What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5321679?

The tribunal order states: Oyuka (Oyun-Erdene) Rentsensambuu must pay Nest Residential Rentals and

How much money was awarded in case 5321679?

Break Lease Fee And Advertising: $843.84 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $257.89 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,710.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5321679?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5321679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13027702-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5321679?

The tribunal order states: Oyuka (Oyun-Erdene) Rentsensambuu must pay Nest Residential Rentals and

How much money was awarded in case 5321679?

Break Lease Fee And Advertising: $843.84 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $257.89 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,710.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5321679?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5321679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13027702-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 90A Bassett Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5321679 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5321679 — net $2,115.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,710.71	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Meth testing/Cleaning	$257.89	Meth testing/Cleaning
Break lease fee and advertising	$843.84	Break lease fee and advertising
Net award	$2,115.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,115.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5321679 — net $2,115.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,710.71	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Meth testing/Cleaning	$257.89	Meth testing/Cleaning
Break lease fee and advertising	$843.84	Break lease fee and advertising
Net award	$2,115.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,115.44

Order

Oyuka (Oyun-Erdene) Rentsensambuu must pay Nest Residential Rentals and Landlord Services Limited as Agent for Taylor Family Trust $2,115.44 immediately, being rent arrears to 21 August 2025, reimbursement of the filing fee and compensation, as calculated and set out below: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$2,710.71 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Meth testing/Cleaning$257.89 Break lease fee and advertising$843.84 Total award$3,840.44 Minus Bond- $1,725.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,115.44
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,725.00 (BN-00042169) to Nest Residential Rentals and Landlord Services Limited as Agent for Taylor Family Trust immediately.
I am dismissing the tenants’ claims.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This is a claim and counter claim.
The tenant has claimed that the landlord has breached the Residential Tenancies Acrt 1986 (RTA) by failing to maintain the property and breaching Healthy Homes standards. She seeks a full refund of her bond, compensation, reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has claimed for rent arrears, break lease fee, refund of the bond, methamphetamine testing and reimbursement of the filing fee. Background: Breach of Healthy Homes Standards:
This was a tenancy that commences on 23 February 2025 and was a for a 12- month fixed term. On 14 July 2025, the tenant sought to be released from the fixed term tenancy as her “kiwi father” was ill and living in another city. She needed to be closer to her father to help him.
The landlord set out the process for being released from a fixed term early and the costs associated with that.
The landlord and tenant continued to discuss the early release over the rest of the day via email. Later in the day (14 July 2025), the tenant raised the issue of water leaks in the kitchen roof and mould throughout the apartment for the first time during the tenancy. In addition, the tenant said that she and her child had experienced ill-health as a result of their living situation. Tenants’ claims:
At the hearing, the tenant says that the property had existing mould issues and water leaks that the landlord must have known about. The tenant refers to close up photos she had taken of the ceiling in the bedrooms and lounge. Furthermore, close up photos of what she says are evidence of a leaking roof in the kitchen.
Despite the claim of water leaks and mould issues the tenant had not raised these with the landlord. The tenant said she had not realised what the darker marks were on the ceiling and offered no explanation for failing to advise the landlord about a leaking roof.
The landlord strongly refutes that there is an issue with mould in the apartment and a roof leak. In addition, the landlord says if there are these problems then the tenant should have advised the landlord and allowed them the opportunity to remedy any maintenance issues.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a Healthy Homes Report dated 22 October 2025 conducted by Hines Electrical and Security NZ LTD. The report addresses heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and draught stopping. The property passed in all categories and was deemed compliant with Healthy Homes Standards.
In addition, the report comments that the heat pump installed was more than sufficient, that the rangehood and bathroom ventilation was vented outside, and that all the rooms had opening windows, and the windows were in good condition.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with inspection photos dated 16 April 2025 taken during the tenancy. The photos do not show mould on the ceilings in the rooms nor condensation on the windows nor leaks from the kitchen ceiling.
The landlord also provided the Tribunal with inspection photos dated 24 November 2025 from the new tenancy. The photos do not show any mould or water leaks.
The tenant says that she can see the darker marks on the ceiling that show the mould and marks left after cleaning had been done on the mould. I accept that the tenants’ photos were close up and the landlord’s photos were farther away.
I accept the evidence of the landlord regarding any alleged breach of Healthy Homes Standards. The tenant had not mentioned the issues of water leaks or mould in the 6 months she had lived at the apartment. The tenant had requested to terminate the fixed term earlier because of family matters relating to her father. Yet when discussing the costs she would incur on breaking the tenancy, the mould and leaks arose for the first time.
Furthermore, the Healthy Homes report and inspection photos from her tenancy and after the end of her tenancy, do not show evidence of the mould and leaks as claimed by the tenant.
A breach of the Healthy Homes Standards occurs when a landlord fails to ensure that the rental property meets the minimum standards set out in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. These standards are designed to ensure that rental properties are warm, dry, and healthy for tenants.
The main Healthy Homes Standards are: a) Heating: The main living room must have a fixed heating device that can heat the room to at least 18°C. b) Insulation: The property must have ceiling and underfloor insulation that meets the minimum R-value requirements unless it is not reasonably practicable to install. c) Ventilation: The property must have openable windows in the living room, dining room, kitchen, and bedrooms, and extractor fans in rooms with a bath, shower, or indoor cooktop. d) Moisture Ingress and drainage: The property must have efficient drainage for the removal of storm water, surface water, and ground water, and have a ground moisture barrier if there is an enclosed subfloor. e) Draughts: The property must have no unreasonable gaps or holes in walls, ceilings, windows, floors, and doors that cause noticeable draughts.
A breach occurs if the landlord fails to comply with any of these standards by the required deadline. For most tenancies, the compliance date was 1 July 2025, as extended by the Residential Tenancies Healthy Homes Standards Amendment Act 2022.
A breach of Healthy Homes Standards is when a landlord does not meet any of the required standards for heating, insulation, ventilation, moisture ingress and drainage, or draught stopping, as set out in the regulations.
I do not find that the landlord has breached Healthy Homes Standards under the RTA. Failure to maintain:
To fail to maintain a property means the landlord has not met their legal obligation to keep the premises in a reasonable state of repair during the tenancy. This is a key duty under section 45(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. What does “fail to maintain” mean?
The landlord does not carry out repairs when something in the property breaks down or becomes damaged (unless the tenant caused the damage).
The landlord allows the property to deteriorate over time by not addressing issues such as leaks, mould, broken appliances, or structural problems.
The landlord does not fix problems reported by the tenant within a reasonable time.
The landlord does not carry out regular maintenance that is needed to keep the property safe and in good condition (for example, clearing gutters, fixing broken windows, or repairing heating).
The standard is “reasonable state of repair,” which means the property must be kept in a condition that is reasonable for its age and character.
The landlord is not required to upgrade the property but must repair and maintain what is already there.
The landlord must respond to repair requests in a timely manner.
Failure to maintain can include both urgent repairs (like a burst pipe) and non- urgent repairs (like a broken cupboard door).
The tenant did not provide any evidence of the landlord failing to maintain the property. There had been a few issues with a window and a gap in the front door that were repaired after being raised by the tenant.
The landlord advised that the roof had been recoated fully in 2024 and so disputed that the roof could be leaking the following year.
The tenant says that the landlord must have known about mould issues as the paint work on the ceiling was marked before she took over the tenancy. She had not realised what the marks were until around the time she wanted to terminate the tenancy.
I do not find that the landlord failed to maintain the property.
The tenant seeks a refund of her bond and to recover the cost of two ambulance call outs fees.
As she has not been successful with her claim of breach of healthy Homes Standards and failure to maintain the premises, I cannot consider compensation.
There were associated costs arising out of the early termination of the fixed term. The bond money will be used to compensate the landlord for these costs. Landlord’s claims: Rent arrears:
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The tenant paid her rent up to 20 July 2025. The new tenants took over the tenancy on 21 August 2025. The tenant is responsible for the rent up until the new tenants take over.
The rent summary shows that the tenant owes $2710.71 in rent arrears. I am satisfied that the landlord has proven their claim for rent arrears. Top up rent:
The landlord seeks to claim a further $650.00. The rent had to be reduced to attract a suitable tenant to take over the tenancy. The landlord seeks to claim the difference between what the tenant was paying under her tenancy agreement and what the new tenant is paying. This top up of rent would be in placed for the period of 26 weeks which would be the end date of the fixed term tenancy.
If a tenant requests an early release from a fixed-term tenancy and the landlord agrees, the landlord is entitled to recover any actual and reasonable costs incurred as a result of the early termination. This is provided for under section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which requires that any costs claimed must be reasonable and directly attributable to the early termination. These costs may include advertising, letting fees (if permitted), and loss of rent during any vacancy period.
However, the landlord is also under a duty to mitigate their loss, as set out in section 49 of the RTA. This means the landlord must take reasonable steps to re-let the premises at the current market rent as soon as possible.
The landlord cannot simply charge the outgoing tenant for a difference in rent if the new tenant pays less, unless it is reasonable to do so, and the landlord can show they took all reasonable steps to secure a tenant at the original rent but were unable to do so. Any claim for loss must be reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances.
In this case, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to show that reasonable steps were taken to re-let the premises at the original rent, or that the loss claimed could not have been avoided by such steps. The mere fact that the new tenant is paying a lower rent is not, by itself, sufficient to justify a claim for the difference.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the claimed top-up represents an actual and unavoidable loss directly resulting from the tenant’s early termination.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for a rent top-up is declined. Break Lease fees/ methamphetamine testing:
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with a details list of costs associated with obtaining a new tenant to take over the tenancy.
The invoice of costs set out the advertising, credit checks, conducting viewing and administration costs associated with the new tenancy. These costs total $616.14 and are reasonable in relation to the re-tenanting of the property.
In addition, the landlord sought to claim the cost of the meth testing. Meth testing:
There is no specific rule that automatically requires a tenant to pay for methamphetamine testing if they seek an early termination of a fixed-term tenancy. However, the general principle is that the landlord can claim actual and reasonable costs directly resulting from the early termination, as set out in section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If meth testing is a standard part of the landlord’s process for re-letting the property (for example, to reassure new tenants or meet insurance requirements), and the cost is a direct result of the early termination, the landlord may claim this as a reasonable cost.
The landlord must show that the meth test was necessary and that the cost is reasonable.
The tenant is not automatically liable for meth testing costs unless it is clearly linked to the early termination and is a reasonable and necessary expense.
The landlord stated that it is standard policy for their company to do a meth test between tenancies. The landlord generally pays the cost of the testing at the end of a tenancy. However, due to the early termination of the tenancy the landlord had to incur an unexpected cost of having further meth testing carried out earlier than they had expected.
I consider the break lease fee and meth testing claims to be proven by the and I award these costs to the landlord. Both costs are directly resulting in the early termination of a fixed term and reasonable in the circumstances. Bond/ Filing fee:
Because Nest Residential Rentals and Landlord Services Limited as Agent for Taylor Family Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The bond is to be refunded to the landlord immediately to offset the debt owed by the tenant to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5321679 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 6, 90A Bassett Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5321679 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 6, 90A Bassett Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050

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