What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5100028?

The tribunal order states: Yoon Ho Cho must pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5100028?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,300.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $43.24 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100028?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100028?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12116101-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5100028?

The tribunal order states: Yoon Ho Cho must pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5100028?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Meth Testing: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,300.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $43.24 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100028?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100028?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12116101-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat A410, 2 Munroe Lane, Albany, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5100028 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100028 — net $1,006.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,300.00	2. The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the t…
Water rates by consent	$43.24	Water rates by consent
Meth testing	$276.00	Meth testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,006.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,006.24

Order

Yoon Ho Cho must pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Binghong And Qiuxia Chen And Xu $1,006.24 immediately, being rent arrears to 28 November 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (6468021-003) to Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Binghong And Qiuxia Chen And Xu immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The parties agreed that the Tenant owed the Landlord the amount claimed in water rates.
This was a fixed-term tenancy that ran from 27 September 2024 to 26 September 2025; however, both parties agreed to end it early on 28 November 2024. The tenant stated they stopped living in the property around 23 October 2024 due to ongoing issues with the property that impacted their health.
The onus is on the party bringing the application to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records confirming the amount owed at the end of the tenancy. They stated that the tenant stopped paying rent around 24 October 2024 and gave notice on 31 October 2024 to end the tenancy on 28 November 2024, citing medical issues caused by the condition of the property. On 28 November 2024, the Tenant returned the key and vacated the property.
The tenant disputed the arrears, claiming they vacated the property around 23 October 2024 due to issues with the property.
In considering the evidence, this was a fixed-term tenancy, which can only be ended early under specific circumstances, including the landlord’s agreement. The tenant’s early departure on 23 October 2024 did not release them from their contractual obligations. Therefore, rent arrears are owed.
The amounts ordered are proved. Landlords claim for methamphetamine testing
The landlord claimed $276.00 for the cost of methamphetamine testing carried out during the tenancy at the tenant’s request. The tenant, experiencing allergy symptoms and discomfort, requested testing to confirm the property was habitable. They wanted tests on the air quality, water quality, and methamphetamine levels. The landlord agreed to arrange methamphetamine testing on 31 October 2024, with the understanding that if results were negative, the tenant would bear the cost.
On 4 November 2024, QHI, a company appointed by the Landlord, completed methamphetamine testing. The tenant requested an alternative company, citing concerns about independence and the landlord’s existing relationship with QHI. However, the landlord proceeded with QHI. The results returned negative for methamphetamine contamination. The Landlord submitted the invoice and test results as part of their evidence.
The tenant refused to pay the cost, submitting they had been denied an impartial test and remained concerned about contamination. They stated that the symptoms, which later subsided after leaving the property, had forced them to sleep in their car. They also expressed distrust in QHI due to its connection with Crockers, preferring an independent provider.
In considering the evidence, whilst landlords must provide a property in a reasonable state of repair, they are not required to conduct methamphetamine, air, or water testing. The tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the need for such testing, nor any medical documentation to support their symptoms. There was no independent or professional evidence indicating that testing was necessary or that the property had been contaminated prior to the tenancy. The testing was based solely on the tenant’s reported symptoms. If the tenant had concerns about QHI’s impartiality or the condition of the property, they could have arranged and paid for independent testing themselves.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenants claim for compensation
The Tenant claimed $2600.00 in compensation which was a partial rent refund due to the properties uninhabitable condition. The Tenant submitted when they moved into the property, they experienced health and maintenance issues from the outset. Despite raising these concerns with the property manager, they were not adequately addressed. The tenant suffered symptoms including allergic reactions, nausea, dizziness, and disrupted sleep—symptoms that improved when outside the property. Out of concern, the tenant requested methamphetamine, air, and water testing, As they were not able to choose the methamphetamine testing providers, they felt they were effectively denied the ability to verify the property’s safety.
The refusal to allow independent testing left the tenant in ongoing discomfort and uncertainty. On several occasions, the tenant had to sleep in their car. This caused distress and affected the tenant’s wellbeing and ability to work.
The Tenant also reported a mouldy washing machine, a persistent odour from the walls, and a bathroom fan that would not turn off. These issues were raised early in the tenancy but were not resolved. The tenant provided a photograph of when they had attempted to clean the washing machine and the underwear that was left in the property when they moved in. The Tenant submitted these issues should have been resolved before the Tenant moved into the property.
The Landlord submitted that they had responded appropriately to the Tenants concerns raised about the property. They advised the Tenant to seek medical advice regarding the symptoms they were experiencing and when they were notified of the issues such as the damaged sliding door and bathroom fan, they responded in a timely manner. They provided invoices to show the repairs they had organised for these issues.
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
In considering the evidence, while there were some issues with the property— such as a faulty fan and door—the landlord responded to these reports within a reasonable timeframe and provided invoices confirming the repairs were completed. Had the landlord failed to act on the tenant’s reports, they would not have met their obligation to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. A property does not have to be presented in perfect condition but a reasonable state of repair. In this instance, I find the Landlord took appropriate action.
The claim is dismissed. Tenants claim for exemplary damages
Yoon Ho Cho claims the landlord interfered with their peace, comfort, or privacy by allowing QHI to enter the property without their consent to conduct methamphetamine testing. The tenant stated they had not agreed on a time for QHI’s attendance. QHI arrived at 7:30 a.m. after the tenant had left the property, as captured by security cameras, prompting the tenant to contact the police. They provided text messages to indicate there was no confirmation of a time for QHI to enter.
The landlord submitted that the tenant had informed QHI on 4 November 2024, that they were no longer residing at the property and that they could collect the keys from the Landlord. QHI assumed this was consent to enter the property. The landlord asserted there was no intention to trespass. A letter was provided from the QHI tester that attended the property confirming this.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlords evidence persuasive that the Tenant had provided consent to enter the property for testing. The Tenant had stated they vacated the property around 23 October 2024 and they requested the methamphetamine testing so it is plausible that they consented to QHI obtaining a key and entering the property to undertake the testing. There was also no intention by the Landlord to act unlawfully in attending the property.
For these reasons the claim for breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed.
As Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Binghong And Qiuxia Chen And Xu has wholly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee and name suppression is declined for the Tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100028 — net $1,006.24 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,300.00	2. The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the t…
Water rates by consent	$43.24	Water rates by consent
Meth testing	$276.00	Meth testing
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,006.24
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,006.24

