What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5243271?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s applications for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy, for failure to

How much money was awarded in case 5243271?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $11,978.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243271?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11895748-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5243271?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s applications for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy, for failure to

How much money was awarded in case 5243271?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $11,978.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243271?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243271?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11895748-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

40A Walter Street, Hauraki, Auckland 0622 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5243271 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5243271 — net $3,405.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 May 2025	$11,978.57	Rent arrears to 21 May 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,405.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,405.57

Order

The tenant’s applications for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy, for failure to comply with a 14-day notice and for emotional harm, are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $8,600.00 (BN-00042426) to Re-Bran Limited (T/A Propertyscouts Auckland Bays) - As Agent For Mark Perkins immediately.
Yan Cen must pay Re-Bran Limited (T/A Propertyscouts Auckland Bays) - As Agent For Mark Perkins $3,405.57 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

This is a cross-application. Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Regis-Brannigan.
The parties signed a fixed-term tenancy-agreement starting on 2 February 2025 and ending on 27 August 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant is seeking a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy and refund of the bond.
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.
Ms Cen set out the circumstances of two incidents that she claims caused “an unforeseen change in her circumstances”.
On 7 March 2025 at approximately 9.00 pm she was in her driveway when she was approached by three males who attempted to engage with her. Ms Cen’s English is poor and she was scared. She went to her neighbour’s house and eventually her neighbour “chased them away.”
Then on 6 April 2025 she awoke at 1.35 am to find someone was attempting to force open the kitchen window. This caused the laminated glass to crack, although it remained smooth to the touch. Ms Cen called the police.
Ms Cen found both of these incidents disturbing and felt unsafe. Having initially sought to end the tenancy early after the first incident and then retracting the request, she again engaged with the landlord regarding an early termination of the tenancy.
On 9 April 2025, the landlord set out conditions of early termination, being a four week notice period, an end of tenancy date of 6 May 2025, and confirmation from Ms Cen of acceptance of these conditions.
Ms Cen did not respond for over a week until 15 April 2025 at which point she stated she agreed to the proposal, but the end date would be 4 May 2025.
On the same day the landlord responded by reiterating that 4 week’s-notice was required, which meant the end of tenancy date would now be 13 May 2025.
On 17 April 2025 Ms Cen served a 14-day notice to remedy on the landlord. The notice had three requirements: a. Repair the kitchen window, b. Install security cameras, and c. Honour the offer to end the tenancy on 6 May 2025.
The landlord stated, and I agree, that the two incidents Ms Cen encountered, although very unfortunate, could have happened anywhere in Auckland. No information was produced that indicate that Ms Cen was being targeted. I accept Ms Cen was scared by them, but I do not consider that to be sufficient to amount to a change in Ms Cen’s circumstances.
Having determined there was no change in Ms Cen’s circumstances, the application for a reduction in the fixed-term tenancy fails. I determine the tenancy ended as a result of negotiation between the landlord and the tenant.
The tenant claims the landlord agreed to an end of tenancy date and then failed to honour this agreement.
The weakness of the landlord’s position in this disagreement, is that there was no timeframe expressed in their offer, within which the tenant was required to accept 6 May 2025 as the end of tenancy.
However, I believe neither party would accept that the tenant had until 5 May 2025 before accepting the offer to end the tenancy the next day. That is to say, implicit in the landlord’s offer was a term that the tenant was required to accept the offer within a reasonable timeframe. In my view, a reasonable timeframe is within 5 days, although this may depend on other circumstances.
However, when the tenant responded, 6 days after the offer was made, she counter-offered with a new date, 4 May 2025. The landlord did not accept this date. The landlord responded on the same day that for the end of tenancy date to meet the four week’s notice, it would have to be 13 May 2025.
In short, where as Ms Cen believes the landlord was not honouring the agreement of the end of tenancy date, I determine there was never an agreement of the end of tenancy date; there were only offers and counter- offers.
Ms Regis-Brannigan pointed out that the landlord acted in good faith throughout their negotiation with Ms Cen, accepted an early end to the tenancy when they weren’t obliged to do so, accepted a subsequent drop in rent for the premises which could have been on-charged to Ms Cen, have not charged Ms Cen re- letting costs, and have not charged Ms Cen for rent from 21 May 2025 to 26 May 2025 when the new tenancy begins, because a premises is usually vacant for a short time between tenancies.
Ms Regis-Brannigan stated Ms Cen never confirmed an end of tenancy date. Based on the correspondence I have seen, this is correct.
Ms Cen raised a couple of other issues. She claimed the 14-day notice to repair the window may not have been complied with, and that one of the tradespeople contacted her rather than the landlord to get an inside measurement of the cracked window.
Ms Regis-Brannigan stated that the window was fixed within the 14 day period, and that in any case Ms Cen had left the property by 6 April 2025 and signed a new tenancy agreement from 17 April 2025.
Given Ms Regis-Brannigan’s continued involvement with the premises and Ms Cens cessation of involvement, I prefer Ms Regis-Brannigan’s version of event on this count.
Ms Cen also claimed for emotional harm as a result of the two events at her premises. No corroborating information was provided, and no amount was included in the claim. I do not find this claim proved at all.
Because Re-Bran Limited (T/A Propertyscouts Auckland Bays) - As Agent For Mark Perkins has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5243271 — net $3,405.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 21 May 2025	$11,978.57	Rent arrears to 21 May 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,405.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,405.57

Order

The tenant’s applications for a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy, for failure to comply with a 14-day notice and for emotional harm, are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $8,600.00 (BN-00042426) to Re-Bran Limited (T/A Propertyscouts Auckland Bays) - As Agent For Mark Perkins immediately.
Yan Cen must pay Re-Bran Limited (T/A Propertyscouts Auckland Bays) - As Agent For Mark Perkins $3,405.57 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

This is a cross-application. Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Regis-Brannigan.
The parties signed a fixed-term tenancy-agreement starting on 2 February 2025 and ending on 27 August 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant is seeking a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy and refund of the bond.
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.
Ms Cen set out the circumstances of two incidents that she claims caused “an unforeseen change in her circumstances”.
On 7 March 2025 at approximately 9.00 pm she was in her driveway when she was approached by three males who attempted to engage with her. Ms Cen’s English is poor and she was scared. She went to her neighbour’s house and eventually her neighbour “chased them away.”
Then on 6 April 2025 she awoke at 1.35 am to find someone was attempting to force open the kitchen window. This caused the laminated glass to crack, although it remained smooth to the touch. Ms Cen called the police.
Ms Cen found both of these incidents disturbing and felt unsafe. Having initially sought to end the tenancy early after the first incident and then retracting the request, she again engaged with the landlord regarding an early termination of the tenancy.
On 9 April 2025, the landlord set out conditions of early termination, being a four week notice period, an end of tenancy date of 6 May 2025, and confirmation from Ms Cen of acceptance of these conditions.
Ms Cen did not respond for over a week until 15 April 2025 at which point she stated she agreed to the proposal, but the end date would be 4 May 2025.
On the same day the landlord responded by reiterating that 4 week’s-notice was required, which meant the end of tenancy date would now be 13 May 2025.
On 17 April 2025 Ms Cen served a 14-day notice to remedy on the landlord. The notice had three requirements: a. Repair the kitchen window, b. Install security cameras, and c. Honour the offer to end the tenancy on 6 May 2025.
The landlord stated, and I agree, that the two incidents Ms Cen encountered, although very unfortunate, could have happened anywhere in Auckland. No information was produced that indicate that Ms Cen was being targeted. I accept Ms Cen was scared by them, but I do not consider that to be sufficient to amount to a change in Ms Cen’s circumstances.
Having determined there was no change in Ms Cen’s circumstances, the application for a reduction in the fixed-term tenancy fails. I determine the tenancy ended as a result of negotiation between the landlord and the tenant.
The tenant claims the landlord agreed to an end of tenancy date and then failed to honour this agreement.
The weakness of the landlord’s position in this disagreement, is that there was no timeframe expressed in their offer, within which the tenant was required to accept 6 May 2025 as the end of tenancy.
However, I believe neither party would accept that the tenant had until 5 May 2025 before accepting the offer to end the tenancy the next day. That is to say, implicit in the landlord’s offer was a term that the tenant was required to accept the offer within a reasonable timeframe. In my view, a reasonable timeframe is within 5 days, although this may depend on other circumstances.
However, when the tenant responded, 6 days after the offer was made, she counter-offered with a new date, 4 May 2025. The landlord did not accept this date. The landlord responded on the same day that for the end of tenancy date to meet the four week’s notice, it would have to be 13 May 2025.
In short, where as Ms Cen believes the landlord was not honouring the agreement of the end of tenancy date, I determine there was never an agreement of the end of tenancy date; there were only offers and counter- offers.
Ms Regis-Brannigan pointed out that the landlord acted in good faith throughout their negotiation with Ms Cen, accepted an early end to the tenancy when they weren’t obliged to do so, accepted a subsequent drop in rent for the premises which could have been on-charged to Ms Cen, have not charged Ms Cen re- letting costs, and have not charged Ms Cen for rent from 21 May 2025 to 26 May 2025 when the new tenancy begins, because a premises is usually vacant for a short time between tenancies.
Ms Regis-Brannigan stated Ms Cen never confirmed an end of tenancy date. Based on the correspondence I have seen, this is correct.
Ms Cen raised a couple of other issues. She claimed the 14-day notice to repair the window may not have been complied with, and that one of the tradespeople contacted her rather than the landlord to get an inside measurement of the cracked window.
Ms Regis-Brannigan stated that the window was fixed within the 14 day period, and that in any case Ms Cen had left the property by 6 April 2025 and signed a new tenancy agreement from 17 April 2025.
Given Ms Regis-Brannigan’s continued involvement with the premises and Ms Cens cessation of involvement, I prefer Ms Regis-Brannigan’s version of event on this count.
Ms Cen also claimed for emotional harm as a result of the two events at her premises. No corroborating information was provided, and no amount was included in the claim. I do not find this claim proved at all.
Because Re-Bran Limited (T/A Propertyscouts Auckland Bays) - As Agent For Mark Perkins has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243271 — Rent arrears at 40A Walter Street, Hauraki, Auckland 0622

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243271 — Rent arrears at 40A Walter Street, Hauraki, Auckland 0622

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