Herne Bay landlord pays tenant $58,000 to end fixed-term tenancy early

A landlord paid her tenant $58,000 to end a fixed-term tenancy early.

An Auckland landlord paid her tenant $58,000 to end his lease early, but then asked the Tenancy Tribunal to order him to pay some of it back after she had “buyer’s remorse”.

The landlord reached an agreement for early termination of the fixed-term tenancy with tenant Giles Ellis, but she told the tribunal she wanted $41,000 back.

The apartment in the Shangri-La is owned by Sustainable Properties (Anderson), of which Heather Anderson is listed as the sole director.

According to a recently released tribunal decision, the landlord thought $17,000 was a fairer sum in exchange for ending the tenancy early for “better marketing of the property for sale”.

She claimed she had been “under duress and extortion” when she executed a deed with Ellis in April 2025.

The terms of the deed outlined that the fixed-term tenancy would end on May 23, 2025, instead of November 18, 2025, as was set out under the tenancy agreement signed in October 2024.

The three-bedroom, two-bathroom, harbour views apartment in Auckland’s Herne Bay is currently on the market with an asking price of $4,750,000.

In the decision, adjudicator Jack Tam said it appeared the landlord was “feeling some form of ‘buyer’s remorse’ after entering into the deed”.

He rejected the landlord’s assertion that she was under “economic duress” when she accepted the tenant’s offer of $58,000 to mutually terminate the fixed-term tenancy.

“It is not for the tribunal or any court to reopen agreements reached voluntarily between the parties,” Tam said.

“The tenant has duly vacated the premises on May 13, 2025, and kept to his part of the bargain. The landlord has also since paid the full $58,000 as consideration as set out under the deed.”

The adjudicator referred to section 11 (2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, saying “there is nothing untoward with the tenant having negotiated a hugely favourable sum ... for his early surrender of the fixed term tenancy, because the act permits a landlord to incur more extensive obligations”.

The hearing in the Tenancy Tribunal was initiated by the landlord, who applied for compensation and a refund of the bond following the end of the fixed-term tenancy.

She sought compensation for cleaning costs of $3165 for carpet cleaning, professional cleaning, windows, and balustrade cleaning.

But the adjudicator said that apart from invoices from cleaners, no other independent evidence was adduced by the landlord.

“There was no property condition report at the end of the tenancy,” Tam said in his decision, adding there were also no photos that showed the state of the property at the end of the tenancy.

The onus was on the landlord to prove that the premises had not been left reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.

“Mere tendering of cleaning invoices is insufficient,” he said.

However, Ellis accepted responsibility for some of the cleaning costs.

“The tenant voluntarily accepts liability for $1000 of the cleaning costs, and only $1000,” the decision said.

The landlord also sought compensation by way of a partial refund of the $58,000, but the adjudicator dismissed that claim in its entirety.

Both parties to the dispute were identified in the publicly available decision because no suppression was ordered by the tribunal.

Anderson told NZME she did not wish to comment.

Ellis said: “I don’t want my name used, but Open Justice have chosen to use it despite this”.

Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.