What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5436569?

The tribunal order states: The fixed term tenancy is hereby reduced and ends on 27 January 2026.

How much money was awarded in case 5436569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436569?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13232548-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5436569?

The tribunal order states: The fixed term tenancy is hereby reduced and ends on 27 January 2026.

How much money was awarded in case 5436569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436569?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13232548-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Hedley Road, Wesley, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5436569 — Rent arrears

Order

The fixed term tenancy is hereby reduced and ends on 27 January 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 (BN-25093525) to Hongming Ma immediately.
The remainder of the tenant’s and the landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a fixed term tenancy which commenced on 19 January 2026 and expires on 18 January 2027. The tenant seeks to cancel and/or reduce the fixed term tenancy. The landlord seeks to uphold the fixed term tenancy; the landlord sought rent arrears against the tenant.
The tenant inspected the house on 18 January 2026, spending about 2 hours there. The tenant then experienced severe itching from flea bites later that evening.
The tenant contends that the fleas came from the tenanted property and emailed the landlord requesting immediate professional pest control to be carried out.
The landlord refused professional flea treatment. The landlord disputes that the fleas were from the house, submitting that they could have come from anywhere. The landlord offered to place flea bombs on the property.
The tenant’s furniture was delivered on 20 January 2026 but the tenant never moved into or occupied the property due to the parties’ disagreement on the pest control required at the premises and the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) requires the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy.
I prefer the tenant’s evidence that the premises have not been provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness because of the fleas bites that she suffered. I accept the tenant’s personal experience after being at the property that the fleas, more likely than not, came from the house at 13 Hedley Road after the 18 January property inspection.
However, the landlord’s breach was remediable. The landlord could have and should have engaged a professional pest controller to eradicate fleas from the premises as requested by the tenant.
The failure by the landlord to accede to the tenant’s request, which I find to be reasonable, then caused a breakdown in the parties’ relationship. In the tenant’s words, she found that she could no longer trust the landlord who did not take her concerns seriously.
Faced with such a breakdown in the relationship very early on in the tenancy, I find that the tenant was justified in refusing to move into the premises. It was in order for the tenant to apply to the Tribunal to end the tenancy after the parties failed to reach settlement between themselves.
Section 85 RTA requires me to consider the substantive merits and justice of the case while applying the relevant law.
The tenant had attempted to return the keys of the property to the landlord but she refused to accept them, maintaining that there is a fixed term tenancy still in place for which rent remains payable until the end of the fixed term.
I find that the landlord is obliged to mitigate her loss in the circumstances.
In Lehrer v Protheroe CIV-2009-070-65, DC Tauranga, 19 October 2009, the District Court held that where the parties agree to the fixed term being reduced, or an application is made under section 66, there is a requirement that the landlord take reasonable steps to find a replacement tenant.
Following the approach by the District Court, the landlord has a duty to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s actual or anticipatory breach of contract.
In Keenan v Ohlson (District Court Nelson, TT 328/00, 5 February 2001) the Court held that the tenant was not in breach but had asked to be released from the tenancy and had agreed to pay 5 week’s rent – it was said that section 49 would have applied if the landlord had refused to release the tenant and the tenant had unilaterally cancelled the tenancy and vacated. However, it was accepted that, in those circumstances, section 49 would place a duty on the landlord to take steps to find a replacement tenant.
Other cases have proceeded on the basis that a tenant who vacates before the end of a fixed-term tenancy is in breach, and the landlord has a duty to mitigate their loss by finding a replacement tenant - see BAT Trust v Sareczky (District Court Auckland, CIV-2011-090-001912, 20 February 2012) and McDonald v Inwood (District Court Wellington, CIV-2008-085-1269, 28 February 2008).
Those cases impose a duty on the landlord to mitigate his or her loss arising from a breach of a tenancy agreement, pursuant to section 49 of the Act. They import an objective test, which means a landlord must take all reasonable steps that an objective person would take to limit the loss, including taking back possession of the premises and finding a suitable replacement tenant.
The landlord refused to do so in this instance. This refusal counts against the landlord as not having taken reasonable steps to mitigate her loss.
On the other hand, the tenant could have engaged a professional pest controller herself to eradicate the fleas and asked for reimbursement of such cost from the landlord failing which an application can be filed at the Tribunal for the costs to be paid by the landlord. That would have mitigated the parties’ full loss ultimately.
The tenant never moved in but retained the keys to the property until 27 January 2026. The tenant wrote on her application that: On 22 January, the landlord asked me to move furniture out and return keys by 1pm on 25/02/2026. The landlord proposed an agreement that she would refund bond and rent on the condition that I agree “all the matters related to this tenancy come to an end”. 23/01/2026: I did not have a place to store the furniture, so I arranged for the seller to collect it on 27/01/2026, which was the earliest available date. I informed the landlord of this arrangement. I agreed to return the keys, but I refused to accept the landlord’s proposal. The landlord agreed that the furniture could remain in the house until 27/01/2026, but she continued to insist on her proposal.
So both parties were at fault on different issues.
Having regard to substantive merits and justice of the case, I consider it fair under the circumstances that the landlord is allowed to retain the first week’s rent paid by the tenant, and the bond is refunded to the tenant in full.
I dismiss the remainder of the parties’ respective claims. The parties should be put back to the position as if the contract is cancelled on 27 January 2026 with the return of bond to the tenant.

