What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5195631?

The tribunal order states: Sasha Marie Pania Mitchell must pay Yubing Zhang $3,059.95 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5195631?

Cleaning: $1,276.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Gate: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,640.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $243.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5195631?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5195631?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11972523-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5195631?

The tribunal order states: Sasha Marie Pania Mitchell must pay Yubing Zhang $3,059.95 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5195631?

Cleaning: $1,276.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Gate: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $4,640.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $243.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5195631?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5195631?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11972523-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14A Murfitt Place, Sockburn, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5195631 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5195631 — net $3,059.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 April 2025	$4,640.00		Rent arrears to 14 April 2025
Cleaning	$1,276.50		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$243.45		Rubbish removal
Compensation: Gate		$500.00	Gate
Total award	$6,159.95	$500.00
Net award	$3,059.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,059.95

Order

Sasha Marie Pania Mitchell must pay Yubing Zhang $3,059.95 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenant’s application is otherwise dismissed.
The tenant’s application for name suppression is refused.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This order follows the Tribunal’s order made on 11 April 2025 terminating the tenancy. The ground for making that order, and all other claims made by the parties, were left to be decided following this hearing. Rent
The tenancy began in March 2024, and it was managed by Century 21 property management. That business ceased trading and the property manager, Ria Leung, continued managing the tenancy personally. That came to an end on 11 March 2025 when the landlord took over and gave the tenant her bank details for rent payments.
According to the rent statement provided by the landlord, which begins on 13 November 2024, there were rent arrears of $5,940 to the end of the rent week on 15 April. The tenant accepts that there are arrears, but she disputes the amount of the arrears.
The landlord said that she has not received any rent since giving the tenant notice on 11 March that rent should be paid to her, not to the property manager. The tenant accepts that.
The rent statement records that no payments were made for the weeks beginning 13 and 20 November. The tenant said that WINZ made payments for those weeks, and they went to Ms Leung. There is some evidence to support that. In any case, the landlord accepted that the tenant should be given credit for those payments.
The tenant produced copies of her bank statements that record her rent payments as shown in the rent statement. It follows that the parties agree that rent arrears to 15 April are $4,640, as awarded. Bond
The tenant paid a bond in the sum of $2,600. The agent did not pay the bond to the Bond Centre, and it seems that she did not pay it to the landlord either. The tenant is entitled to the benefit of the bond and so it has been credited to her in this order.
The tenant claims exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond. There is no doubt that the failure to lodge the bond is an unlawful act which entitles the Tribunal to award exemplary damages to the tenant. But it was the agent who received the bond, and it was their responsibility to lodge it. The landlord was entitled to expect them to do so. The landlord must give the tenant credit for the bond without receiving the benefit of it. In the context of this case, the landlord has therefore lost $2,600 due to the agent’s defalcation. In the circumstances there is no justification for an award of exemplary damages against the landlord. Cleaning and Rubbish
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and she did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord dealt with the removal of a substantial amount of rubbish from the premises and she employed professional cleaners to carry out the substantial amount of cleaning that the premises needed to restore them to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord produced photographs showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy as well as a video.
I acknowledge here that the tenant had to deal with some challenging health and personal issues during this tenancy and at the end of the tenancy, she was not capable of meeting her end-of-tenancy obligations. That does not affect the landlord’s right to be compensated.
The landlord claims only the cost of dumping the rubbish and she produced receipts for the dump fees in the sum of $243.45. I have awarded that sum.
The landlord has produced an invoice in the sum of $1,276.50 for the cleaning. The tenant questioned the reasonableness of that charge. It is considerably more than most claims of this nature. The invoice contains a detailed breakdown, and it includes carpet cleaning.
In my view there may well be an element of the cleaning that should not be charged to the tenant, but I take into consideration the fact that the landlord has not claimed anything for the considerable amount of work needed to remove the rubbish. Overall, I find that it is reasonable to award the cleaning cost in full. The Tenant’s Claims
There was very little evidence, other that the oral evidence from the tenant herself, to support these claims. Parties are required to provide evidence to prove their claims to the civil standard of proof being the balance of probabilities. That means that the evidence must prove that they are more likely than not to be valid. In all but the claim in relation to the gate, the tenant has failed to provide the necessary evidence to prove her claims. These other claims have therefore been dismissed. Gate
There were high double gates at premises the end of the driveway which the tenant relied on to secure the outside area of the premises for her young children. The tenant said that the gates were faulty and would not close properly leaving her anxious about the safety of her children when they were playing outside. She said that she reported it to the agent from the start of the tenancy, but nothing was done about them.
The landlord must provide and keep the premises is a reasonable state of repair. The gates should have been in good working order from the start of the tenancy.
There was evidence to support the tenant’s claim in text messages and emails that she provided.
After several months, the tenant’s ex-partner fixed the gate himself. He said that it cost him $500 for materials and tools that he had to buy to do the work. There was no other evidence to prove the cost and I note that he would still have the tools. There were no photographs showing what work was needed.
I accept there would have been some cost to do the repair and some inconvenience and stress for the tenant. I have therefore awarded the sum of $500 compensation. Lights
The tenant said that the lights in the premises were faulty. They would flicker and there was an unusual noise. She believed that there was a fault with the wiring. She said that she was continually buying light bulbs. She estimated that they would have cost her $1,000.
There is no written evidence that the tenant complained about the lights, but the landlord accepted that there was a complaint that light bulbs were not working, and her husband went to the premises and provided lightbulbs.
There is no evidence of an electrical fault, and the evidence does not prove that the landlord was required to investigate the situation. Heat Pump
The tenant said that she complained about the heat pump and that it did not work properly. She said that it did not produce enough heat and she had to rely on conventional electric heaters which were expensive.
The landlord said that the heat pump worked, albeit not perfectly. Her husband went to the premises and cleaned it, but it was never professionally serviced.
There is no written evidence of the tenant complaining about the heat pump and the landlord’s admission that it did not work perfectly does not prove that it was not in a reasonable state of repair. The fact that it was not serviced is of concern, but this tenancy was just over a year in length and that does allow me to find that it was not working adequately.
There was a general claim that the premises were not up to healthy home standards. The landlord produced a detailed healthy homes report from 2022 that found that the premises were largely compliant. The landlord confirmed that she attended to the items that the report identified as needing fixing and there was no evidence to contradict that. Quiet Enjoyment
The tenant’s complaint is that the agent kept raising the possibility that the landlord would sell the premises. She said that when she made a complaint, the agent would threaten that the landlord would serve a termination notice based on a sale of the premises. She said that caused her to feel insecure in the premises and it was stressful.
The original tenancy agreement, and the only agreement produced, is for a term of two months. The tenant said that she then signed a one-year fixed term agreement. There is evidence to support that in text messages between the tenant and the agent where the agent accepts that the landlord cannot end the tenancy before May 2025. The tenant pointed that out to the agent in response to a suggestion from her that the landlord intended serving a 90-day notice.
I accept that the agent appears to have been unaware that a fixed term tenancy cannot be ended prematurely by notice that the premises are to be sold. I would describe her conduct as clumsy, but not an interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment in her use of the premises. It would certainly not meet the definition of harassment. Filing Fee
Both sides have had some success and so I make no award of filing fees. Suppression
The tenant has applied for name suppression. She has not been substantially successful in this case, and so I must consider her interest and the public interest in deciding whether to grant suppression. I acknowledge that she has had health and family problems during this tenancy, but they do not wholly explain why she has found herself in this situation. They do not, in my view, overcome the public interest in open justice.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5195631 — net $3,059.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 April 2025	$4,640.00		Rent arrears to 14 April 2025
Cleaning	$1,276.50		Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$243.45		Rubbish removal
Compensation: Gate		$500.00	Gate
Total award	$6,159.95	$500.00
Net award	$3,059.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,059.95

