What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4927275?

The tribunal order states: Xinlu Liu must pay Five Am Property Management Limited As Agent For Miu

How much money was awarded in case 4927275?

Rent Arrears: $242.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $250.51 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927275?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927275?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11680642-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4927275?

The tribunal order states: Xinlu Liu must pay Five Am Property Management Limited As Agent For Miu

How much money was awarded in case 4927275?

Rent Arrears: $242.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $250.51 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4927275?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4927275?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11680642-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Navan Place, Dannemora, Auckland 2016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4927275 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927275 — net $493.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10/07/2024	$242.86	Rent arrears to 10/07/2024
Water rates	$250.51	Water rates
Net award	$493.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$493.37

Order

Xinlu Liu must pay Five Am Property Management Limited As Agent For Miu Ching Chan $493.37 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Xinlu Liu’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

This matter was heard over two separate hearings. Both parties attended the first hearing in person. At the second hearing, the tenant participated by telephone, while her mother attended in person. The landlord was present in person at both hearings. An interpreter of the Mandarin language attended to assist the tenant throughout the proceedings.
This order addresses the second part of the case and is to be read in conjunction with the Tribunal’s earlier order dated 29 October 2024.
In particular, this order deals with the tenant’s remaining claims for compensation relating to: (1) being unable to use the upstairs bedroom for a 10-week period between 23 March 2021 and 28 May 2021 due to construction work, and (2) the condition of the rental property, which the tenant alleges caused health and safety issues. This order also considers the landlord’s cross-application, seeking water charges, rent arrears and costs for removal of items left behind.
As established in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, the onus lies on the applicant to prove their claims to the civil standard of proof – on the balance of probabilities. The Tribunal is not required to find evidence for a party or speculate on what might have occurred. The tenant’s remaining claims Claim for Compensation: Balcony Construction and Loss of Bedroom Use
The tenant claims that between 23 March 2021 and 28 May 2021, construction work on a new enclosed balcony rendered an upstairs bedroom unusable due to dust and odour, making living conditions unbearable. The tenant paid rent in full during this time and seeks compensation of $1,000.00 for the 10-week period.
Section 45(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requires the landlord to ensure the premises are maintained in a reasonable state of repair.
While the construction may have caused inconvenience, the landlord denies that the work took 10 weeks or that the level of disruption was significant. They provided evidence that the work was external and carried out in a way intended to minimise disruption. The property had multiple bedrooms and living areas, which likely mitigated any impact from the temporary unavailability of one room.
The tenant did not provide any independent evidence to substantiate the duration of the work, the specific impacts alleged, or the existence of formaldehyde or other hazardous substances. While the tenant linked health concerns to odours and construction materials, no medical or environmental evidence was presented to establish this link. The landlord, in contrast, provided evidence of consultation with a qualified contractor who suggested the smell was due to silicone and dismissed the presence of toxic materials.
On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenant has proven a compensable breach under section 45(1)(c) of the RTA. This part of the claim is therefore dismissed. Claim for Compensation: Disrepair, Dampness and Mould
The tenant alleges the property was in disrepair throughout the tenancy, citing kitchen leaks, mould, poor insulation, and a malfunctioning air conditioner. The tenant linked these issues to adverse health effects on her mother and further claims that a delay in repairing a bathroom door handle led to a fall causing further injury.
Under section 45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment.
The tenant presented photos and described mould growth and rotting cabinets due to dampness, which were consistent with her claims. Medical records were provided but did not directly link the health issues to the condition of the premises.
The landlord produced maintenance records indicating work had been completed over the term of the tenancy and attributed any mould to inadequate ventilation and clutter within the home. They denied that delays in repairs were unreasonable and pointed to COVID-related restrictions as contributing factors.
While the Tribunal accepts that there were instances of disrepair and that the property may have suffered from dampness and mould, the tenant has not provided sufficiently clear evidence that would constitute a breach under section 45(1)(b) or (c). Similarly, although a fall occurred, the causal link between the unrepaired door handle and the injury was not supported by evidence beyond the tenant’s assertion.
Given the lack of clarity regarding the timeline of repair requests, and the absence of direct evidence linking the landlord’s conduct to the tenant’s mother’s medical issues, the Tribunal does not find a compensable breach proven on the balance of probabilities. This part of the claim is therefore also dismissed. The landlord’s cross-application Water Charges
The landlord claims water charges of $250.51 for June and July 2024. Invoices from Watercare were provided in support. The tenant disputes the charges and seeks offsets for earlier water leaks in April 2023 and loss of utilities shortly after moving in. However, the tenant did not provide independent verification of these counterclaims. There is insufficient evidence to reduce the amount claimed, and the Tribunal accepts the landlord’s invoices. This claim is allowed. Rent Arrears
The Tribunal granted possession of the tenancy to the landlord on 8 July 2024 (application 4870423). However, the tenant did not vacate the tenancy until 10 July 2024 and the landlord claims $242.86 for two additional days’ rent beyond the termination date. The rent summary supports this. As the Tribunal granted possession on 8 July 2024, the tenant was to vacate by this date and continued to remain liable for rent for any period of continued occupation beyond it.
The tenant argues that they were effectively driven out of the property by retaliatory conduct on the landlord’s part, asserting that the 90-day termination notice issued on 18 January 2024 was prompted by their complaints about the condition of the property and their refusal to accept a rent increase. However, this argument has already been addressed and dismissed by the Tribunal in its earlier decision dated 29 October 2024. The Tribunal found that the tenant’s application to challenge the 90-day notice as retaliatory under section 54(1) of the RTA was made outside the statutory 28-working-day timeframe, and therefore the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain that claim. As such, the landlord’s termination notice stands as valid and enforceable.
Given that the termination notice was upheld and the tenant remained in occupation beyond the agreed termination date, the tenant continues to be liable for rent during that period. Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for two days’ rent in the sum of $242.86 is allowed. Removal of Rubbish and Items
The landlord claims $322.00 for the removal of items left behind at the premises. While the landlord provided photographs and an invoice, given the conflicting views and lack of corroborating evidence the Tribunal finds that the evidence is inconclusive. On balance, the Tribunal finds the claim is not proven to the required standard. This claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression order
Each party has filed an application and there were complex issues raised on both sides. However, neither party has been wholly successful in their respective claims. Accordingly, I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. It follows that no party is entitled to name suppression, and no grounds have been established to justify such an order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4927275 — net $493.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 10/07/2024	$242.86	Rent arrears to 10/07/2024
Water rates	$250.51	Water rates
Net award	$493.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$493.37

Order

Xinlu Liu must pay Five Am Property Management Limited As Agent For Miu Ching Chan $493.37 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
Xinlu Liu’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

This matter was heard over two separate hearings. Both parties attended the first hearing in person. At the second hearing, the tenant participated by telephone, while her mother attended in person. The landlord was present in person at both hearings. An interpreter of the Mandarin language attended to assist the tenant throughout the proceedings.
This order addresses the second part of the case and is to be read in conjunction with the Tribunal’s earlier order dated 29 October 2024.
In particular, this order deals with the tenant’s remaining claims for compensation relating to: (1) being unable to use the upstairs bedroom for a 10-week period between 23 March 2021 and 28 May 2021 due to construction work, and (2) the condition of the rental property, which the tenant alleges caused health and safety issues. This order also considers the landlord’s cross-application, seeking water charges, rent arrears and costs for removal of items left behind.
As established in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, the onus lies on the applicant to prove their claims to the civil standard of proof – on the balance of probabilities. The Tribunal is not required to find evidence for a party or speculate on what might have occurred. The tenant’s remaining claims Claim for Compensation: Balcony Construction and Loss of Bedroom Use
The tenant claims that between 23 March 2021 and 28 May 2021, construction work on a new enclosed balcony rendered an upstairs bedroom unusable due to dust and odour, making living conditions unbearable. The tenant paid rent in full during this time and seeks compensation of $1,000.00 for the 10-week period.
Section 45(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requires the landlord to ensure the premises are maintained in a reasonable state of repair.
While the construction may have caused inconvenience, the landlord denies that the work took 10 weeks or that the level of disruption was significant. They provided evidence that the work was external and carried out in a way intended to minimise disruption. The property had multiple bedrooms and living areas, which likely mitigated any impact from the temporary unavailability of one room.
The tenant did not provide any independent evidence to substantiate the duration of the work, the specific impacts alleged, or the existence of formaldehyde or other hazardous substances. While the tenant linked health concerns to odours and construction materials, no medical or environmental evidence was presented to establish this link. The landlord, in contrast, provided evidence of consultation with a qualified contractor who suggested the smell was due to silicone and dismissed the presence of toxic materials.
On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenant has proven a compensable breach under section 45(1)(c) of the RTA. This part of the claim is therefore dismissed. Claim for Compensation: Disrepair, Dampness and Mould
The tenant alleges the property was in disrepair throughout the tenancy, citing kitchen leaks, mould, poor insulation, and a malfunctioning air conditioner. The tenant linked these issues to adverse health effects on her mother and further claims that a delay in repairing a bathroom door handle led to a fall causing further injury.
Under section 45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA, the landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health and safety under any enactment.
The tenant presented photos and described mould growth and rotting cabinets due to dampness, which were consistent with her claims. Medical records were provided but did not directly link the health issues to the condition of the premises.
The landlord produced maintenance records indicating work had been completed over the term of the tenancy and attributed any mould to inadequate ventilation and clutter within the home. They denied that delays in repairs were unreasonable and pointed to COVID-related restrictions as contributing factors.
While the Tribunal accepts that there were instances of disrepair and that the property may have suffered from dampness and mould, the tenant has not provided sufficiently clear evidence that would constitute a breach under section 45(1)(b) or (c). Similarly, although a fall occurred, the causal link between the unrepaired door handle and the injury was not supported by evidence beyond the tenant’s assertion.
Given the lack of clarity regarding the timeline of repair requests, and the absence of direct evidence linking the landlord’s conduct to the tenant’s mother’s medical issues, the Tribunal does not find a compensable breach proven on the balance of probabilities. This part of the claim is therefore also dismissed. The landlord’s cross-application Water Charges
The landlord claims water charges of $250.51 for June and July 2024. Invoices from Watercare were provided in support. The tenant disputes the charges and seeks offsets for earlier water leaks in April 2023 and loss of utilities shortly after moving in. However, the tenant did not provide independent verification of these counterclaims. There is insufficient evidence to reduce the amount claimed, and the Tribunal accepts the landlord’s invoices. This claim is allowed. Rent Arrears
The Tribunal granted possession of the tenancy to the landlord on 8 July 2024 (application 4870423). However, the tenant did not vacate the tenancy until 10 July 2024 and the landlord claims $242.86 for two additional days’ rent beyond the termination date. The rent summary supports this. As the Tribunal granted possession on 8 July 2024, the tenant was to vacate by this date and continued to remain liable for rent for any period of continued occupation beyond it.
The tenant argues that they were effectively driven out of the property by retaliatory conduct on the landlord’s part, asserting that the 90-day termination notice issued on 18 January 2024 was prompted by their complaints about the condition of the property and their refusal to accept a rent increase. However, this argument has already been addressed and dismissed by the Tribunal in its earlier decision dated 29 October 2024. The Tribunal found that the tenant’s application to challenge the 90-day notice as retaliatory under section 54(1) of the RTA was made outside the statutory 28-working-day timeframe, and therefore the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain that claim. As such, the landlord’s termination notice stands as valid and enforceable.
Given that the termination notice was upheld and the tenant remained in occupation beyond the agreed termination date, the tenant continues to be liable for rent during that period. Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for two days’ rent in the sum of $242.86 is allowed. Removal of Rubbish and Items
The landlord claims $322.00 for the removal of items left behind at the premises. While the landlord provided photographs and an invoice, given the conflicting views and lack of corroborating evidence the Tribunal finds that the evidence is inconclusive. On balance, the Tribunal finds the claim is not proven to the required standard. This claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression order
Each party has filed an application and there were complex issues raised on both sides. However, neither party has been wholly successful in their respective claims. Accordingly, I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. It follows that no party is entitled to name suppression, and no grounds have been established to justify such an order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927275 — Rent arrears at 12 Navan Place, Dannemora, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4927275 — Rent arrears at 12 Navan Place, Dannemora, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions