What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5162371?

The tribunal order states: Annabelle Samson and John Samson must pay Chitra Tiwari $1,787.40

How much money was awarded in case 5162371?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,200.00 awarded to landlord; S44A Expenses: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $30.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5162371?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5162371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11855966-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5162371?

The tribunal order states: Annabelle Samson and John Samson must pay Chitra Tiwari $1,787.40

How much money was awarded in case 5162371?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,200.00 awarded to landlord; S44A Expenses: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $30.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5162371?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5162371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11855966-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2A Duke Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5162371 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5162371 — net $1,787.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,200.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$30.40	Water rates
s44A expenses	$50.00	s44A expenses
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,787.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,787.40

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5162371 — net $1,787.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$4,200.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$30.40	Water rates
s44A expenses	$50.00	s44A expenses
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,787.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,787.40

Order

Annabelle Samson and John Samson must pay Chitra Tiwari $1,787.40 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (5787865-004) to Chitra Tiwari immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 1 May 2025.
On 17 February 2025 the landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
There was no application from the tenants. Background
A summary is set out below: • The tenancy agreement was for a fixed term from 5 July 2024 to 5 July 2025. The rent was $630.00 per week. • There was a burglary at the premises on 27 December 2024 while the tenants were away. On 10 January 2025 the tenants said they were leaving because of the robbery, which had deeply traumatised them. They did not feel safe. • On 12 January 2025 the landlord said that the 28 days’ notice did not apply to fixed term contracts. The tenants were responsible for the rent until the end of the fixed term, or the landlord found suitable new tenants. • By 20 January 2025 the landlord had found suitable replacement tenants who wanted to move in on 31 January 2025. According to the landlord, the tenants said they could not move out by then but a couple of days later they informed the landlord that they were leaving before 31 January 2025. The text messages indicate that both groups of replacement tenants had decided not to take the tenancy by 22 January 2025. • On 2 February 2025 the tenants said they were vacating on 7 February 2025, which was 28 days since they first informed the landlord they were leaving. The tenants vacated on 7 February 2025. • The landlord was forced to list the property for sale between 20 February and 19 March due to financial distress. No buyers were found. The landlord recommenced advertising for new tenants on 20 March 2025. • On 27 March 2025 the landlord found new tenants at a lower rent of $600.00 per week. Abandonment
The landlord claimed exemplary damages for abandonment. It is necessary to determine this issue first, because it could have implications for the landlord’s claim for rent. A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse and fails to notify the landlord, not intending to return or to meet their obligations (section 61 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).
I am not satisfied that the tenants abandoned the premises. They had a reasonable excuse (the burglary and its effect on them) and the rent was not in arrears on the day they left – the rent was paid up to 13 February 2025. Further, they notified the landlord that they were leaving and returned the keys. They were, however, in breach of contract by ending the tenancy early.
The result of this finding is that the landlord had a duty to take all reasonable steps to mitigate her loss.
It is evident that the landlord started advertising almost straightaway and had found replacement tenants in just over a week. There is nothing to suggest that the landlord did anything which caused those prospective tenants to rent elsewhere.
The landlord then had to restart the marketing process and had not found replacements before the tenants vacated. No criticism can be made of the landlord for pausing this process while she attempted to sell the premises. The tenants did not suggest there were any other reasonable steps the landlord could have taken to limit her loss.
I am satisfied that the landlord took all reasonable steps in mitigation. Rent and Water
The landlord claimed rent of $3,780.00 for 6 weeks to 27 March 2025 when new tenants were found. The landlord also claimed $30.00 for 14 weeks to the end of the contract on 5 July 2025 ($420.00) being the difference between the rent payable by the tenants and the new weekly rent.
I have considered whether to reduce the fixed-term and my reasons for not doing so are set out below. I find that the landlord is entitled to an award of rent in the sum of $3,780.00 to 27 March 2025. I also consider that the landlord is entitled to compensation for the difference between the rent the tenants would have paid were it not for their breach of contract, and the rent the landlord was receiving between 27 March 2025 and expiry of the fixed term on 5 July 2025. The total award is $4,200.00.
The landlord claimed water charges of $30.40 for the period to 13 February 2025, supported by a water invoice. I award this amount. Reduction of Fixed Term
The tenants did not apply for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy pursuant to section 66 of the Act, but I have considered whether the evidence would support such a reduction, as I indicated at the hearing.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: • There has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and • There would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and • The applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.
There was a burglary, and the tenants’ photographs show the premises had been disrupted inside, with furniture thrown about. It must have been an upsetting experience for the tenants to return to the premises on 27 March 2025 and find their belongings and personal space interfered with.
However, I am not satisfied the burglary was “an unforeseen change” in the applicant’s circumstances as required by section 66(1) of the Act. As the landlord pointed out, every property in New Zealand faces a risk of burglary. Indeed, the tenants’ evidence was that they were living in an area with a certain amount of anti-social behaviour, which grew more concerning over time. The burglary was not entirely unforeseen.
I also find it difficult to view the event as a change in the tenants’ circumstances (which suggests something with a level of permanency) as opposed to a single, sudden adverse event which they suffered.
