Tenant ordered to pay rent arrears and damages
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that the tenant must pay rent arrears, water charges, and the insurance excess for a damaged cooktop. However, the claim for a nominal break lease fee was dismissed.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to pay rent arrears, water charges, and the insurance excess for damage to the property, but not a nominal break lease fee.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay rent arrears, water charges, and a cooktop replacement cost, while dismissing the break lease fee claim.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered the tenant to pay rent arrears, water charges, and the insurance excess for a damaged cooktop, while dismissing the claim for a nominal break lease fee. The Tribunal considered the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, particularly section 44A, which governs the recovery of expenses incurred by the landlord.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5248456 1
[2025] NZTT 5248456
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT HUTT VALLEY | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TE AWAKAIRANGI
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [NAME] and [NAME] must pay [COMPANY] As Agent For [NAME] $5,876.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Description Landlord Water rates $56.80 Stove top replacement $650.00 Rent arrears as of 26 June 2025 $8,142.86 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $8,876.66 Minus bond -
$3,000.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $5,876.66
2. [COMPANY] to pay the bond of $3,000.00 to the landlord immediately.
REASONS
1. The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord seeking an order for rent arrears, water, damage and a break lease fee. The tenants have returned possession of the tenancy to the landlords.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5248456 2
2. Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenants have been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.
BACKGROUND
3. The tenancy agreement records that the tenancy commenced on 5 October 2024 as a fixed-term tenancy to end on 5 October 2025.
4. During the tenancy the tenants requested to end the tenancy early. I can see that the landlord engaged with the tenant around this, including discussion of costs that they may be liable for. I will discuss that further below.
5. In any event, on 21 April 2025 [NAME] emailed the landlord stating that they had “moved out the end of March”, and it is plain that they have then returned possession of the premises to the landlord.
6. After taking possession the landlord found the glass or ceramic cooktop to be broken. That was mostly covered by way of an insurance payment, but the landlord now seeks to have the excess paid by the tenant.
7. A telephone hearing was scheduled today on 21 May 2025. I telephoned the tenants on the two cell phone numbers available, but there was no answer. There is no record of the tenants requesting they be called on a different number. The landlord advised that the tenants have moved to Australia, and no forwarding or alternate phone number has been provided to them either.
APPLICANTS CLAIMS
8. At the hearing, the applicant confirmed their claims are as follows:
a. Break lease fee
b. Water bill
c. Cook top
d. Rent arrears
RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
9. The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/DLM94278.html?src=qs
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5248456 3
10.With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
11.That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
12.This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
13.As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that:
… [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.
ANALYSIS
14.There are four claims, which I will consider in turn.
Claim 1 – Lease break fee
15.The landlord seeks the ‘standard break lease fee’ on its contract, and the claim is for $870.00.
16.As I advised the landlord at the hearing, I cannot make this order. There is now no concept in law of a lease break fee in the RTA. That changed in 2021 when Parliament introduced section 44A into the RTA which is as follows:
44A Recovery of expenses incurred by landlord
(1) A landlord who consents to an assignment under section 43B, to a subletting or parting with possession under section 44, or to termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d) is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5248456 4
respect of the assignment, subletting, parting with possession, or termination.
(2) A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant in accordance with subsection (1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant.
17.What this provision means, is that certainly a landlord can claim from the tenant the actual costs in finding the replacement tenant, but they must be the actual cost, not a nominal charge, or standard fee. What the landlord needs to do, is incur the cost, and then provide an itemised account to the tenant to pay those expenses, which the landlord has incurred. If the tenant does not pay that account, then the landlord can pursue a claim for those charges in the Tribunal.
18.But in this case, the landlord seeks to recover a nominal standard charge, which is not available within the RTA, so this claim must be dismissed.
19.As I noted, the landlord remains able to submit an account to the tenant for the actual charges incurred, and if those are not paid, to file another claim with the Tribunal at that time.
Claim 2 - Water
20.The landlord claims water charges of $56.80 for the volumetric charge only.
21.Tenants are liable for water used during their tenancy on a volumetric basis, so this charge is ordered and full.
Claim 3 – Cook top
22.The landlord states that when they got into the tenancy they found the cooktop was cracked on the edge needing replacement, at a cost of $2,645.00. The landlord is only claiming the insurance excess for the replacement being $650.00.
23.Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage occurred during the tenancy, and that it 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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
24.Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5248456 5
25.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.
26.The landlord has provided a set of photographs, which show the cooktop, and I accept that the cooktop was cracked significantly at the end of the tenancy. The damage is not fair wear and tear, so it now falls to the tenant to prove that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally, and the tenants have not done that.
27. In this case, the landlord only claims the insurance excess, which the tenant would be responsible for if the damage was careless, or intentional, and as the tenants have not proven that the damage was caused in either of those ways, the tenant is liable for the insurance excess charge, which is awarded.
Claim 4 – Rent arrears
28.The landlord claims rent arrears to 26 June 2025, as the next tenancy starts on 27 June 2025. The total amount of the arrears is $8,142.86.
29.Because this is a fixed-term tenancy, the tenants are liable to pay rent until the end of the fixed-term period, which ends in October. In this case the landlord has found a replacement tenant to start in late June, so the tenants will be liable for the rent payments until that next tenant starts. This claim is established and is ordered in full.
Bond
30.There is a bond held in [COMPANY] of $3,000.000, that is to be released to the landlord in full to offset the debt established above.
[NAME] 21 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5248456 6
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5248456 7
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord proved the tenants were liable for water charges because tenants are responsible for volumetric water usage.
- The landlord proved the cooktop damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear.
- The landlord's claim for the insurance excess for the cooktop was accepted because the tenants did not prove the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally.
- The landlord proved the tenants were liable for rent arrears until a new tenant started because it was a fixed-term tenancy.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's claim for a nominal break lease fee was dismissed because the Residential Tenancies Act no longer allows for such a charge.
- The landlord's claim for a standard break lease fee was rejected because landlords must claim actual, itemised costs, not a nominal charge.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant must pay rent arrears, water charges, and the insurance excess for a damaged cooktop, but the claim for a nominal break lease fee was dismissed.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about the tenant owing rent arrears, water charges, and a nominal break lease fee, as well as the cost of replacing a damaged cooktop.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant must pay rent arrears, water charges, and the insurance excess for the damaged cooktop because these were reasonable expenses. The claim for a nominal break lease fee was dismissed because such fees are not allowed under current law.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, particularly section 44A, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant must pay reasonable expenses incurred by the landlord, such as rent arrears and water charges, but not a nominal break lease fee.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partly for and partly against the landlord. The tenant was ordered to pay certain expenses, but the claim for a nominal break lease fee was dismissed.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should expect to pay reasonable expenses incurred by the landlord, such as rent arrears and water charges, but not a nominal break lease fee.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs showing the damaged cooktop and documentation of the rent arrears and water charges were significant.