Order

Yoon Ho Cho must pay Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Binghong And Qiuxia Chen And Xu $1,006.24 immediately, being rent arrears to 28 November 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (6468021-003) to Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Binghong And Qiuxia Chen And Xu immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant applied for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The parties agreed that the Tenant owed the Landlord the amount claimed in water rates.
This was a fixed-term tenancy that ran from 27 September 2024 to 26 September 2025; however, both parties agreed to end it early on 28 November 2024. The tenant stated they stopped living in the property around 23 October 2024 due to ongoing issues with the property that impacted their health.
The onus is on the party bringing the application to prove their claim on the balance of probabilities.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records confirming the amount owed at the end of the tenancy. They stated that the tenant stopped paying rent around 24 October 2024 and gave notice on 31 October 2024 to end the tenancy on 28 November 2024, citing medical issues caused by the condition of the property. On 28 November 2024, the Tenant returned the key and vacated the property.
The tenant disputed the arrears, claiming they vacated the property around 23 October 2024 due to issues with the property.
In considering the evidence, this was a fixed-term tenancy, which can only be ended early under specific circumstances, including the landlord’s agreement. The tenant’s early departure on 23 October 2024 did not release them from their contractual obligations. Therefore, rent arrears are owed.
The amounts ordered are proved. Landlords claim for methamphetamine testing
The landlord claimed $276.00 for the cost of methamphetamine testing carried out during the tenancy at the tenant’s request. The tenant, experiencing allergy symptoms and discomfort, requested testing to confirm the property was habitable. They wanted tests on the air quality, water quality, and methamphetamine levels. The landlord agreed to arrange methamphetamine testing on 31 October 2024, with the understanding that if results were negative, the tenant would bear the cost.
On 4 November 2024, QHI, a company appointed by the Landlord, completed methamphetamine testing. The tenant requested an alternative company, citing concerns about independence and the landlord’s existing relationship with QHI. However, the landlord proceeded with QHI. The results returned negative for methamphetamine contamination. The Landlord submitted the invoice and test results as part of their evidence.
The tenant refused to pay the cost, submitting they had been denied an impartial test and remained concerned about contamination. They stated that the symptoms, which later subsided after leaving the property, had forced them to sleep in their car. They also expressed distrust in QHI due to its connection with Crockers, preferring an independent provider.
In considering the evidence, whilst landlords must provide a property in a reasonable state of repair, they are not required to conduct methamphetamine, air, or water testing. The tenant did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the need for such testing, nor any medical documentation to support their symptoms. There was no independent or professional evidence indicating that testing was necessary or that the property had been contaminated prior to the tenancy. The testing was based solely on the tenant’s reported symptoms. If the tenant had concerns about QHI’s impartiality or the condition of the property, they could have arranged and paid for independent testing themselves.
The amounts ordered are proved. Tenants claim for compensation
The Tenant claimed $2600.00 in compensation which was a partial rent refund due to the properties uninhabitable condition. The Tenant submitted when they moved into the property, they experienced health and maintenance issues from the outset. Despite raising these concerns with the property manager, they were not adequately addressed. The tenant suffered symptoms including allergic reactions, nausea, dizziness, and disrupted sleep—symptoms that improved when outside the property. Out of concern, the tenant requested methamphetamine, air, and water testing, As they were not able to choose the methamphetamine testing providers, they felt they were effectively denied the ability to verify the property’s safety.
The refusal to allow independent testing left the tenant in ongoing discomfort and uncertainty. On several occasions, the tenant had to sleep in their car. This caused distress and affected the tenant’s wellbeing and ability to work.
The Tenant also reported a mouldy washing machine, a persistent odour from the walls, and a bathroom fan that would not turn off. These issues were raised early in the tenancy but were not resolved. The tenant provided a photograph of when they had attempted to clean the washing machine and the underwear that was left in the property when they moved in. The Tenant submitted these issues should have been resolved before the Tenant moved into the property.
The Landlord submitted that they had responded appropriately to the Tenants concerns raised about the property. They advised the Tenant to seek medical advice regarding the symptoms they were experiencing and when they were notified of the issues such as the damaged sliding door and bathroom fan, they responded in a timely manner. They provided invoices to show the repairs they had organised for these issues.
Under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
In considering the evidence, while there were some issues with the property— such as a faulty fan and door—the landlord responded to these reports within a reasonable timeframe and provided invoices confirming the repairs were completed. Had the landlord failed to act on the tenant’s reports, they would not have met their obligation to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. A property does not have to be presented in perfect condition but a reasonable state of repair. In this instance, I find the Landlord took appropriate action.
The claim is dismissed. Tenants claim for exemplary damages
Yoon Ho Cho claims the landlord interfered with their peace, comfort, or privacy by allowing QHI to enter the property without their consent to conduct methamphetamine testing. The tenant stated they had not agreed on a time for QHI’s attendance. QHI arrived at 7:30 a.m. after the tenant had left the property, as captured by security cameras, prompting the tenant to contact the police. They provided text messages to indicate there was no confirmation of a time for QHI to enter.
The landlord submitted that the tenant had informed QHI on 4 November 2024, that they were no longer residing at the property and that they could collect the keys from the Landlord. QHI assumed this was consent to enter the property. The landlord asserted there was no intention to trespass. A letter was provided from the QHI tester that attended the property confirming this.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlords evidence persuasive that the Tenant had provided consent to enter the property for testing. The Tenant had stated they vacated the property around 23 October 2024 and they requested the methamphetamine testing so it is plausible that they consented to QHI obtaining a key and entering the property to undertake the testing. There was also no intention by the Landlord to act unlawfully in attending the property.
For these reasons the claim for breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed.
As Crockers Property Management Limited As Agent For Binghong And Qiuxia Chen And Xu has wholly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee and name suppression is declined for the Tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100028 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat A410, 2 Munroe Lane, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100028 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat A410, 2 Munroe Lane, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions