What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5522870 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] must pay LREMGMT Limited Trading as

How much money was awarded in case 5522870?

Compensation: $750.28 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5522870?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5522870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14051407-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5522870 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] must pay LREMGMT Limited Trading as

How much money was awarded in case 5522870?

Compensation: $750.28 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5522870?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5522870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14051407-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 8, 233 Hereford Street, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5522870 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5522870 — net $778.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation - break lease fees	$750.28	Compensation - break lease fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$778.28
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$778.28

Order

[The party] must pay LREMGMT Limited Trading as FN Lethbridge Property Management As Agent For Selina Wylie $778.28 from the bond immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (BN-00031487) immediately apportioned as follows: LREMGMT Limited Trading as FN Lethbridge Property Management As Agent For Selina Wylie: $778.28 [The party]: $1,021.72
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Razi, the tenant, along with two of her sisters, Nazeera Razi and Narina Razi as support people, and Mr Lethbridge, representing the landlord, all attended the video conference hearing.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy and for other miscellaneous orders.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Burden of proof and evidence
Any party making a claim must prove the claim on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
Where the parties dispute an issue, the party seeking to prove the claim must provide additional supporting evidence of their position. Background
The parties had entered into a fixed-term tenancy from 18 November 2024 to 17 November 2025 and subsequently renewed the fixed-term tenancy in a further agreement that went from 18 November 2025 to 22 November 2026.
The tenant said she decided to move overseas and so emailed the landlord on 28 April 2026 asking to leave the lease early, saying she would like to vacate the property around 19 June 2026.
In a further email dated 30 April 2026, the tenant asked the landlord whether it would be possible for her to find tenant replacements who could take over her remaining lease term from 19 June 2026 through to 18 November 2026. The landlord replied that the tenant was welcome to try to find new tenants, but there would still be a break lease process.
The landlord managed to find new tenants to move into the property on 23 June 2026.
The landlord then emailed the tenant on 20 May 2026 to acknowledge her break lease was confirmed and to say her lease would end on 22 June 2026, which meant she would need to vacate the property by Friday 19 June 2026, being the last day of her tenancy.
The tenant then asked the landlord on 2 June 2026 if she could remain in the property until 22 June 2026, if she had to pay rent to that date. The landlord responded that they had granted her break lease request, and they required time to complete her final inspection and new pre-entry report for new tenants and so she had to vacate the property by Friday 19 June 2026. The tenant took issue with having to pay rent until 22 June 2026 but also having to vacate the property 3 days earlier on 19 June 2026. Tenant’s claims
At the start of the hearing, the tenant clarified the ‘other miscellaneous orders’ she sought, as follows: a. Whether the landlord should have informed her at the conclusion of the first fixed-term about her options as to whether to enter into a further fixed-term tenancy or whether to request a periodic tenancy. After some discussion about the tenant being responsible for obtaining appropriate information and advice about her options before entering into any contract, the tenant withdrew this claim. b. The tenant wanted the Tribunal to determine whether she had to vacate the property whilst still having to pay rent. This was discussed in relation to the tenant’s claim for reduction of fixed-term tenancy and the tenant requested the Tribunal rule on both these claims. c. Whether the break lease fees claimed by the landlord were reasonable. The tenant then understood that this would be discussed and determined when dealing with the landlord’s claim for break lease costs and so withdrew this claim also.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 22 November 2026. The tenant told the landlord in her request on 28 April 2026 to break the fixed-term lease early that she wanted to leave the property around 19 June 2026. The landlord consented to the tenant leaving the lease early and managed to find new tenants to move into the property on 23 June 2026.
As such, the tenant seeks an order declaring the end of the tenancy date as 19 June 2026, when she actually vacated the property, rather than 22 June 2026, which was the day before the new tenants moved into the property, and when the landlord said the tenancy ended.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not provide any evidence about any unforeseen change in her circumstances as to why she decided to leave New Zealand and ask to break the fixed-term tenancy early. She said she asked the landlord to leave the lease early, said she wanted to leave around 19 June 2026, and she vacated the property on 19 June 2026. Further, the tenant did not provide any evidence about any unforeseen change in her circumstances that merited reducing the end of the tenancy date from 22 June 2026, the date agreed by the landlord to which the tenancy term could be reduced, to 19 June 2026, when the tenant actually moved out.
Similarly, the tenant also did not provide any evidence about any severe hardship to her if the term of the tenancy was not reduced from 22 June 2026 to 19 June 2026.
Because the tenant has not provided any additional supporting evidence about any unforeseen change in her circumstances as to why she broke the lease early nor did she provide any additional supporting evidence as to any severe hardship to her if the term of the tenancy was not reduced from 22 June 2026 to 19 June 2026, I dismiss this claim.
Because the tenant has not proved her claim to reduce the fixed-term tenancy further, I declare the end of the tenancy date is 22 June 2026, the date to which the landlord agreed to reduce the fixed-term tenancy.
In terms of any declaration sought by the tenant outside of her claim to reduce the term of the fixed-term tenancy, as a miscellaneous order, the tenant has not provided any additional supporting evidence to provide a basis for the tenancy term being further reduced from 22 June 2026 to 19 June 2026, other than she did not wish to pay rent for this period without having possession of the property. Therefore, I find there is no basis, considering the evidence, to declare an end of tenancy date that is different from 22 June 2026 and so dismiss this claim also. Landlord’s claims Rent arrears
The landlord provided rent records which show that $64.29 is owing in rent for 22 June 2026 and claimed this amount for rent arrears.
The tenant confirmed at the hearing that she only disputed paying one day’s rent for 22 June 2026, given her position that she had to pay rent when she did not have possession of the property.
I will deal with my decision on this claim below, along with the landlord’s claim for the break lease fees. Compensation – break lease fees
The landlord claimed break lease fees of $750.28 and provided a copy of an Account of Expenses with an itemised breakdown of costs that they provided to the tenant. The landlord went through the Account of Expenses in detail during the hearing and explained each line item of cost.
The tenant acknowledged that she would likely be liable for break lease costs, as per the tenancy agreement but questioned the reasonableness of the amount claimed for this by the landlord. The tenant said she did not believe that 45 minutes of time was reasonable for writing, sending and receiving emails by the landlord, or that the Trade me advertisement fee of $218.50 was reasonable either. The tenant said she asked for the Trade me invoice from the landlord and for details of their routes for travel claimed. The landlord said that they receive a bill from Trade me monthly for all houses they deal with, and do not receive individual invoices for one particular property’s advertisement, such as this one. The landlord said the mileage was calculated as per their application system and was mileage from their office to the tenancy property.
The landlord explained that the 45 minutes time for writing, sending and receiving emails included any emails dealt with in relation to the break lease issue, which then included all emails to and from the tenant about the break lease issue, as well as emails with other prospective new tenants. Given the number of emails provided in the application documents between the parties about the break lease issue, and assuming the landlord would have dealt with additional emails from prospective tenants also, I find the 45 minutes claimed for the landlord to deal with all emails from the tenant about break lease issues and from prospective tenants, to be reasonable, given the evidence. I also find the cost of the Trade me ad of $218.50 to be reasonable. The tenant did not provide evidence to the contrary that the landlord could have advertised for new tenants elsewhere at a cheaper rate.
Whilst the tenant did not believe the landlord’s break lease costs claimed were reasonable, she did not provide any sufficient additional supporting evidence to the contrary about how these costs could have been further reduced.
If the landlord obtains possession of a property early, before the last day of the tenancy, such as occurred here, to carry out their final and entry inspections and other tasks, the cost of that possession is either a day’s rent, as claimed, or break lease fees, but not both. To order both rent for the period of the landlord’s possession as well as break lease fees would essentially be double dipping.
The tenant objected to paying one day’s rent for 22 June 2026 but acknowledged she would likely be liable for some break lease fees. The tenant asked the Tribunal to determine the reasonableness of the amount claimed by the landlord for break lease fees.
Given the evidence of the tasks involved in the break lease process, as itemised by the landlord in detail during the hearing, I find the amount of break lease costs claimed by the landlord of $750.28 to be reasonable and award this to the landlord.
However, as I find that the landlord cannot have both the break lease fees as well as the rent claimed for the period of their possession, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for rent arrears. Filing fee
As the landlord has been successful with their claim, I award them reimbursement of the filing fee. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (BN-00031487) immediately apportioned as follows: LREMGMT Limited Trading as FN Lethbridge Property Management As Agent For Selina Wylie: $778.28 [The party]: $1,021.72

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5522870 — net $778.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation - break lease fees	$750.28	Compensation - break lease fees
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$778.28
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$778.28

Order

[The party] must pay LREMGMT Limited Trading as FN Lethbridge Property Management As Agent For Selina Wylie $778.28 from the bond immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (BN-00031487) immediately apportioned as follows: LREMGMT Limited Trading as FN Lethbridge Property Management As Agent For Selina Wylie: $778.28 [The party]: $1,021.72
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Razi, the tenant, along with two of her sisters, Nazeera Razi and Narina Razi as support people, and Mr Lethbridge, representing the landlord, all attended the video conference hearing.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy and for other miscellaneous orders.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Burden of proof and evidence
Any party making a claim must prove the claim on a balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not that something occurred.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
Where the parties dispute an issue, the party seeking to prove the claim must provide additional supporting evidence of their position. Background
The parties had entered into a fixed-term tenancy from 18 November 2024 to 17 November 2025 and subsequently renewed the fixed-term tenancy in a further agreement that went from 18 November 2025 to 22 November 2026.
The tenant said she decided to move overseas and so emailed the landlord on 28 April 2026 asking to leave the lease early, saying she would like to vacate the property around 19 June 2026.
In a further email dated 30 April 2026, the tenant asked the landlord whether it would be possible for her to find tenant replacements who could take over her remaining lease term from 19 June 2026 through to 18 November 2026. The landlord replied that the tenant was welcome to try to find new tenants, but there would still be a break lease process.
The landlord managed to find new tenants to move into the property on 23 June 2026.
The landlord then emailed the tenant on 20 May 2026 to acknowledge her break lease was confirmed and to say her lease would end on 22 June 2026, which meant she would need to vacate the property by Friday 19 June 2026, being the last day of her tenancy.
The tenant then asked the landlord on 2 June 2026 if she could remain in the property until 22 June 2026, if she had to pay rent to that date. The landlord responded that they had granted her break lease request, and they required time to complete her final inspection and new pre-entry report for new tenants and so she had to vacate the property by Friday 19 June 2026. The tenant took issue with having to pay rent until 22 June 2026 but also having to vacate the property 3 days earlier on 19 June 2026. Tenant’s claims
At the start of the hearing, the tenant clarified the ‘other miscellaneous orders’ she sought, as follows: a. Whether the landlord should have informed her at the conclusion of the first fixed-term about her options as to whether to enter into a further fixed-term tenancy or whether to request a periodic tenancy. After some discussion about the tenant being responsible for obtaining appropriate information and advice about her options before entering into any contract, the tenant withdrew this claim. b. The tenant wanted the Tribunal to determine whether she had to vacate the property whilst still having to pay rent. This was discussed in relation to the tenant’s claim for reduction of fixed-term tenancy and the tenant requested the Tribunal rule on both these claims. c. Whether the break lease fees claimed by the landlord were reasonable. The tenant then understood that this would be discussed and determined when dealing with the landlord’s claim for break lease costs and so withdrew this claim also.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 22 November 2026. The tenant told the landlord in her request on 28 April 2026 to break the fixed-term lease early that she wanted to leave the property around 19 June 2026. The landlord consented to the tenant leaving the lease early and managed to find new tenants to move into the property on 23 June 2026.
As such, the tenant seeks an order declaring the end of the tenancy date as 19 June 2026, when she actually vacated the property, rather than 22 June 2026, which was the day before the new tenants moved into the property, and when the landlord said the tenancy ended.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not provide any evidence about any unforeseen change in her circumstances as to why she decided to leave New Zealand and ask to break the fixed-term tenancy early. She said she asked the landlord to leave the lease early, said she wanted to leave around 19 June 2026, and she vacated the property on 19 June 2026. Further, the tenant did not provide any evidence about any unforeseen change in her circumstances that merited reducing the end of the tenancy date from 22 June 2026, the date agreed by the landlord to which the tenancy term could be reduced, to 19 June 2026, when the tenant actually moved out.
Similarly, the tenant also did not provide any evidence about any severe hardship to her if the term of the tenancy was not reduced from 22 June 2026 to 19 June 2026.