The Tribunal has reduced a fixed term tenancy where there were three burglaries at the same premises. That can more readily be seen as both unforeseen and a change in circumstances. In a more recent decision, the Tribunal accepted there was an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances after a single burglary, 2 weeks into the tenancy (Astute Property Group Ltd v Lopez [2017] NZTT 4069320). In contrast, the tenants had lived at these premises for about 5 months before they were burgled.
I respectfully decline to follow Astute Property Group which is not binding on me. I am not satisfied that the first requirement under section 66 is met in this case.
I have also considered whether there would be severe hardship to the tenants if the tenancy were not reduced, and whether this would be greater than the hardship to the landlord if it was reduced. Both parties have lost something because of the burglary. The tenants no longer felt safe and wanted to move out. The landlord was caused financial distress but nevertheless took some steps to make the premises more secure. The tenants were able to move to new premises and could afford a slightly higher rent. The landlord at one point was forced to put the premises on the market. I am not satisfied that the hardship the tenants would suffer is greater than the hardship that would be suffered by the landlord.
For these reasons, I decline to reduce the fixed term tenancy. Cleaning
Premises must be left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord claimed $632.50 for cleaning and provided a quote. The landlord said the tenants put tape on all the windows and did not ventilate the property sufficiently, resulting in mould. During the hearing, the landlord also said she found a window open at an inspection, and afterwards provided a photograph said to be taken in November 2024 and to show an open window.
In final written submissions, the landlord said that the property had been rented to the tenants a matter of days after purchase, and if the windows had been taped shut at that stage, there would have been mould present at the start of the tenancy. The landlord obtained a property inspection report dated 11 May 2024, but the condition of the premises when the tenants moved in is largely unknown.
The tenants provided a photograph dated 1 July 2024, which they said was taken at a viewing prior to the start of the tenancy. The photograph was also said to show white tape around the window frame, although it is hard to see. The tape is clearer on a photograph of the lounge window supplied following the hearing.
The tenants showed a short video of the property before they left, which seems to show the premises in a reasonably clean condition. The landlord’s photographs focused on mould around the windows and a bedroom ceiling and did not seem to support the wider cleaning quoted for the kitchen and bathroom, for example.
The tenants said they did not ventilate the house because of the tape, however, in written submissions they said they thought the tape was part of the window. Their photographs support the presence of some kind of tape and the mould could have been the result of the tenants thinking they could not open the windows. Overall, the evidence is inconsistent. There were also insufficient photographs to enable the Tribunal to fully evaluate the cleaning required. I find that this claim has not been proven and decline to award cleaning costs. Expenses
The landlord claimed advertising costs of $50.00 to find new tenants. This sum was spent in order to mitigate the landlord’s loss. It is either recoverable on that basis or pursuant to section 44A of the Act (recovery of expenses incurred by landlord). Damage
The landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or 4 weeks' rent.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent. The insurance excess was $500.00.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional, or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does, and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
The landlord said the tenants had drilled holes in all the window frames to secure the premises with nails. The tenants said they had only drilled a hole in one of the window frames, the window through which the criminals gained entry. The landlord said all the windows had holes drilled in them.
Following the hearing, the landlord provided photographs from a building inspection on 15 May 2024, said to show holes drilled into the windows in a bedroom, lounge, and dining room (4 windows). The tenant also provided further photographs and an explanation about the holes visible in the landlord’s photographs.
I found the tenants’ explanation persuasive, indeed, in final written submissions, the landlord indicated that she no longer wished to dispute the extent of the damage caused during the tenancy. I find on the balance of probabilities that the tenants only drilled one small hole in the lounge window, following the burglary. As they noted, the other holes shown in the building report and photographs taken by the tenants (apparently on 1 July 2024) are in a pattern consistent with where a different type of vertically mounted window latch has been removed.
The tenants ought to have asked the landlord whether locks or security stays could be fitted to the windows, on the basis that these were necessary to keep the premises secure, rather than drilling a hole in the window. It is not clear that the window had to be secured as a matter of urgency, or that the landlord was requested to secure it and failed to do so.
On the other hand, no evidence was provided to support the cost of repairing the window, if it needs repair. The landlord mentioned in her final written submissions that it has been difficult to get quotes. I view the small, neat hole drilled into the window by the tenants to be very minor damage. There is no evidence from a repair professional supporting the view that it requires a full window-frame replacement. I am not satisfied that any compensation should be awarded as it is not clear the performance of the windows is affected, or that there is any loss of amenity.
There is another issue that was discussed by the parties which I would like to address, although it is not the reason for my findings. There was a dispute about whether the security alarm was working. The landlord said it was functional when she bought the property, but the previous owners had forgotten the code, so it could not be armed. She did not know the alarm was not working prior to the burglary. The tenants said they had told the landlord’s agent before the home invasion. The tenants said the tradesperson advised that the wire to the sensors was disconnected when fixing the alarm on 5 January 2025.
A landlord is under an obligation in the Act to provide and maintain “such locks and other similar devices” as are necessary to ensure that premises are reasonably secure. The landlord was not obligated to provide a security alarm under the Act. Having done so, I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to keep it maintained. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee.
The landlord sought suppression but in my view has not been “wholly or substantially” successful (section 95A of the Act). The claims for cleaning, damage, and exemplary damages were unsuccessful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5162371 — Rent arrears at 2A Duke Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5162371 — Rent arrears at 2A Duke Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

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