Order

The fixed term tenancy is hereby reduced and ends on 27 January 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 (BN-25093525) to Hongming Ma immediately.
The remainder of the tenant’s and the landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a fixed term tenancy which commenced on 19 January 2026 and expires on 18 January 2027. The tenant seeks to cancel and/or reduce the fixed term tenancy. The landlord seeks to uphold the fixed term tenancy; the landlord sought rent arrears against the tenant.
The tenant inspected the house on 18 January 2026, spending about 2 hours there. The tenant then experienced severe itching from flea bites later that evening.
The tenant contends that the fleas came from the tenanted property and emailed the landlord requesting immediate professional pest control to be carried out.
The landlord refused professional flea treatment. The landlord disputes that the fleas were from the house, submitting that they could have come from anywhere. The landlord offered to place flea bombs on the property.
The tenant’s furniture was delivered on 20 January 2026 but the tenant never moved into or occupied the property due to the parties’ disagreement on the pest control required at the premises and the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
Section 45(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) requires the landlord to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness at the start of the tenancy.
I prefer the tenant’s evidence that the premises have not been provided in a reasonable state of cleanliness because of the fleas bites that she suffered. I accept the tenant’s personal experience after being at the property that the fleas, more likely than not, came from the house at 13 Hedley Road after the 18 January property inspection.
However, the landlord’s breach was remediable. The landlord could have and should have engaged a professional pest controller to eradicate fleas from the premises as requested by the tenant.
The failure by the landlord to accede to the tenant’s request, which I find to be reasonable, then caused a breakdown in the parties’ relationship. In the tenant’s words, she found that she could no longer trust the landlord who did not take her concerns seriously.
Faced with such a breakdown in the relationship very early on in the tenancy, I find that the tenant was justified in refusing to move into the premises. It was in order for the tenant to apply to the Tribunal to end the tenancy after the parties failed to reach settlement between themselves.
Section 85 RTA requires me to consider the substantive merits and justice of the case while applying the relevant law.
The tenant had attempted to return the keys of the property to the landlord but she refused to accept them, maintaining that there is a fixed term tenancy still in place for which rent remains payable until the end of the fixed term.
I find that the landlord is obliged to mitigate her loss in the circumstances.
In Lehrer v Protheroe CIV-2009-070-65, DC Tauranga, 19 October 2009, the District Court held that where the parties agree to the fixed term being reduced, or an application is made under section 66, there is a requirement that the landlord take reasonable steps to find a replacement tenant.
Following the approach by the District Court, the landlord has a duty to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s actual or anticipatory breach of contract.
In Keenan v Ohlson (District Court Nelson, TT 328/00, 5 February 2001) the Court held that the tenant was not in breach but had asked to be released from the tenancy and had agreed to pay 5 week’s rent – it was said that section 49 would have applied if the landlord had refused to release the tenant and the tenant had unilaterally cancelled the tenancy and vacated. However, it was accepted that, in those circumstances, section 49 would place a duty on the landlord to take steps to find a replacement tenant.
Other cases have proceeded on the basis that a tenant who vacates before the end of a fixed-term tenancy is in breach, and the landlord has a duty to mitigate their loss by finding a replacement tenant - see BAT Trust v Sareczky (District Court Auckland, CIV-2011-090-001912, 20 February 2012) and McDonald v Inwood (District Court Wellington, CIV-2008-085-1269, 28 February 2008).
Those cases impose a duty on the landlord to mitigate his or her loss arising from a breach of a tenancy agreement, pursuant to section 49 of the Act. They import an objective test, which means a landlord must take all reasonable steps that an objective person would take to limit the loss, including taking back possession of the premises and finding a suitable replacement tenant.
The landlord refused to do so in this instance. This refusal counts against the landlord as not having taken reasonable steps to mitigate her loss.
On the other hand, the tenant could have engaged a professional pest controller herself to eradicate the fleas and asked for reimbursement of such cost from the landlord failing which an application can be filed at the Tribunal for the costs to be paid by the landlord. That would have mitigated the parties’ full loss ultimately.
The tenant never moved in but retained the keys to the property until 27 January 2026. The tenant wrote on her application that: On 22 January, the landlord asked me to move furniture out and return keys by 1pm on 25/02/2026. The landlord proposed an agreement that she would refund bond and rent on the condition that I agree “all the matters related to this tenancy come to an end”. 23/01/2026: I did not have a place to store the furniture, so I arranged for the seller to collect it on 27/01/2026, which was the earliest available date. I informed the landlord of this arrangement. I agreed to return the keys, but I refused to accept the landlord’s proposal. The landlord agreed that the furniture could remain in the house until 27/01/2026, but she continued to insist on her proposal.
So both parties were at fault on different issues.
Having regard to substantive merits and justice of the case, I consider it fair under the circumstances that the landlord is allowed to retain the first week’s rent paid by the tenant, and the bond is refunded to the tenant in full.
I dismiss the remainder of the parties’ respective claims. The parties should be put back to the position as if the contract is cancelled on 27 January 2026 with the return of bond to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436569 — Rent arrears at 13 Hedley Road, Wesley, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436569 — Rent arrears at 13 Hedley Road, Wesley, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions