What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5327701?

The tribunal order states: Smile (Juan) Liu must pay Ciara Leech $517.25 immediately as set out in the

How much money was awarded in case 5327701?

Compensation: Refund for leaking cis…: $89.25 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327701?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327701?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13025761-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5327701?

The tribunal order states: Smile (Juan) Liu must pay Ciara Leech $517.25 immediately as set out in the

How much money was awarded in case 5327701?

Compensation: Refund for leaking cis…: $89.25 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327701?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327701?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13025761-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Trojan Crescent, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5327701 — Healthy homes

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327701 — net $517.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Refund for leaking cistern	$89.25	Refund for leaking cistern
Exemplary damages: Breach HHS ventilation	$400.00	Breach HHS ventilation
Reimburse filing fee	$28.00	Reimburse filing fee
Net award	$517.25
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$517.25

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5327701 — net $517.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Refund for leaking cistern	$89.25	Refund for leaking cistern
Exemplary damages: Breach HHS ventilation	$400.00	Breach HHS ventilation
Reimburse filing fee	$28.00	Reimburse filing fee
Net award	$517.25
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$517.25

Order

Smile (Juan) Liu must pay Ciara Leech $517.25 immediately as set out in the table below.

The tenants claims for failing to maintain, not providing working smoke alarms, failing to appoint an agent, and causing damage by water blasting are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing. The landlord did not attend the hearing. A property manager for the landlord, Mr. Chai attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord and explained that the landlord now lives permanently overseas.
Mr. Chai said that on 16 January 2026 he sent an e-mail to Tenancy Services requesting an adjournment or that the hearing be held by video conference so the landlord could attend. He was told by Tenancy Services that because he isn't a party to the hearing, his request had no authority and therefore could not be actioned.
Mr. Chai then said on 23 January 2025 the landlord made the same request regarding the hearing.
Neither of these requests are noted in the Tenancy Tribunal site. This is not surprising, firstly because Mr. Chai is not a party to the hearing and secondly because the landlord’s request was made on effectively the last working day before the scheduled hearing.
The Notice of Hearing was sent to the parties on 22 December 2025.
The applicant was opposed to an adjournment. She said she had set aside today for the hearing, she has prepared for the hearing to go ahead today, she made her application over 5 months ago, and the landlord who still has her e- mail has not contacted her regarding an adjournment. She said she also has three young children.
As already stated, there is no request from the landlord herself for an adjournment today.
Having considered the information before me, I have determined the application will proceed today. I consider the tenant’s submissions to be more persuasive than Mr. Chai’s submissions. The landlord has had adequate notice of today’s hearing, has had an opportunity to respond within time and request an adjournment, or to brief an agent to appear on her behalf, or to deal with this claim and her situation in any different way that causes minimal delay and disruption to the other party and the Tribunal, if she desired. Having not effectively done so, she must therefore be ready to proceed today.
Mr Chai said he was not in a position to represent the landlord today. Burden of proof:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging the is burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
If the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
Section 109(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) is relevant to this claim as some of the claims for exemplary damages are “out of time”. The relevant part of the section states: (2)A landlord or a tenant may not apply under subsection (1) later than— (a)12 months after the termination of the tenancy in the case of— (i)an unlawful act to which section 19(2) refers; or (ii)a failure to keep records in respect of bonds that is an unlawful act to which section 30(2) refers; or (b)12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act in the case of any other unlawful act. Fail to maintain
Ciara Leech claims the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant said the landlord has breached her obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair in the following ways: a. Not repairing the toilet cistern in a reasonable timeframe when it started leaking (into the toilet), b. Not addressing two rat infestations in a timely manner. The leaking toilet cistern
The tenant said the toilet cistern leaked from the start of the tenancy until it was replaced by three men on 7 October 2023.
The tenant said that until October 2023, her average monthly water usage was 900 litres per day. After the toilet system was replaced, it reduced to around 650 litres per day.
The tenant produced a Watercare invoice which sets out the litres-of-water- used-per-day average, for the months of October 2023, November 2023, January 2024, February 2024 and March 2024. October as stated above, represents the last month of the cistern being broken.
The highest daily average after the cistern was repaired was for March 2024, which was 666 litres per day.
On the basis of the tenant’s oral information and the Watercare invoice provided to the Tribunal, I find the tenant’s claim of failing to maintain the premises relating to the toilet cistern leaking for seven months, proved.
The tenant is seeking a refund of water costs to compensate her for water that was wasted due to the leak of the toilet cistern.
As 666 is 74% of 900, I have calculated a reasonable refund using these figures as the basis for my calculations.
For the month of March 2024, the amount of water and waste water charged to the tenant was $85.08. 234 litres (the amount of litres wasted) is approximately 35% of 666. 35% of $85.00 is $29.75 per week. This represents as estimate of the extra amount that was probably charged to the tenant.
Over three months this amounts to $89.25. I determine that this amount should be refunded to the tenant. This amount is proved.
The claim for exemplary damages is time barred by section 109(2)(b) of the RTA, which is set out above. Rat infestation
The tenant claims that rat infestations on two occasions amounted to the landlord failing to maintain the premises in a reasonable condition having regard to the age and condition of the premises.
The first occasion related to an infestation in August 2023. The tenant served a 14-day notice to remedy on the landlord regarding rats which she had noticed in the garden and in the roof of the house. The tenant followed up the landlord with emails. The problem was not resolved until November 2023.
The tenant produced photographs of a rat in the garden during this time.
I am not wholly persuaded the presence of rats at the property amounted to an “infestation”.
An online search of the word “infestation” defines infestation as “the presence of an unusually large number of insects or animals in a place, typically so as to cause damage or disease.”
There is no evidence at to the number of rats at the property. It is commonly accepted that rats exist in most if not all areas of urban, suburban, rural and native New Zealand, and when they come in to close proximity of humans, they are noticeable.
The earliest communication between the tenant and the landlord regarding rats appears to be August 2023. This was five to six months after the tenancy began.
Controlling rats can be as easy as putting out a low-cost bait that is available at supermarkets. The tenant did not provide information that they did this. This would have served to alleviate the problem immediately.
I also note that exemplary damages for this claim are barred by the time limitation in the RTA section 109(2)(b).
The tenant said that there were no more problems regarding rats from November 2023 when the landlord addressed the problem themselves, until June 2025, two months before their tenancy ended.
The tenant said the second “infestation” was raised with the landlord at an inspection on 26th June 2025. The tenant said she advised the landlord that there was another rat infestation, and she again followed this up with emails to the landlord on 15 July 2025 and 3 August 2025.
The tenant said on 14 August 2025 some rat dropping fell through the HRV while a tradesperson was working in the ceiling cavity. She said the rat droppings fell on her personal belongings and children’s toys.
I consider it highly likely the rat dropping were the accumulation of many years of rats moving through the roof cavity. I am not persuaded the droppings indicate a “current” infestation.
The tenant engaged a company called Native Oasis NZ, who tidied up the rat droppings and invoiced the tenant for $165.00 for “toxic rat dropping cleaning.”
I find it peculiar that the tenant was not able to clean up the rat droppings herself, and that the rat droppings are described as “toxic”. While not pleasant, the word “toxic” in relation to rat droppings in my view is sensationalising a minor issue.
No photographs showing the amount of rat droppings that fell through the HRV vent were provided. HRV vents are not large, and I expect if there had been a truly substantial amount of rat droppings photographs would have been taken and provided.
The tenant explained that Native Oasis NZ is in some capacity owned and/or operated by her ex-partner and the father of her children.
I sympathise with the tenant regarding rat droppings falling from an HRV vent in the ceiling. However, insufficient information has been provided to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that the rat droppings amounting to damage that the landlord is responsible for, or the presence of rat droppings in the ceiling, is evidence the landlord breached of her responsibility to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord’s agent had a responsibility to clean up after themselves, and if they failed to do this, then that could amount to a breach. But before I determined this, I would need more information about the circumstances. On the information before me today, I have doubts about the tenant acting responsibly or in good faith.
This claim of the landlord breaching her responsibility to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises is not proved. Breach of Healthy Homes ventilation standard
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
The standard requires that each bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
The HHS provides exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The tenant said that from 18 August 2023 the extractor fan in the bathroom stopped working. It was not repaired, and did not work again until the end of the tenancy more than two years later. The bathroom had no external windows at all. The tenant said this meant mould grew on the skylight and on the ceiling, and that she used a full bottle of Exit Mould every week trying to control it.
The tenant produced photographs of mould on the ceiling and around the skylight. The photographs show a very light presence of mould.
The tenant said that from August 2023, she repeatedly raised the issue of the extractor fan not working with the landlord.
The tenant produced an invoice from the company noted above, Native Oasis NZ, for $175.00 for cleaning the mould.
In this case I determine there was not a working extractor fan in the bathroom of these premises from August 2023 until the end of the tenancy.
The claim is proved. Smile (Juan) Liu has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
The tenant detected the breach approximately two years prior to raising the claim. However, because the problem was not addressed by the landlord, it continued until the end of the tenancy. As the problem was still live at the time the application was made, I determine the claim is not time barred by section 109 of the RTA.
Tenants and the public at large have a right to expect landlords will comply with the RTA in terms of maintaining a property. This ensures that premises are fit for living in, and tenants’ health and wellbeing is not compromised by unhealthy premises. In this case the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS even after the tenant notified the landlord of the problem.
The tenant provided photographs which disclose a minor amount of mould around the ceiling and on the wall of the bathroom.
On the evidence before me, that is the photographs and the tenant’s oral information, I am not persuaded there was a problem with mould that went beyond the tenant’s obligation to keep the premises clean and tidy, or that a one-off invoice for $175.00 for cleaning from Native NZ Ltd can be justified.
When I consider the amount of time that the tenant was without an extraction fan in the only bathroom in the house, and one which has no windows, I consider a moderate amount of exemplary damages is justified for this breach. Smoke alarms
The tenant said that on 22 June 2025 the smoke alarms started beeping. At the routine tenancy inspection the next day, the smoke alarms were apparently not working. The tenant said the smoke alarms were “the normal round model”.
On 25 June 2025 the tenant sent the landlord an email requesting new smoke alarms.
New smoke alarms were installed around mid-August. The tenancy ended on 31 August 2025.
The Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms Regulations) 2016, section 9(3) makes it clear that it is a tenant’s responsibility to replace smoke alarms batteries during a tenancy. Section 9(3) includes: “while the smoke alarm remains installed at the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must replace, with a compliant battery, any battery contained in the alarm that becomes worn out.”
Despite the tenant not trying to remedy the problem by simply replacing the smoke alarm’s battery, I consider it most likely that the reason the smoke alarm beeped was because the battery needed replacing. This was the tenant’s responsibility. It does not mean the landlord is in breach of their obligations.
No information has been provided that satisfies me the landlord was in breach of their obligations under the relevant enactments.
This claim is not proved. Unlawful entry
Ciara Leech claims the landlord entered the premises without consent or notice on three occasions.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The first breach related to 7 October 2023 when three men arrived at the premises while the tenant was in hospital. the tenant’s mother was house sitting. The landlord had provided no notice in advance of the men attending.
There was a discussion on the doorstep between the three men and the tenant’s mother. A telephone call was then made to the tenant in hospital. Eventually the men entered the house, removed the toilet with the faulty cistern, left it out the front of the house and left. They returned several hours later and installed a new toilet.
On the information before me, I consider the facts to be that no notice was given by the landlord, and that before the three tradespeople entered, the tenant’s mother determined who they were and what their purpose was. She then consented to them entering.
This was sloppy landlord procedure, but I do not consider it to have been a breach of the RTA.
This event occurred almost two years before this application was filed, and as such it is time barred by the RTA section 109.
The second breach related to 26 June 2025 when a man knocked on the door and explained he was there to take photographs of the outside of the property. The tenant gave permission to the man to take photographs of the front of the property. She then saw him around the back. She approached him and checked his camera to see that he wasn’t taking photographs through the windows. He wasn’t.
No notice was given for the visit but the man complied with what is required to enter the property under the RTA. Comments from the tenant lead me to conclude that English was not the man’s first language. I also conclude there was an understanding between the parties as to what the photographs were intended for.
I am not in a position to know whether the man went beyond the area specified by the tenant knowingly, or whether he had not understood what was being said. No harm resulted from the event.
By going beyond the area delineated by the tenant, I determine the landlord breached their obligation to give notice to the tenant before entering the premises. This was an unlawful act.
However I determine the breach was very minor and caused no harm at all. Because of this I determine exemplary damages are not warranted.
The third occasion occurred on 20 August 2025 when the tenancy was almost at its end. The landlord was in the process of trying to sell the property. The landlord knocked on the door. She had an unknown man with her, and she wanted to look inside.
The tenant said the landlord repeatedly pressured her to let her in.
The tenant provided a video in support of her claim. The video shows the landlord being cheerful and asking several times if she could enter. The tenant agrees several times. The landlord repeats several times that the tenant can refuse, but that the landlord will only take two minutes. The repetition appears to be due to different language knowledge and different cultural knowledge between the two.
In summary the video shows the landlord requesting permission to enter, and the tenant granting it. This is not a breach of section 48.
This claim is not proved.
I note that in these three events the landlord was close to breaching the RTA. Twice the tenant was put in a position where they could have stood on their rights and refused entry to the landlord’s agent, but they did not. The tenant has a grievance about being put in this position and it is justified. As I said above, it was sloppy conduct on the landlord’s behalf, and the tenant in those circumstances acted reasonably which the landlord benefitted from. Failing to appoint an agent
Ciara Leech claims the landlord has been overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent.
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. See section 16A(1) RTA.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 16A(6) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The tenant said that on 10 May 2023, the landlord made a comment about “not being in Auckland on these days”. The landlord’s partner also made a reference to the landlord being overseas for longer than 21 consecutive days without appointing an agent.
However the tenant has not provided any information around any dates that the landlord has been out of the country, and without this information this claim is not proved. Water blasting
The tenant said that towards the end of the tenancy, one of the landlord’s agents was water blasting the driveway and in doing so covered a barbeque, two mowers and several other of the tenant’s items with dirt. A jacket and a bag and several other items in a shed were covered in water.
The tenant claims her belongings were damaged, and some needed replacing.
The information produced does not support damage to the items. The items that were covered in dirt were capable of being cleaned, and the items that became wet were able to be dried.
This is yet more examples of the landlord’s agents’ poor conduct which resulted adversely impacted the tenant. However it falls short of damage. I determine that in terms of the RTA, no breach been proved.
Because Ciara Leech has succeeded with some of her claims I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327701 — Healthy homes at 25 Trojan Crescent, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327701 — Healthy homes at 25 Trojan Crescent, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

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