What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4904858?

The tribunal order states: Peter Robert Calvert and Jeanette Susanne Geis to pay Opes Property

How much money was awarded in case 4904858?

Rent Arrears: $1,774.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904858?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904858?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11089024-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4904858?

The tribunal order states: Peter Robert Calvert and Jeanette Susanne Geis to pay Opes Property

How much money was awarded in case 4904858?

Rent Arrears: $1,774.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904858?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904858?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11089024-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 387 Armagh Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4904858 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4904858 — net $1,774.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16/06/2024	$1,774.29	Rent arrears to 16/06/2024
Net award	$1,774.29
Bond	$2,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,774.29

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4904858 — net $1,774.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16/06/2024	$1,774.29	Rent arrears to 16/06/2024
Net award	$1,774.29
Bond	$2,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,774.29

Order

Peter Robert Calvert and Jeanette Susanne Geis to pay Opes Property Management South Limited As Agent For S Walsh $1,774.29 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (6502416-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Opes Property Management South Limited As Agent For S Walsh: $1,774.29 Peter Robert Calvert and Jeanette Susanne Geis: $385.71
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The tenancy began on 7 September 2023 and was a fixed-term agreement set to end on 8 September 2024. The rent was $540 per week, and a bond of $2,160 was paid. The tenants moved out on 24 May 2024, nearly four months before the lease was due to end. Following their departure, the tenants filed for a full refund of the bond, while the landlords filed a cross-application seeking rent arrears for the period until the property was re-let on 17 June 2024, amounting to $1,774.29, along with a fee for breaking the fixed-term lease. In addition, the landlords are seeking compensation for cleaning ($100.00) and damage to the walls ($166.75), which they claim were incurred after the tenants vacated the property.
The tenants' position is that they moved into a brand-new development but quickly began to feel unsafe due to the behaviour of a particular neighbour. From 2 November 2023, the tenants experienced violent and abusive behaviour from this neighbour, leading to multiple police reports. The tenants immediately informed the property manager of the issues and were advised by both the police and the property manager to move out for their safety. The tenants allege that the property manager agreed to terminate the lease with a compensation of one week's rent ($540 + GST). On 8 May 2024, they formally gave notice of their intention to vacate the property by 24 May 2024 due to the ongoing issues with the neighbour. However, when the tenants found a new place to move to, the property manager allegedly changed the conditions, requiring them to sign an agreement to terminate the lease and pay full rent until a new tenant was found. The tenants contend that this agreement was signed under duress, as they were pressured to do so in order to leave the unsafe environment. They also believe that they should not be responsible for any additional costs or penalties due to being forced to leave early because of the unsafe living conditions.
The landlords’ position is that they acted reasonably throughout the situation. They state that they were unable to take action against the neighbour directly, as the neighbour's property was not managed by them. The landlords spoke to the neighbour’s property manager to express their concerns but were told that the neighbour had also made police reports, alleging that the tenants were the ones causing disruptions. According to the landlords, social housing services did not move in, as claimed by the tenants, and they had received evidence suggesting the tenants had been disruptive and aggressive. Given the conflicting accounts from both parties, the landlords offered a solution: if the tenants felt unsafe, they could terminate the fixed-term lease early under the conditions outlined in the tenancy agreement. These conditions included paying advertising costs, a break fee not exceeding one week’s rent, and continuing to pay rent until a new tenant was found. The landlords deny that they forced the tenants to sign the break lease agreement under duress, stating that they had explained the process and conditions clearly in emails sent on 21 February 2024 and reiterated this in May 2024 when the tenants gave notice. The landlords further argue that the tenants' primary reason for leaving was that they had purchased a house, although they did not present any evidence of this. Additionally, the landlords are seeking compensation for cleaning and damage to the property. They claim the property required $100 worth of cleaning after the tenants moved out, as well as $166.75 for repairs to the walls, which they argue were caused by damage beyond normal wear and tear.
In summary, the dispute revolves around the tenants’ claim that they were forced to leave due to unsafe living conditions caused by an abusive neighbour, while the landlords contend that they provided a reasonable solution and that the tenants misunderstood the terms of the lease break agreement. The landlords are seeking rent arrears for the period until the property was re-let, a break fee, and compensation for cleaning and wall damage, while the tenants are seeking a full refund of the bond. The matter now requires a determination by the Tribunal to resolve the competing claims.
Before addressing claims, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. This is referred to as the “onus of proof”. In other words, the applicant must establish with evidence that what they are claiming is more likely than not, correct.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02: i. ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.
While I have carefully considered all the evidence and submissions from the parties, I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision. Relevant law
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 “the RTA”, the key provisions for determining whether the tenants are liable for the break lease fee and rent arrears until the property was re-let are found in Section 66 (relating to early termination of fixed-term tenancies) and Section 40 (which governs a tenant's obligations and the landlord's rights regarding rent payment and property maintenance).
Section 66 deals with the early termination of a fixed-term tenancy by the tenant. Under this section, if the tenant wishes to end the tenancy before the agreed fixed term expires, they may apply to the Tribunal to be released from the agreement. The Tribunal has the discretion to release the tenant from the fixed-term lease, but it may impose conditions, such as requiring the tenant to pay costs associated with re-letting the property. If the landlord consents to an early termination outside of Tribunal involvement, they may set reasonable conditions, including requiring the tenant to cover certain costs, such as advertising or a break fee.
Section 40 outlines the tenant’s obligations, including their duty pay rent when due under the tenancy agreement and to leave the property reasonably clean and remove all rubbish when they vacate. Additionally, the tenant is required not to cause damage to the premises beyond "fair wear and tear." Fair wear and tear refers to the natural deterioration that occurs over time due to normal use, while damage caused by neglect, misuse, or intentional acts is not considered fair wear and tear and is the tenant’s responsibility to repair or compensate for.
Therefore, tenants must vacate the property in a condition where it is clean, free of rubbish, and without damage (other than fair wear and tear). If the tenant causes damage or fails to leave the property in an acceptable condition, they may be held financially liable for the costs of cleaning or repairs required.
These provisions, alongside the tenancy agreement terms, provide the framework for assessing the competing claims. Rent Arrears until the Property was Re-let
The tenants moved out on 24 May 2024, nearly four months before the fixed-term tenancy was set to expire on 8 September 2024. According to Section 40(1)(a) of the RTA, the tenants remain liable to pay rent under a fixed-term tenancy until the end of the term, unless the tenancy is terminated earlier due to mutual agreement or by order of the Tribunal. In this case, the tenants vacated the property prematurely, but the tenancy was not terminated by mutual agreement until a later date.
The tenancy was re-let on 17 June 2024, and the tenants are therefore liable to pay rent for the period between 24 May 2024 (their move-out date) and 17 June 2024 (the new tenant's occupancy). The landlord provided rent records proving that the amount owing for this period is $1,774.29, which is the correct amount of rent arrears until the property was re-let. Section 40(1)(a) requires tenants to continue paying rent until the tenancy is formally terminated or the property is re-let, whichever occurs first. Since the property was re-let on 17 June 2024, the tenants' liability for rent ends on that date. The claim for rent arrears of $1,774.29 is therefore valid and should be awarded to the landlord. Break Lease Fee
The landlord has claimed a break lease fee, but the tenancy agreement stipulates that a break fee can apply when the tenant wishes to vacate early, subject to the landlord's consent. Clause 28 of the tenancy agreement specifies that if the landlord consents to early termination, the tenant may be liable for reasonable costs associated with re-letting the property. The agreement also notes that a fixed-term break fee should not exceed one week's rent.
However, the landlord’s claim for a break lease fee does not seem reasonable in this context. The break fee under the tenancy agreement typically covers costs like advertising, processing applications, credit checks, and administration associated with finding a new tenant. These are generally the types of costs the landlord would have incurred if the tenancy had ended naturally, even without an early termination. Since the tenancy was set to expire only a few months later (in September), the landlord would have incurred similar costs at the end of the fixed term, meaning that these costs would not be exceptional in nature. Additionally, there were no significant costs outlined in the landlord’s application to justify this fee beyond what was already covered by the rent arrears. The break fee includes charges for outgoing and ingoing inspections, which are usually the landlord’s responsibility and typically not passed onto the tenants, it is not reasonable to award such costs. I find the break lease fee should not be awarded, as the tenants’ early departure did not result in additional costs beyond the rent arrears until the property was re- let. Compensation for Cleaning and Damage to the Walls
The landlord has claimed compensation for cleaning ($100) and damage to the walls ($166.75), but these claims are disputed by the tenants. The tenants maintain they left the property in a reasonably clean condition and argue that the damage to the walls was likely due to defective paintwork that existed when they moved in.
For the cleaning costs, the tenants assert they left the property in good condition with no rubbish in the bin. The landlord disputes this claim, suggesting that the property was not cleaned adequately. Without clear evidence of the condition of the property at the time of vacating, it is difficult to substantiate the landlord’s claim for $100 cleaning costs. Therefore, the claim for cleaning costs is not supported and should be dismissed.
Regarding the wall damage, the landlord claims that the tenants caused damage to the kitchen wall and other areas, which required repairs. The tenants counter that the damage was due to faulty paintwork from the start of the tenancy and that they had notified the property manager of these issues. Additionally, the tenants argue that any attempts to repair the walls were inadequate due to the poor paintwork that was already present.
The landlord has provided photos showing some damage, but the tenants’ claim that the paintwork was faulty from the outset creates a reasonable doubt about whether the damage was caused by the tenants or by pre-existing issues. Moreover, the landlord has not demonstrated that the repairs were of poor workmanship due to the tenants' actions rather than the original state of the property. Since the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the tenants caused damage beyond normal wear and tear, the claim for wall damage of $166.75 should also be dismissed. Conclusion
Based on the facts and legal framework under the RTA, the tenants are liable for rent arrears until the property was re-let on 17 June 2024, amounting to $1,774.29. However, the landlord’s claim for a break lease fee is not justified and should not be awarded, as the associated costs would have been incurred anyway in the normal course of the tenancy’s expiration. Furthermore, the claims for cleaning costs and wall damage are not supported by sufficient evidence, and both should be dismissed. Therefore, the decision is to award the landlord $1,774.29 in rent arrears but to deny the claims for break lease fees, cleaning, and wall damage.
The bond of $2,160 will be used to cover the rent arrears of $1,774.29. The remaining balance of $385.71 will be refunded to the tenants. Since both parties have filed an application and neither has been wholly or substantially successful, I do not consider it appropriate to order either party to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4904858 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 5, 387 Armagh Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4904858 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 5, 387 Armagh Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions