What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5510989 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 5510989?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Reletting Costs: $733.70 awarded to landlord; Rent: $2,785.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5510989?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5510989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13716150-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5510989 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 5510989?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Reletting Costs: $733.70 awarded to landlord; Rent: $2,785.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5510989?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5510989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13716150-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5510989 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5510989 — net $3,547.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 15 June 2026	$2,785.71	Rent to 15 June 2026
Reletting costs	$733.70	Reletting costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,547.41
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,547.41

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Loice Nyaradzo Mupfavi and Happymore Chapungu must pay [he landlord] $3,547.41 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing which was conducted by video conference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, rent due and compensation for reletting costs. Background
After the tenants had seen the premises online and viewed then via a video call, the parties signed a tenancy agreement for a fixed term beginning on 5 May 2026.
When the tenants came to view the premises in person before they were due to take possession, they were not happy with them, and they informed the landlord that they would not be taking possession. They have since found other accommodation.
The landlord then readvertised the premises and they have now found another tenant and that tenancy will begin on 16 June.
The tenants deny liability and say that they were justified to reject the premises. Relevant Law
Section 50 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) sets out the circumstances in which a tenancy can be terminated. In this case, the only possible circumstance in which the tenancy can be terminated is by order of this Tribunal.
The only available ground of which the Tribunal could terminate the tenancy is under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA). Sections 36 to 42 of the CCLA deal with cancellation of contracts.
A party may cancel a contract where the other party repudiates the contract by making it clear that they do not intend to perform their obligations under the contract or to complete the performance of their obligations under the contract.
A party may also cancel a contract where the other party has been in breach of a term of the contract if the breach substantially reduces the benefit of the contract or substantially increases the burden of the contract for the cancelling party.
It follows that there must be a serious breach of the contract by the other party before the innocent party has the right to cancel the contract.
For the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy, it is usually necessary for the party seeking termination to make an application for termination. The tenants have not made any application. But, in fairness to the tenants, I will consider whether there are grounds to terminate the tenancy Evidence and Discussion
The tenants said that when they inspected the premises, they found them to be dusty, there were stains on the floor, a patch on a wall and the wardrobe was out of alignment. My impression is that the tenants were also not happy with the overall style and nature of the premises. They said that the premises did not match the photographs of them that they saw before viewing them in person.
I have considered the photographs provided by the parties and I am satisfied that the premises were reasonably clean at the commencement of the tenancy. That is the required standard. It is not a standard of perfection.
I am also satisfied that there is no evidence regarding the condition of the premises generally that constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement or of the Act.
There was a patch on a wall from a repair by the previous tenants. The standard of repair was not what most landlords would have accepted but it was not so bad as to constitute a failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The same applies to the wardrobe. Again, the required standard is not one of perfection.
The premises are a typical 1960s concrete block unit. Such properties are not generally considered to be gems of architectural beauty or style. But plenty of people live in them quite happily and importantly they meet the required standards unless there is some obvious defect.
It may be that the tenants formed a more favourable impression of the premises from the photographs than the premises merited or that the photographs flattered the premises compared with how they appeared to them in the cold hard light of day. That can be the case with photographs. But they chose to sign the tenancy agreement based on the photographs and a video and they assumed that risk. They were the same premises and there was no material difference between the images and the reality.
Even if I were to have found that the premises did not meet the required standards, I would not have found that the tenants were entitled to cancel the agreement. Any possible deficiencies would fall well short of the serious breach required to justify cancellation.
The truth is that the tenants should have accepted the premises, moved into them, and tried to resolve any perceived deficiencies with the landlord. If they simply didn’t like the premises, they could have sought to be released from the tenancy and that, self-evidently, would have been possible. They acted precipitously and thereby imposed on themselves the risk of this outcome. Decision
It follows that the tenants had no right to cancel the agreement and therefore the Tribunal cannot terminate the tenancy. The tenants remain bound by the agreement until the premises have been relet on 16 June.
The tenants have not paid any rent (or bond) and they are liable to pay the rent from 5 May to 15 June which amounts to $2,785.71 and so I have awarded that sum.
The landlord has also incurred costs in the sum of $733.70 associated with reletting the premises. I consider those costs to be reasonable and so I have also awarded them.
The landlord has been successful and so I have awarded the filing fee and granted their request for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5510989 — net $3,547.41 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 15 June 2026	$2,785.71	Rent to 15 June 2026
Reletting costs	$733.70	Reletting costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,547.41
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,547.41

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Loice Nyaradzo Mupfavi and Happymore Chapungu must pay [he landlord] $3,547.41 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing which was conducted by video conference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, rent due and compensation for reletting costs. Background
After the tenants had seen the premises online and viewed then via a video call, the parties signed a tenancy agreement for a fixed term beginning on 5 May 2026.
When the tenants came to view the premises in person before they were due to take possession, they were not happy with them, and they informed the landlord that they would not be taking possession. They have since found other accommodation.
The landlord then readvertised the premises and they have now found another tenant and that tenancy will begin on 16 June.
The tenants deny liability and say that they were justified to reject the premises. Relevant Law
Section 50 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) sets out the circumstances in which a tenancy can be terminated. In this case, the only possible circumstance in which the tenancy can be terminated is by order of this Tribunal.
The only available ground of which the Tribunal could terminate the tenancy is under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA). Sections 36 to 42 of the CCLA deal with cancellation of contracts.
A party may cancel a contract where the other party repudiates the contract by making it clear that they do not intend to perform their obligations under the contract or to complete the performance of their obligations under the contract.
A party may also cancel a contract where the other party has been in breach of a term of the contract if the breach substantially reduces the benefit of the contract or substantially increases the burden of the contract for the cancelling party.
It follows that there must be a serious breach of the contract by the other party before the innocent party has the right to cancel the contract.
For the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy, it is usually necessary for the party seeking termination to make an application for termination. The tenants have not made any application. But, in fairness to the tenants, I will consider whether there are grounds to terminate the tenancy Evidence and Discussion
The tenants said that when they inspected the premises, they found them to be dusty, there were stains on the floor, a patch on a wall and the wardrobe was out of alignment. My impression is that the tenants were also not happy with the overall style and nature of the premises. They said that the premises did not match the photographs of them that they saw before viewing them in person.
I have considered the photographs provided by the parties and I am satisfied that the premises were reasonably clean at the commencement of the tenancy. That is the required standard. It is not a standard of perfection.
I am also satisfied that there is no evidence regarding the condition of the premises generally that constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement or of the Act.
There was a patch on a wall from a repair by the previous tenants. The standard of repair was not what most landlords would have accepted but it was not so bad as to constitute a failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The same applies to the wardrobe. Again, the required standard is not one of perfection.
The premises are a typical 1960s concrete block unit. Such properties are not generally considered to be gems of architectural beauty or style. But plenty of people live in them quite happily and importantly they meet the required standards unless there is some obvious defect.
It may be that the tenants formed a more favourable impression of the premises from the photographs than the premises merited or that the photographs flattered the premises compared with how they appeared to them in the cold hard light of day. That can be the case with photographs. But they chose to sign the tenancy agreement based on the photographs and a video and they assumed that risk. They were the same premises and there was no material difference between the images and the reality.
Even if I were to have found that the premises did not meet the required standards, I would not have found that the tenants were entitled to cancel the agreement. Any possible deficiencies would fall well short of the serious breach required to justify cancellation.
The truth is that the tenants should have accepted the premises, moved into them, and tried to resolve any perceived deficiencies with the landlord. If they simply didn’t like the premises, they could have sought to be released from the tenancy and that, self-evidently, would have been possible. They acted precipitously and thereby imposed on themselves the risk of this outcome. Decision
It follows that the tenants had no right to cancel the agreement and therefore the Tribunal cannot terminate the tenancy. The tenants remain bound by the agreement until the premises have been relet on 16 June.
The tenants have not paid any rent (or bond) and they are liable to pay the rent from 5 May to 15 June which amounts to $2,785.71 and so I have awarded that sum.
The landlord has also incurred costs in the sum of $733.70 associated with reletting the premises. I consider those costs to be reasonable and so I have also awarded them.
The landlord has been successful and so I have awarded the filing fee and granted their request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5510989 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5510989 — Tenancy dispute

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