Because the tenant has not provided any additional supporting evidence about any unforeseen change in her circumstances as to why she broke the lease early nor did she provide any additional supporting evidence as to any severe hardship to her if the term of the tenancy was not reduced from 22 June 2026 to 19 June 2026, I dismiss this claim.
Because the tenant has not proved her claim to reduce the fixed-term tenancy further, I declare the end of the tenancy date is 22 June 2026, the date to which the landlord agreed to reduce the fixed-term tenancy.
In terms of any declaration sought by the tenant outside of her claim to reduce the term of the fixed-term tenancy, as a miscellaneous order, the tenant has not provided any additional supporting evidence to provide a basis for the tenancy term being further reduced from 22 June 2026 to 19 June 2026, other than she did not wish to pay rent for this period without having possession of the property. Therefore, I find there is no basis, considering the evidence, to declare an end of tenancy date that is different from 22 June 2026 and so dismiss this claim also. Landlord’s claims Rent arrears
The landlord provided rent records which show that $64.29 is owing in rent for 22 June 2026 and claimed this amount for rent arrears.
The tenant confirmed at the hearing that she only disputed paying one day’s rent for 22 June 2026, given her position that she had to pay rent when she did not have possession of the property.
I will deal with my decision on this claim below, along with the landlord’s claim for the break lease fees. Compensation – break lease fees
The landlord claimed break lease fees of $750.28 and provided a copy of an Account of Expenses with an itemised breakdown of costs that they provided to the tenant. The landlord went through the Account of Expenses in detail during the hearing and explained each line item of cost.
The tenant acknowledged that she would likely be liable for break lease costs, as per the tenancy agreement but questioned the reasonableness of the amount claimed for this by the landlord. The tenant said she did not believe that 45 minutes of time was reasonable for writing, sending and receiving emails by the landlord, or that the Trade me advertisement fee of $218.50 was reasonable either. The tenant said she asked for the Trade me invoice from the landlord and for details of their routes for travel claimed. The landlord said that they receive a bill from Trade me monthly for all houses they deal with, and do not receive individual invoices for one particular property’s advertisement, such as this one. The landlord said the mileage was calculated as per their application system and was mileage from their office to the tenancy property.
The landlord explained that the 45 minutes time for writing, sending and receiving emails included any emails dealt with in relation to the break lease issue, which then included all emails to and from the tenant about the break lease issue, as well as emails with other prospective new tenants. Given the number of emails provided in the application documents between the parties about the break lease issue, and assuming the landlord would have dealt with additional emails from prospective tenants also, I find the 45 minutes claimed for the landlord to deal with all emails from the tenant about break lease issues and from prospective tenants, to be reasonable, given the evidence. I also find the cost of the Trade me ad of $218.50 to be reasonable. The tenant did not provide evidence to the contrary that the landlord could have advertised for new tenants elsewhere at a cheaper rate.
Whilst the tenant did not believe the landlord’s break lease costs claimed were reasonable, she did not provide any sufficient additional supporting evidence to the contrary about how these costs could have been further reduced.
If the landlord obtains possession of a property early, before the last day of the tenancy, such as occurred here, to carry out their final and entry inspections and other tasks, the cost of that possession is either a day’s rent, as claimed, or break lease fees, but not both. To order both rent for the period of the landlord’s possession as well as break lease fees would essentially be double dipping.
The tenant objected to paying one day’s rent for 22 June 2026 but acknowledged she would likely be liable for some break lease fees. The tenant asked the Tribunal to determine the reasonableness of the amount claimed by the landlord for break lease fees.
Given the evidence of the tasks involved in the break lease process, as itemised by the landlord in detail during the hearing, I find the amount of break lease costs claimed by the landlord of $750.28 to be reasonable and award this to the landlord.
However, as I find that the landlord cannot have both the break lease fees as well as the rent claimed for the period of their possession, I dismiss the landlord’s claim for rent arrears. Filing fee
As the landlord has been successful with their claim, I award them reimbursement of the filing fee. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (BN-00031487) immediately apportioned as follows: LREMGMT Limited Trading as FN Lethbridge Property Management As Agent For Selina Wylie: $778.28 [The party]: $1,021.72

Tenancy Tribunal case 5522870 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 8, 233 Hereford Street, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5522870 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 8, 233 Hereford Street, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.