Order

Sasha Marie Pania Mitchell must pay Yubing Zhang $3,059.95 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenant’s application is otherwise dismissed.
The tenant’s application for name suppression is refused.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This order follows the Tribunal’s order made on 11 April 2025 terminating the tenancy. The ground for making that order, and all other claims made by the parties, were left to be decided following this hearing. Rent
The tenancy began in March 2024, and it was managed by Century 21 property management. That business ceased trading and the property manager, Ria Leung, continued managing the tenancy personally. That came to an end on 11 March 2025 when the landlord took over and gave the tenant her bank details for rent payments.
According to the rent statement provided by the landlord, which begins on 13 November 2024, there were rent arrears of $5,940 to the end of the rent week on 15 April. The tenant accepts that there are arrears, but she disputes the amount of the arrears.
The landlord said that she has not received any rent since giving the tenant notice on 11 March that rent should be paid to her, not to the property manager. The tenant accepts that.
The rent statement records that no payments were made for the weeks beginning 13 and 20 November. The tenant said that WINZ made payments for those weeks, and they went to Ms Leung. There is some evidence to support that. In any case, the landlord accepted that the tenant should be given credit for those payments.
The tenant produced copies of her bank statements that record her rent payments as shown in the rent statement. It follows that the parties agree that rent arrears to 15 April are $4,640, as awarded. Bond
The tenant paid a bond in the sum of $2,600. The agent did not pay the bond to the Bond Centre, and it seems that she did not pay it to the landlord either. The tenant is entitled to the benefit of the bond and so it has been credited to her in this order.
The tenant claims exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond. There is no doubt that the failure to lodge the bond is an unlawful act which entitles the Tribunal to award exemplary damages to the tenant. But it was the agent who received the bond, and it was their responsibility to lodge it. The landlord was entitled to expect them to do so. The landlord must give the tenant credit for the bond without receiving the benefit of it. In the context of this case, the landlord has therefore lost $2,600 due to the agent’s defalcation. In the circumstances there is no justification for an award of exemplary damages against the landlord. Cleaning and Rubbish
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and she did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord dealt with the removal of a substantial amount of rubbish from the premises and she employed professional cleaners to carry out the substantial amount of cleaning that the premises needed to restore them to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord produced photographs showing the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy as well as a video.
I acknowledge here that the tenant had to deal with some challenging health and personal issues during this tenancy and at the end of the tenancy, she was not capable of meeting her end-of-tenancy obligations. That does not affect the landlord’s right to be compensated.
The landlord claims only the cost of dumping the rubbish and she produced receipts for the dump fees in the sum of $243.45. I have awarded that sum.
The landlord has produced an invoice in the sum of $1,276.50 for the cleaning. The tenant questioned the reasonableness of that charge. It is considerably more than most claims of this nature. The invoice contains a detailed breakdown, and it includes carpet cleaning.
In my view there may well be an element of the cleaning that should not be charged to the tenant, but I take into consideration the fact that the landlord has not claimed anything for the considerable amount of work needed to remove the rubbish. Overall, I find that it is reasonable to award the cleaning cost in full. The Tenant’s Claims
There was very little evidence, other that the oral evidence from the tenant herself, to support these claims. Parties are required to provide evidence to prove their claims to the civil standard of proof being the balance of probabilities. That means that the evidence must prove that they are more likely than not to be valid. In all but the claim in relation to the gate, the tenant has failed to provide the necessary evidence to prove her claims. These other claims have therefore been dismissed. Gate
There were high double gates at premises the end of the driveway which the tenant relied on to secure the outside area of the premises for her young children. The tenant said that the gates were faulty and would not close properly leaving her anxious about the safety of her children when they were playing outside. She said that she reported it to the agent from the start of the tenancy, but nothing was done about them.
The landlord must provide and keep the premises is a reasonable state of repair. The gates should have been in good working order from the start of the tenancy.
There was evidence to support the tenant’s claim in text messages and emails that she provided.
After several months, the tenant’s ex-partner fixed the gate himself. He said that it cost him $500 for materials and tools that he had to buy to do the work. There was no other evidence to prove the cost and I note that he would still have the tools. There were no photographs showing what work was needed.
I accept there would have been some cost to do the repair and some inconvenience and stress for the tenant. I have therefore awarded the sum of $500 compensation. Lights
The tenant said that the lights in the premises were faulty. They would flicker and there was an unusual noise. She believed that there was a fault with the wiring. She said that she was continually buying light bulbs. She estimated that they would have cost her $1,000.
There is no written evidence that the tenant complained about the lights, but the landlord accepted that there was a complaint that light bulbs were not working, and her husband went to the premises and provided lightbulbs.
There is no evidence of an electrical fault, and the evidence does not prove that the landlord was required to investigate the situation. Heat Pump
The tenant said that she complained about the heat pump and that it did not work properly. She said that it did not produce enough heat and she had to rely on conventional electric heaters which were expensive.
The landlord said that the heat pump worked, albeit not perfectly. Her husband went to the premises and cleaned it, but it was never professionally serviced.
There is no written evidence of the tenant complaining about the heat pump and the landlord’s admission that it did not work perfectly does not prove that it was not in a reasonable state of repair. The fact that it was not serviced is of concern, but this tenancy was just over a year in length and that does allow me to find that it was not working adequately.
There was a general claim that the premises were not up to healthy home standards. The landlord produced a detailed healthy homes report from 2022 that found that the premises were largely compliant. The landlord confirmed that she attended to the items that the report identified as needing fixing and there was no evidence to contradict that. Quiet Enjoyment
The tenant’s complaint is that the agent kept raising the possibility that the landlord would sell the premises. She said that when she made a complaint, the agent would threaten that the landlord would serve a termination notice based on a sale of the premises. She said that caused her to feel insecure in the premises and it was stressful.
The original tenancy agreement, and the only agreement produced, is for a term of two months. The tenant said that she then signed a one-year fixed term agreement. There is evidence to support that in text messages between the tenant and the agent where the agent accepts that the landlord cannot end the tenancy before May 2025. The tenant pointed that out to the agent in response to a suggestion from her that the landlord intended serving a 90-day notice.
I accept that the agent appears to have been unaware that a fixed term tenancy cannot be ended prematurely by notice that the premises are to be sold. I would describe her conduct as clumsy, but not an interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment in her use of the premises. It would certainly not meet the definition of harassment. Filing Fee
Both sides have had some success and so I make no award of filing fees. Suppression
The tenant has applied for name suppression. She has not been substantially successful in this case, and so I must consider her interest and the public interest in deciding whether to grant suppression. I acknowledge that she has had health and family problems during this tenancy, but they do not wholly explain why she has found herself in this situation. They do not, in my view, overcome the public interest in open justice.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5195631 — Rent arrears at 14A Murfitt Place, Sockburn, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5195631 — Rent arrears at 14A Murfitt Place, Sockburn, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions