What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5506839 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Baseden

How much money was awarded in case 5506839?

Break Fee: $1,121.25 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $3,310.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent To Termination: $3,982.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5506839?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5506839?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13898831-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5506839 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Baseden

How much money was awarded in case 5506839?

Break Fee: $1,121.25 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $3,310.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent To Termination: $3,982.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5506839?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5506839?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13898831-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 58 Alford Street, Waterview, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5506839 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5506839 — net $8,442.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to termination	$3,982.86	Rent to termination
Compensation for loss of rent	$3,310.00	Compensation for loss of rent
Break fee	$1,121.25	Break fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	25. The landlord is also entitled to compensation for its reasonable expenses in dealing with the request to break the fixed term.
Net award	$8,442.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,442.11

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Baseden Property Management Limited As Agents For Marshall Harris Property Limited $5,162.11 immediately being $8,442.11 as detailed in the table below, less the refund of the bond of $3,280.00.

The Bond Centre is to repay the bond of $3,280.00 immediately to the landlord.

The tenant’s application is dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Rent to termination$3,982.86 Compensation for loss of rent$3,310.00 Break fee$1,121.25 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$8,442.11 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$8,442.11

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.

The tenant’s application was for: a. Reduction of the fixed term tenancy. See section 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). b. Cancellation of the tenancy agreement on the ground of misrepresentation. See section 78(1)(g) RTA.

The landlord’s application was for: a. Rent during the period of the tenancy. b. Compensation for reduction of rent during the remainder of the fixed term tenancy period. c. The landlord’s costs in arranging to break the fixed term tenancy. Standard of proof and evidence

In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each party must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required. The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain.

While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.

It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.

The Tribunal must have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

It is intended that this order be as concise as possible to convey the essential facts, the law and the Tribunal’s reasons for its decisions. Background

The tenant provided the following evidence and submissions in support of their claims: a. The tenant’s current rental had been placed on the market by the owners and the tenant needed to find a new home. b. One of the tenants viewed the property with her sister towards the end of May 2026 on a sunny day. c. A fixed term tenancy beginning on 1 June 2026 and ending on 31 May 2027 was offered to the tenant on 4 May 2026 when a tenancy agreement was emailed to them for signature. The tenancy agreement was signed by the tenant and returned to the landlord on 6 May 2026. d. The landlord emailed the tenant that day to confirm that the landlord had signed the tenancy agreement which was now “unconditional”. The tenant paid the bond that day and confirmed payment to the landlord by email. The tenant made enquiries by email with the landlord regarding the logistics of the takeover date. e. The tenant arranged with the landlord to view the property on Saturday 9 May 2026 to measure up the rooms and utilities’ spaces. On meeting the current tenants and viewing the property on a wet day, the tenant identified the following issues: i. The boardwalk and back steps felt unstable. ii. The backdoor was sticking and difficult to open. iii. The property was cold and there was mould on windowsills. iv. There was water ingress from the bi-fold doors. v. There were spiders and spider webs present. vi. A heater in the hallway required checking “for functionality and safety”. vii. The internal paint was “generally in a poor condition”. viii. The current tenants complained that the landlord did not address maintenance issues promptly and had not sent water rates bills on a regular basis. ix. They smelled marijuana in one of the bedrooms and believed a toxicology report was warranted. f. These issues were raised with the landlord that day by email, Saturday 9 May 2026. g. On 12 May 2026 the tenant raised these issues with the landlord and by email advised that “We would like to address the maintenance requests before progressing.” h. By email on Wednesday 13 May 2026 the tenant advised the landlord: “Unfortunately we are unable to progress with the tenancy. Our tenancy end date for our current rental is not lining up with the tenancy start date for Alford street to allow for cleans and maintenance. Our circumstances have also changed where my mother has asked us to have full responsibility of our family dog. Could you please refund the full bond amount...” i. The landlord responded that day by email: “The lease has been signed and confirmed, so we are unable to cancel the tenancy. If you would like to out, we can proceed with an early termination process by helping to find a replacement tenant to take over the lease. However, you will remain liable for the tenancy until the new tenancy begins. Please also note that an administration fee will be charged for this process. Please let us know.” j. The tenant responded that day by email: “Thank you for your response. I would like to proceed with an early termination of the tenancy but don’t believe the liability of replacement and cost should be at our expense. We signed the tenancy based on an initial viewing on a sunny day when the property was tidy and well ventilated, the tenancy agreement includes compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards which based on the conditions that I saw at the second viewing, may need to be re-assessed as there was a grave difference. Your manager has not acknowledged the document with photographic evidence that I sent on Saturday which clearly outlines my areas of concerns relating to the property. Section 45 of the RTA outlines landlord responsibilities regarding the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, plus complying with building, health, and safety requirements. You advised me that the current tenants move out on the 31st of May (a Sunday) and our planned move in date was 1 June (a public holiday). We cannot extend this date and I am not sure how the landlord would remedy all the concerns with no window between tenancies. This could mean the property is handed over to us damp from weather tightness issues, mould in some areas, unfinished works around the exterior window frames, and with the structural issues of rotting wood around the outside, many beyond reasonable wear and tear. I have concerns that the agent or the owner have not been actively maintaining their responsibilities in the current tenancy based on what I saw and tenants revealing that requests were not fulfilled when raised, for example weather tightness of the bifold doors and dishwasher repair. This gives me low confidence moving forward as it has already been 4 days since I raised my concerns with no response, and the tenancy hasn’t even started. I don’t believe there is a need for me to pay the administrative fee as TradeMe allows free re-lists if it is within 45 days or can request that TradeMe re-list due to the tenancy not proceeding. Happy to apply to tribunal for termination if this is unable to be resolved, I will not be proceeding with a tenancy that I feel is unsafe for my young children and a toxicology report would be recommended for any future tenants as we could smell marijuana from the back of the house and it is unknown what drugs are laced with. Hopefully we can come to solution.” k. Based on their conversation with the current tenants and one of the tenant’s knowledge of the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS), the tenant believed that the property did not comply with them. l. The tenant had looked for a reasonable solution to their concerns but was not confident that the landlord was open to dealing with them and this raised concerns regarding having an ongoing relationship with him. m. The tenant never moved into the property and remained in their existing rental until they could find a suitable new property to rent. n. The tenant kept in touch with the landlord regarding re-letting the property and confirmed that they had agreed to the property being re-let from 5 July 2026. o. Based on their second visit to the property and their discussion with the current tenants, the tenant believes the property was not “dry, safe or well maintained” and was very concerned that the property may have a serious negative impact on the health of the tenant and their family.

The landlord provided the following evidence: a. There was nothing wrong with the property. The property is HHS compliant and the required certificate was supplied with the tenancy agreement. b. The deck and back steps were not rotten and the back door had no issues. c. There had been no issues with attending to maintenance with the current tenants. d. The tenant’s complaints were only conveyed to him on Saturday 9 May 2026 and he had not had an opportunity to address them in the three days before the tenant notified him that they were not proceeding with the tenancy on Wednesday 13 May 2026. e. The landlord may have been prepared to allow a dog at the property, but no request was made by the tenant. f. As the current tenants’ tenancy had not ended, no end of tenancy clean had been completed and the items complained of were superficial. g. As the tenant had a signed and binding tenancy agreement, the tenant could have moved in and then issued a 14-day notice to have any issues addressed. h. The tenant had simply changed their mind and was raising these issues as an excuse to get out of the agreement. i. The rental market is patchy and the property could not be re-let at the rent provided in the tenancy agreement. A suitable new tenant was found at a rent $70.00 less than that provided in the tenancy agreement. He provided a copy of the new tenancy agreement for a new tenancy which started on 5 May 2026 for a fixed term to 4 July 2027. j. Having paid the bond, the tenant paid no rent. He provided a rent statement showing the amount owing from 1 June 2026 to 4 May 2026. k. He provided a calculation for the shortfall of rent between the new rent and the rent agreed in this tenancy of $70.00 for a period of 47 weeks and 2 days which equates to $3,310.00. l. He provided a detailed invoice for his services in arranging the early termination of the tenancy as follows: i. Three hours administration $225.00 ii. Attendances at five viewings at $150.00 each $750.00 iii. GST $146.25 iv. Total $1,121.25 Tenant’s claim for reduction of the fixed term tenancy

The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 31 May 2027.

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 section 66 RTA 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) RTA 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.

In this application, the tenancy has come to an end as the parties agreed to the granting of a new tenancy to new tenants. The Tribunal has considered the tenant’s application even though it the tenancy has now ended.

Having considered all the parties’ evidence and submissions, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the tenant has met the criteria for the reduction of the fixed term tenancy for the following reasons: a. To be successful the applicant must first establish that circumstances have changed during the tenancy. Section 66 RTA does not apply where the circumstances existed at the outset of the tenancy but were not discovered until later. b. Here, the condition of the premises had not changed since the tenancy agreement was signed. All that changed was that the tenant inspected the premises more thoroughly in less favourable weather conditions and discovered that it was not as attractive to them as they had at first thought. c. Even if the matters complained of had occurred after the start of the tenancy, they would not have been unforeseen. Stewart Benson in “Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand” states at 3.3.1: “Changes in the condition of the property are not an unforeseen change in a tenant’s circumstances, such as mould, flooding, sewerage problems, or the need for ordinary repairs or minor repairs.”

The tenant’s claim for reduction of the fixed term tenancy under section 66 RTA is dismissed. Tenant’s claim for cancellation of the tenancy agreement for misrepresentation

The tenant claimed that the landlord’s photographs of the property and its HHS Statement misrepresented the true state of the premises and that they were induced to enter into the tenancy agreement by those misrepresentations.

Section 78(1)(g) RTA allows the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy if it is satisfied that the agreement was induced by a misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact by the landlord.

On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has met the high threshold of requirements for their claim to be successful for the following reasons: a. The tenant had the opportunity to inspect the property before signing the agreement and did so. The tenant accepted the property as seen at the time of inspection. It was only on a closer inspection and after discussion with the existing tenants that the tenant discovered any issues with which they were unhappy. b. The tenant had the opportunity to assess the premises at the first viewing. The tenant’s own inspection prior to signing allowed them to assess the true state of the property. That the tenant did not do so thoroughly is not the landlord’s fault. This failure by the tenant breaks the chain of reliance on any prior representations such as the web photographs. c. The tenant only raised objections after signing. The landlord could have remedied the issues which it was legally required to do. Some of the issues raised, such as the internal paint condition, required the landlord to improve the premises. The landlord has no legal obligation to do so just because a tenant makes a request. The landlord is only legally required to address any cleanliness or repair issues at the end of the existing tenancy so that the premises are in proper condition at the start of the new tenancy. A landlord is not under any obligation to undertake a drug test of the premises. It is for a tenant to prove contamination before being able to require a landlord to clean or decontaminate premises. These factors weaken the argument that the tenancy was induced by misrepresentation. d. The Tribunal is not persuaded that any alleged misrepresentation was “material”—that is, that it was so significant that the tenant would not have entered into the agreement if they had known the true state of the property. The issues could all have been investigated and fixed promptly by the landlord with minimum interruption of the tenancy. As noted above, the landlord had no legal obligation to remedy some of the issues raised.

The tenant’s claim is dismissed. The landlord’s claims

The landlord is under no obligation to agree to end a fixed term tenancy before its termination date. The landlord agreed to the tenants’ request, subject to the landlord finding a suitable tenant. It is entirely up to the landlord to determine who is an acceptable tenant and to determine the terms of any new tenancy. A tenant does not avoid their responsibility to pay the rent until the new tenancy commences because the landlord was not able to find a suitable new tenant on terms acceptable to the landlord. There is no indication that the landlord was slow in finding suitable new tenants or that it was not necessary to reduce the rent asked in order to obtain a new tenant.

The tenants are therefore liable for the rent to the start of the new tenancy. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing.

The tenant is also liable to compensate the landlord for its losses being the rent it would otherwise have earned at the higher rent during the rest of the fixed term tenancy between the parties. This is income that the landlord has missed out on by agreeing to end the tenancy at the tenant’s request by finding a new tenant. The tenant must therefore pay to the landlord compensation at the claimed rate of $70.00 per week from 5 July 2026 to 31 May 2027 being $3,310.00.

The landlord is also entitled to compensation for its reasonable expenses in dealing with the request to break the fixed term. Having examined the landlord’s invoice the Tribunal is satisfied that the amount claimed is fair and reasonable. Filing fee

Because the landlord has been wholly successful with its claim, the Tribunal must reimburse its filing fee. Final comments

The Tribunal appreciates the predicament that the tenant found themselves in. However, on signing the fixed term tenancy, they took on a legally binding liability of over $42,000.

That the landlord has been able to mitigate the tenant’s loss by finding a new tenant for the rest of the term may well be cold comfort, but it has substantially reduced the amount the tenant may have ended up owing the landlord.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5506839 — net $8,442.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to termination	$3,982.86	Rent to termination
Compensation for loss of rent	$3,310.00	Compensation for loss of rent
Break fee	$1,121.25	Break fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	25. The landlord is also entitled to compensation for its reasonable expenses in dealing with the request to break the fixed term.
Net award	$8,442.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,442.11

The Bond Centre is to repay the bond of $3,280.00 immediately to the landlord.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.

The Tribunal must have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

It is intended that this order be as concise as possible to convey the essential facts, the law and the Tribunal’s reasons for its decisions. Background

The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 31 May 2027.

The tenant’s claim for reduction of the fixed term tenancy under section 66 RTA is dismissed. Tenant’s claim for cancellation of the tenancy agreement for misrepresentation

Section 78(1)(g) RTA allows the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy if it is satisfied that the agreement was induced by a misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact by the landlord.

The tenant’s claim is dismissed. The landlord’s claims

The tenants are therefore liable for the rent to the start of the new tenancy. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing.

Because the landlord has been wholly successful with its claim, the Tribunal must reimburse its filing fee. Final comments

The Tribunal appreciates the predicament that the tenant found themselves in. However, on signing the fixed term tenancy, they took on a legally binding liability of over $42,000.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5506839 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 58 Alford Street, Waterview, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5506839 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 58 Alford Street, Waterview, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions