pay $1,300 to [the tenant].

Reasons

The tenant and representatives of Brooksfield Property Management Limited (BPM) attended the hearing.
The tenant seeks early termination of the tenancy and compensation for breach of the landlord’s obligations.
The landlord claimed termination of the tenancy and rent arrears in the sum of $3,857.14 to 10 May 2026. Background
This tenancy began on 31 October 2025 for a fixed term to 1 November 2026.
The tenant vacated the premises on 23 April 2026
On 11 May 2026, at the hearing of a separate application by the landlord, the Tribunal made an order, by consent, that possession of the premises passed immediately to the landlord. All other issues between the parties were left to be decided at the hearing of these applications.
The tenant viewed the premises before she took the tenancy, and she says that because she has a dog, she asked BMP’s tenancy assistant conducting the viewing whether the premises were fully fenced. She says that the assistant confirmed that they were fully fenced. The tenant says that she relied on that statement when she took the tenancy.
After she moved in, she quickly discovered that there was a gap between the garage attached to the house and the fencing on two sides through which her dog could, and did, escape from the courtyard garden and get to the busy road beyond.
The tenant raised the problem with BMP, and they exchanged messages concerning the tenant’s request for something to be done about securing the property for her dog. They were not able to find an agreed solution to the problem and, eventually, the tenant informed BMP that she would be vacating the premises on 23 April and that the landlord could take rent due from the bond.
The tenant filed her application on 31 March and the BMP filed its application on 13 April. Issues
The applications raise the following main issues. • Was there a misrepresentation by BMP in respect of the fencing? • If so, was the tenant entitled to end the tenancy early? • Have BMP and the landlord or either of them acted in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) or of the tenancy agreement? • What remedy or remedies are required?
I also need to consider s85 of the Act which requires the Tribunal to determine disputes according to the relevant law and the substantial merits and justice of the case but is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights and obligations. Misrepresentation
For the following reasons, I am satisfied that the tenant was induced to enter the tenancy agreement by a misrepresentation by BMP’s assistant.
The tenant was bringing her dog, a 5-year-old Springer spaniel, to New Zealand from overseas. I have no difficulty accepting that she was concerned to have premises that were secure for her dog.
I also accept that it appeared to the tenant when she viewed the premises that they were secure. The courtyard garden was fenced and there was a garage on one side. The tenant could see that there was a narrow gap that was large enough for her dog to pass through, but she could see only the gap at the end of one side of the garage and she assumed that it must not continue around the two sides of the garage to the driveway on the other side.
Not long after moving in, the tenant raised the issue of the gap and said that she had been told that the premises were fully fenced. At no time during their correspondence did BMP contest that.
The representatives of BPM said that the property assistant concerned has told them that she did not give the assurance about the fencing as the tenant claims. They also said that it would be obvious to anyone coming up the driveway that there was a gap between the garage and the fence.
The assistant was not present or available to give evidence and so her evidence is hearsay. Consequently, it carries less weight than the tenant’s evidence. It was likely to carry less weight anyway because this was plainly an important issue for the tenant concerning her tenancy and her recollection of what was said is likely to be more distinct.
I don’t accept that it would be obvious to the tenant that there was a continuous gap between the garage and the fencing. The gap is narrow, turns at a right angle and the passage would not be apparent without close inspection. If the tenant was given an assurance about the fencing, as I have found she was, she would have no reason to inspect the gap closely.
I also accept that the tenant entered the tenancy agreement based on the assurance, and she would not have done so without it.
It follows that for the purposes of compensation, fully secure became a term of the agreement by reason of s35 of the Contracts and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA). I will next consider the tenant’s right to cancel the contract for misrepresentation. Cancellation
Sections 36 – 49 of the CCLA deal with cancellation of a contract for misrepresentation and the Tribunal’s powers where it finds that a contract has been cancelled.
A party to an agreement may cancel the agreement where the effect of the misrepresentation is to substantially reduce the benefit of it to the cancelling party or to make the benefit or burden of the contract substantially different from that represented.
In my view the tenant was entitled to cancel the agreement on both grounds. Secure fencing for her dog was important to the tenant and her evidence was that without it, she was unable to leave the dog unattended for more than a few hours. That restricted her work and her leisure activities.
A party is not entitled to cancel the agreement if they have affirmed the agreement with knowledge of the breach. There has been no affirmation in this case. The tenant tried to resolve the issue, and it was only when her efforts failed that she cancelled the agreement. A party is entitled to have time to try to reach a compromise without being taken to have affirmed the agreement. Breach
I have already found that the landlord was in breach of the agreement for failing to provide the premises fully fenced.
The tenant claims that the landlord was slow to respond to her maintenance request in respect of a faulty lock on the bathroom door. It took nearly two months for a contractor to attend after the tenant reported the problem. No adequate explanation for that has been offered.
The tenant also claims that her property manager came to the premises to inspect repairs to a damaged wall. While she was there, she entered the tenant’s bedroom to see whether a mattress that was on the floor temporarily was still there and she took photographs. The landlord had served a breach notice previously but not for the mattress.
The property manager’s visit should have been limited to the wall damage. There was no justification for entering the bedroom or taking photographs. That was a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. I note as well, that having a mattress on the floor is not itself a breach of the tenant’s obligations. It would be only if it were causing damage and there was no evidence of that.
The tenant also claims that the landlord’s inspections were too numerous and constituted a breach of her quiet enjoyment. Frequent inspections can be a breach of a tenant’s quiet enjoyment even where they otherwise comply with the Act. I find that they did not cross that line in this case. Remedies
The tenant is entitled to a declaration that she cancelled the tenancy agreement on 23 April when she vacated the premises. It follows that the landlord is entitled to an order for rent arrears in the sum of $2,400 being the arrears to that date.
The landlords may feel aggrieved by that, but I would point out that they had opportunities to resolve this issue and limit or avoid any loss of rent. They could have accepted that tenant was leaving on 23 April and gone about finding another tenant and reserved their rights generally. The tenant confirmed in her email dated 7 April that disputes regarding rent, bond or lease obligations would be addressed through the Tribunal process.
The point became acutely obvious when on 13 April the landlords filed their own application to terminate the tenancy. From that time both parties wanted the tenancy terminated yet the premises remain unoccupied, and no steps were being taken to relet them.
I am also puzzled by the landlords’ staunch refusal to complete the fencing of the property. It was a modest task, and it would have overcome the tenant’s concern and improved the desirability of the premises for other tenants. In my view, there was no good reason to doubt the tenant’s word that she was assured that the property was fully fenced.
The tenant is entitled to compensation for breaches of the landlord’s obligations that I have found to be proved.
There is no science to awarding compensation in these cases. It is an exercise involving a mix of impression, reasonableness and proportionality.
The incomplete fencing is the main issue and the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises was limited by it. I can understand the tenant’s reluctance to take matters into her own hands but that was a possibility. The tenant could also have applied to the Tribunal for a work order. After taking all things into account I find that an award of $1000 is appropriate.
The bathroom door lock was a minor annoyance and the intrusion into the bedroom was brief. I award $300 for those breaches.
I therefore award the tenant a total of $1,300 compensation.
I make no award of filing fees.
The result is that the tenant must pay the landlord $1,100 from the bond.
The landlord has only recently obtained possession and there may be end of tenancy claims. But the landlord could have avoided this situation. As well, I have no reason to think that the tenant will not meet any liability she has from her own resources. I have therefore ordered the balance of the bond to be paid to her.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5479075 — net $1,100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 23 April 2026	$2,400.00		Rent arrears to 23 April 2026
Compensation		$1,300.00	Compensation
Total award	$2,400.00	$1,300.00
Net award	$1,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,100.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
It is declared that the tenant validly cancelled the tenancy agreement on 23 April 2026.
[The tenant] to pay Brooksfield Property Management Limited as Agent for Anneke Price $1,100 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The parties’ claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre must, from the bond, pay Brooksfield Property Management Limited as Agent for Anneke Price $1,100 and pay $1,300 to [the tenant].

Reasons

The tenant and representatives of Brooksfield Property Management Limited (BPM) attended the hearing.
The tenant seeks early termination of the tenancy and compensation for breach of the landlord’s obligations.
The landlord claimed termination of the tenancy and rent arrears in the sum of $3,857.14 to 10 May 2026. Background
This tenancy began on 31 October 2025 for a fixed term to 1 November 2026.
The tenant vacated the premises on 23 April 2026
On 11 May 2026, at the hearing of a separate application by the landlord, the Tribunal made an order, by consent, that possession of the premises passed immediately to the landlord. All other issues between the parties were left to be decided at the hearing of these applications.
The tenant viewed the premises before she took the tenancy, and she says that because she has a dog, she asked BMP’s tenancy assistant conducting the viewing whether the premises were fully fenced. She says that the assistant confirmed that they were fully fenced. The tenant says that she relied on that statement when she took the tenancy.
After she moved in, she quickly discovered that there was a gap between the garage attached to the house and the fencing on two sides through which her dog could, and did, escape from the courtyard garden and get to the busy road beyond.
The tenant raised the problem with BMP, and they exchanged messages concerning the tenant’s request for something to be done about securing the property for her dog. They were not able to find an agreed solution to the problem and, eventually, the tenant informed BMP that she would be vacating the premises on 23 April and that the landlord could take rent due from the bond.
The tenant filed her application on 31 March and the BMP filed its application on 13 April. Issues
The applications raise the following main issues. • Was there a misrepresentation by BMP in respect of the fencing? • If so, was the tenant entitled to end the tenancy early? • Have BMP and the landlord or either of them acted in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) or of the tenancy agreement? • What remedy or remedies are required?
I also need to consider s85 of the Act which requires the Tribunal to determine disputes according to the relevant law and the substantial merits and justice of the case but is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights and obligations. Misrepresentation
For the following reasons, I am satisfied that the tenant was induced to enter the tenancy agreement by a misrepresentation by BMP’s assistant.
The tenant was bringing her dog, a 5-year-old Springer spaniel, to New Zealand from overseas. I have no difficulty accepting that she was concerned to have premises that were secure for her dog.
I also accept that it appeared to the tenant when she viewed the premises that they were secure. The courtyard garden was fenced and there was a garage on one side. The tenant could see that there was a narrow gap that was large enough for her dog to pass through, but she could see only the gap at the end of one side of the garage and she assumed that it must not continue around the two sides of the garage to the driveway on the other side.
Not long after moving in, the tenant raised the issue of the gap and said that she had been told that the premises were fully fenced. At no time during their correspondence did BMP contest that.
The representatives of BPM said that the property assistant concerned has told them that she did not give the assurance about the fencing as the tenant claims. They also said that it would be obvious to anyone coming up the driveway that there was a gap between the garage and the fence.
The assistant was not present or available to give evidence and so her evidence is hearsay. Consequently, it carries less weight than the tenant’s evidence. It was likely to carry less weight anyway because this was plainly an important issue for the tenant concerning her tenancy and her recollection of what was said is likely to be more distinct.
I don’t accept that it would be obvious to the tenant that there was a continuous gap between the garage and the fencing. The gap is narrow, turns at a right angle and the passage would not be apparent without close inspection. If the tenant was given an assurance about the fencing, as I have found she was, she would have no reason to inspect the gap closely.
I also accept that the tenant entered the tenancy agreement based on the assurance, and she would not have done so without it.
It follows that for the purposes of compensation, fully secure became a term of the agreement by reason of s35 of the Contracts and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA). I will next consider the tenant’s right to cancel the contract for misrepresentation. Cancellation
Sections 36 – 49 of the CCLA deal with cancellation of a contract for misrepresentation and the Tribunal’s powers where it finds that a contract has been cancelled.
A party to an agreement may cancel the agreement where the effect of the misrepresentation is to substantially reduce the benefit of it to the cancelling party or to make the benefit or burden of the contract substantially different from that represented.
In my view the tenant was entitled to cancel the agreement on both grounds. Secure fencing for her dog was important to the tenant and her evidence was that without it, she was unable to leave the dog unattended for more than a few hours. That restricted her work and her leisure activities.
A party is not entitled to cancel the agreement if they have affirmed the agreement with knowledge of the breach. There has been no affirmation in this case. The tenant tried to resolve the issue, and it was only when her efforts failed that she cancelled the agreement. A party is entitled to have time to try to reach a compromise without being taken to have affirmed the agreement. Breach
I have already found that the landlord was in breach of the agreement for failing to provide the premises fully fenced.
The tenant claims that the landlord was slow to respond to her maintenance request in respect of a faulty lock on the bathroom door. It took nearly two months for a contractor to attend after the tenant reported the problem. No adequate explanation for that has been offered.
The tenant also claims that her property manager came to the premises to inspect repairs to a damaged wall. While she was there, she entered the tenant’s bedroom to see whether a mattress that was on the floor temporarily was still there and she took photographs. The landlord had served a breach notice previously but not for the mattress.
The property manager’s visit should have been limited to the wall damage. There was no justification for entering the bedroom or taking photographs. That was a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. I note as well, that having a mattress on the floor is not itself a breach of the tenant’s obligations. It would be only if it were causing damage and there was no evidence of that.
The tenant also claims that the landlord’s inspections were too numerous and constituted a breach of her quiet enjoyment. Frequent inspections can be a breach of a tenant’s quiet enjoyment even where they otherwise comply with the Act. I find that they did not cross that line in this case. Remedies
The tenant is entitled to a declaration that she cancelled the tenancy agreement on 23 April when she vacated the premises. It follows that the landlord is entitled to an order for rent arrears in the sum of $2,400 being the arrears to that date.
The landlords may feel aggrieved by that, but I would point out that they had opportunities to resolve this issue and limit or avoid any loss of rent. They could have accepted that tenant was leaving on 23 April and gone about finding another tenant and reserved their rights generally. The tenant confirmed in her email dated 7 April that disputes regarding rent, bond or lease obligations would be addressed through the Tribunal process.
The point became acutely obvious when on 13 April the landlords filed their own application to terminate the tenancy. From that time both parties wanted the tenancy terminated yet the premises remain unoccupied, and no steps were being taken to relet them.
I am also puzzled by the landlords’ staunch refusal to complete the fencing of the property. It was a modest task, and it would have overcome the tenant’s concern and improved the desirability of the premises for other tenants. In my view, there was no good reason to doubt the tenant’s word that she was assured that the property was fully fenced.
The tenant is entitled to compensation for breaches of the landlord’s obligations that I have found to be proved.
There is no science to awarding compensation in these cases. It is an exercise involving a mix of impression, reasonableness and proportionality.
The incomplete fencing is the main issue and the tenant’s enjoyment of the premises was limited by it. I can understand the tenant’s reluctance to take matters into her own hands but that was a possibility. The tenant could also have applied to the Tribunal for a work order. After taking all things into account I find that an award of $1000 is appropriate.
The bathroom door lock was a minor annoyance and the intrusion into the bedroom was brief. I award $300 for those breaches.
I therefore award the tenant a total of $1,300 compensation.
I make no award of filing fees.
The result is that the tenant must pay the landlord $1,100 from the bond.
The landlord has only recently obtained possession and there may be end of tenancy claims. But the landlord could have avoided this situation. As well, I have no reason to think that the tenant will not meet any liability she has from her own resources. I have therefore ordered the balance of the bond to be paid to her.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5479075 — Rent arrears at Unit 4, 17 Bishop Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5479075 — Rent arrears at Unit 4, 17 Bishop Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions