What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4673032?

The tribunal order states: Yu Yu must pay the sum of $1000 to Liang Zhao or his representative being

How much money was awarded in case 4673032?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4673032?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4673032?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11173819-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4673032?

The tribunal order states: Yu Yu must pay the sum of $1000 to Liang Zhao or his representative being

How much money was awarded in case 4673032?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4673032?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4673032?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11173819-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Keats Place, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4673032 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Yu Yu must pay the sum of $1000 to Liang Zhao or his representative being the bond paid to the landlord on 12 March 2023.
All of the other tenants’ claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant is residing in China and appointed a representative, Mr Li to attend the hearing for him. Mr Li had two other people with him. One was supposed to be a “witness’ and the other a “support” person for Mr Li.
The owner of the property, Mr Yu appeared with his parents, Mr and Mrs Yu who were the landlords and did the day to day management of the property.
The ‘”rental property” was a self-contained sleepout behind the landlord’s home on the same property.
The tenancy commenced on 11 March 2023. The tenant was taken into custody by the police on 29 March 2023 from the property and was subsequently deported from New Zealand.
This is a tenant application. The tenant claims bond of $1000.00 and the replacement costs of his watch, a vehicle and his personal items. The total value of these claims is $11,160.00.
The landlord does not have any claims or applications relating to this tenancy before the Tribunal.
It is not in dispute that the tenant paid two weeks rent in advance on 11 March 2023 and $1000 for a bond. On the 24 th of March 2023 the tenant paid another two weeks rent. There was some discussion about claiming the 9 days rent refund from the landlord, but it was not pursued during the hearing by the tenant’s representative.
I would not have granted the refund of those 9 days in any regard given that this was a 12 month fixed term tenancy, and the tenant was removed from the property two weeks after the tenancy began, clearly without notice.
For completeness the landlord is entitled to keep the 9 days rent after the tenant was remanded in police custody, as rent without notice of termination.
The landlord advised the Tribunal that the police have done three raids on the property, one on the day of the tenant’s arrest on 29 March 2023, then another raid a few weeks later and again later in the year. The landlord left the unit untouched and did not enter into the property until 14 July 2023 when an immigration officer came and packed up all of the tenants’ belongings to be given to the tenant when he was deported.
At today’s hearing the tenant’s representative sought the refund of the bond, the return of the tenant’s watch, personal items and car. Car:
The tenant’s car was left at the landlord’s property until July 2023, when the tenant contacted the police and asked them to remove the car from the property.
The landlord has had nothing to do with the storing of the car on their property, nothing to do with the removal of the car from their property, nor storage of the car when removed by the police.
I am dismissing the tenant claim that the landlord return his car or pay the replacement cost of the vehicle. The landlord has had no control over the car, and it was removed by police at the request of the tenant. Personal possessions:
An immigration officer packed up the tenant’s unit on 14 July 2023 and took all the tenants belongings. The landlord has had nothing to do with retaining the tenants’ belongings. There was talk of tea, headphones and milk powder. The milk powder was specifically requested by the tenant to the immigration officer, but nothing regarding tea or headphones. Emails were provided by the landlord about discussions with the tenant and immigration officer and milk powder.
The tenants claim for the replacement or return of his personal possession is dismissed as it was all removed by the immigration officer. Watch: 17 Three months after leaving the unit the tenant claims for the first time that he had lost his Omega $9,000.00 watch. At the hearing the tenant’s representative said he had no evidence of ownership of the watch nor any evidence that the watch was at the unit at the time the tenant was taken away by the police.
When the police arrested the tenant, they would have given the tenant a list or inventory of the items they took from his person, home and car. We have not been provided with any documents relating to the property taken by the police.
The tenant representative cannot take this claim any further other than to show a photo with the tenants wearing a watch.
I am dismissing the tenants claim for the return or replacement of an omega watch. There is no proof of ownership, nor that it was at the property at the time of the arrest and that it was missing after the arrest.
I am dismissing the tenants claim for the watch. Bond:
It is accepted that the tenant paid bond to the landlord. The tenant has appointed his representative as the person to stand in for him at the hearing. Mr Li seeks that the bond money be refunded to his bank account.
The landlord is to refund the bond to the tenant.
The landlord is to contact the tenant via WeChat to obtain confirmation that they can release the bond to Mr Li. Alternatively Mr Li can provided written proof to the landlord that Mr Zhao had consented to his taking the money on his behalf.

Order

Yu Yu must pay the sum of $1000 to Liang Zhao or his representative being the bond paid to the landlord on 12 March 2023.
All of the other tenants’ claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant is residing in China and appointed a representative, Mr Li to attend the hearing for him. Mr Li had two other people with him. One was supposed to be a “witness’ and the other a “support” person for Mr Li.
The owner of the property, Mr Yu appeared with his parents, Mr and Mrs Yu who were the landlords and did the day to day management of the property.
The ‘”rental property” was a self-contained sleepout behind the landlord’s home on the same property.
The tenancy commenced on 11 March 2023. The tenant was taken into custody by the police on 29 March 2023 from the property and was subsequently deported from New Zealand.
This is a tenant application. The tenant claims bond of $1000.00 and the replacement costs of his watch, a vehicle and his personal items. The total value of these claims is $11,160.00.
The landlord does not have any claims or applications relating to this tenancy before the Tribunal.
It is not in dispute that the tenant paid two weeks rent in advance on 11 March 2023 and $1000 for a bond. On the 24 th of March 2023 the tenant paid another two weeks rent. There was some discussion about claiming the 9 days rent refund from the landlord, but it was not pursued during the hearing by the tenant’s representative.
I would not have granted the refund of those 9 days in any regard given that this was a 12 month fixed term tenancy, and the tenant was removed from the property two weeks after the tenancy began, clearly without notice.
For completeness the landlord is entitled to keep the 9 days rent after the tenant was remanded in police custody, as rent without notice of termination.
The landlord advised the Tribunal that the police have done three raids on the property, one on the day of the tenant’s arrest on 29 March 2023, then another raid a few weeks later and again later in the year. The landlord left the unit untouched and did not enter into the property until 14 July 2023 when an immigration officer came and packed up all of the tenants’ belongings to be given to the tenant when he was deported.
At today’s hearing the tenant’s representative sought the refund of the bond, the return of the tenant’s watch, personal items and car. Car:
The tenant’s car was left at the landlord’s property until July 2023, when the tenant contacted the police and asked them to remove the car from the property.
The landlord has had nothing to do with the storing of the car on their property, nothing to do with the removal of the car from their property, nor storage of the car when removed by the police.
I am dismissing the tenant claim that the landlord return his car or pay the replacement cost of the vehicle. The landlord has had no control over the car, and it was removed by police at the request of the tenant. Personal possessions:
An immigration officer packed up the tenant’s unit on 14 July 2023 and took all the tenants belongings. The landlord has had nothing to do with retaining the tenants’ belongings. There was talk of tea, headphones and milk powder. The milk powder was specifically requested by the tenant to the immigration officer, but nothing regarding tea or headphones. Emails were provided by the landlord about discussions with the tenant and immigration officer and milk powder.
The tenants claim for the replacement or return of his personal possession is dismissed as it was all removed by the immigration officer. Watch: 17 Three months after leaving the unit the tenant claims for the first time that he had lost his Omega $9,000.00 watch. At the hearing the tenant’s representative said he had no evidence of ownership of the watch nor any evidence that the watch was at the unit at the time the tenant was taken away by the police.
When the police arrested the tenant, they would have given the tenant a list or inventory of the items they took from his person, home and car. We have not been provided with any documents relating to the property taken by the police.
The tenant representative cannot take this claim any further other than to show a photo with the tenants wearing a watch.
I am dismissing the tenants claim for the return or replacement of an omega watch. There is no proof of ownership, nor that it was at the property at the time of the arrest and that it was missing after the arrest.
I am dismissing the tenants claim for the watch. Bond:
It is accepted that the tenant paid bond to the landlord. The tenant has appointed his representative as the person to stand in for him at the hearing. Mr Li seeks that the bond money be refunded to his bank account.
The landlord is to refund the bond to the tenant.
The landlord is to contact the tenant via WeChat to obtain confirmation that they can release the bond to Mr Li. Alternatively Mr Li can provided written proof to the landlord that Mr Zhao had consented to his taking the money on his behalf.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4673032 — Tenancy dispute at 17 Keats Place, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4673032 — Tenancy dispute at 17 Keats Place, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions