What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5394582?

The tribunal order states: Xu Rong Qiu and Xian Xie Mu must pay Qi Zang $8,700.66 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5394582?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $277.80 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,992.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5394582?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5394582?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13145526-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5394582?

The tribunal order states: Xu Rong Qiu and Xian Xie Mu must pay Qi Zang $8,700.66 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5394582?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $277.80 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,992.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5394582?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5394582?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13145526-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18 Mandarin Place, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5394582 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5394582 — net $8,700.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24/03/2025	$7,992.86	Rent arrears to 24/03/2025
Carpet Cleaning	$180.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$277.80	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$8,700.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,700.66

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5394582 — net $8,700.66 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24/03/2025	$7,992.86	Rent arrears to 24/03/2025
Carpet Cleaning	$180.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$277.80	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$8,700.66
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,700.66

Order

Xu Rong Qiu and Xian Xie Mu must pay Qi Zang $8,700.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The parties entered into a fixed-term tenancy agreement commencing on 21 November 2023 and ending on 24 March 2025.
On 6 June 2025, the parties attended mediation. At that mediation the applicant landlord agreed to refund the bond to the tenant in settlement of the tenant’s claims, while expressly reserving the right to pursue the landlord’s own claims before the Tenancy Tribunal. Today’s hearing concerns those claims.
The landlord seeks the following compensation: a) $7,992.86 for rent arrears to 24 March 2025 b) $175.00 for electricity reconnection c) $180.00 for carpet cleaning d) $250.00 for general house cleaning e) $494.50 for garden maintenance f) $33.95 for a damaged bathroom shelf g) $69.94 for a missing garden hose h) $230.00 for damage to exterior weatherboards i) $277.80 for rubbish removal
The landlord also seeks exemplary damages for alleged unlawful acts by the tenant: a) $1,500 under s 40(3A)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, alleging the tenant failed, without reasonable excuse, to vacate the premises upon termination of the tenancy b) $1,000 under s 40(3A)(e), alleging the tenant failed to ensure the number of occupants did not exceed the permitted maximum c) $3,000 under s 40(3A)(d), alleging harassment of the neighbour and the landlord d) $1,500 under s 48(4)(b), alleging the tenant failed to permit entry when the landlord was entitled to enter

Is the respondent liable for the rent arrears?

A fixed-term tenancy ends on the agreed expiry date unless it is lawfully terminated earlier.
The landlord says that on 18 December 2024 the respondent advised in writing that they would leave in 21 days. The respondent then vacated the premises on 30 December 2024, only 12 days after giving that notice and well before the fixed- term expiry of 24 March 2025.
The landlord states they sought advice from Tenancy Services and attempted to mitigate their loss by re-letting the property. During the following period they say the respondent sent messages asserting they still required notice before inspections or entry as they retained possession. This created uncertainty for the landlord until 18 January 2025, when the respondent confirmed by text that they had vacated and the landlord could deal with the property.
Under s 50 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a fixed-term tenancy does not end because a tenant gives notice or vacates before the expiry date. The tenancy continues until the agreed end date unless it is terminated earlier by agreement, Tribunal order, or another statutory provision.
There is no evidence the landlord agreed to an early termination, and no Tribunal order or statutory ground bringing the tenancy to an end before 24 March 2025. The respondent’s unilateral notice therefore had no legal effect.
In limited circumstances the Tribunal may reduce the term under s 66(1) where unforeseen hardship is established and the comparative hardship test is met. No such application was made. In any event, even where hardship is established, tenants generally remain liable for rent until the premises are re-let.
A new tenancy commenced on 10 March 2025 at a weekly rent of $750. The applicant seeks only the $50 weekly shortfall for the remaining two weeks of the fixed term.
Accordingly, the respondent remains liable for rent until the earlier of re-letting or the expiry of the fixed term. I award rent arrears for the period from 31 December 2024 until the commencement of the new tenancy, together with the agreed shortfall thereafter to 24 March 2025.
The applicant has provided rent records showing the amount owing. I am satisfied this record is correct.
$7,992.86 is awarded for rent arrears.

Is the respondent liable for the electricity reconnection fee?

The applicant seeks $175.00 for an electricity reconnection fee incurred in March. These fees are incurred after an account is closed and electricity continues to be used at the property without a new account being opened.
The landlord says that because the tenant vacated early in December, the power remained in the tenant’s name and was not reconnected until March. The tenant confirms she closed her account when she vacated in December. Due to the period where between decmber and march where no new account was opened, the electricity supply was disconnected and a reconnection fee was charged.
I have found the landlord accepted possession of the premises on 18 January 2025. From that point, although the tenant remained liable for rent until re-letting, the landlord had possession of the premises and could reasonably have arranged electricity in their own name.
The disconnection was a foreseeable consequence of continuing to use electricity without opening an account. The cost does not arise from a breach by the tenant but from the landlord’s own decision after retaking possession.
This claim is therefore dismissed. Is the tenant liable for the carpet cleaning, general cleaning and rubbish removal costs?
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 requires a tenant, at the end of the tenancy, to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and to remove, or arrange for the removal of, any rubbish.
The landlord has provided photographs taken at the conclusion of the tenancy showing abandoned furniture, rubbish, and the premises in a condition falling short of a reasonably clean and tidy standard. Markings were visible on surfaces, and I accept that further cleaning was required.
The landlord submitted that the carpets had been professionally cleaned at the start of the tenancy. That fact alone does not justify requiring professional carpet cleaning at the end of a tenancy. However, where the carpet is left marked or stained beyond fair wear and tear, cleaning may reasonably be required.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that carpet cleaning and rubbish removal were necessary to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Accordingly, those costs are awarded.

Is the respondent liable for the remainder of the costs?

Garden maintenance

The invoice provided records the laying of weed mat and placement of stones, which amounts to landscaping of garden beds. The landlord alleges the tenant removed existing garden beds, stones, and weed mat at the beginning of the tenancy to create a vegetable garden.
The photographic evidence instead suggests an overgrown stone garden and does not support the existence of weed mat as described. I do not find the landlord’s account compelling. The respondent denies removing garden materials and states only that some rocks were relocated from the front to the rear of the property.
Had the claim been for garden maintenance due to overgrowth, the outcome may have been different however what is described in the invoice is not a tenant liability.
This claim is dismissed. Bathroom shelf
The landlord provided a photograph of a small glass shelf in the shower unit which appears slightly misaligned. The item appears inexpensive and not broken. Any defect present is consistent with fair wear and tear or poor quality rather than damage caused by the tenant.
This claim is dismissed. Garden hose
The landlord alleges a hose was missing at the end of the tenancy but provided no evidence of its age or condition at the start of the tenancy. The hose shown appears very old and likely fully depreciated. I am also not satisfied the respondent intentionally removed it.
This claim is dismissed. Weatherboards
The landlord relies on a photograph showing a small crack in a low weatherboard and another wider photograph showing the tenant’s belongings nearby. There is no contemporaneous entry evidence and no proof the damage was carelessly or intentionally caused by the tenant.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

Did the tenant commit unlawful acts for which exemplary damages are payable?

Parliament considers certain obligations of landlords and tenants absolutely fundamental to the residential tenancy framework in New Zealand. To protect this baseline it has designated specific breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as unlawful acts.
Where an unlawful act is established, the Tribunal must apply the statutory criteria before exemplary damages, which are punitive and deterrent in nature, may be awarded in order to protect those minimum standards. The threshold is intentionally high and the categories of unlawful acts are narrowly defined.
The applicant has invited me to consider the overall unfairness of the circumstances she describes, even where the statutory elements of an unlawful act are not met. That approach is not available to the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to the Act, and in particular s 109, which requires decisions to be made according to the law rather than general notions of fairness outside the statutory framework. Section 40(3A)(a) - (Failure to vacate upon termination)
The applicant first seeks exemplary damages under s 40(3A)(a), alleging the tenant failed, without reasonable excuse, to vacate the premises upon termination of the tenancy.
This allegation is inconsistent with the landlord’s primary position. The landlord’s successful rent claim is based on the finding that the tenant vacated prior to the expiry of the fixed term. Section 40(3A)(a) concerns a tenant remaining in occupation after the tenancy has lawfully terminated. That is not what occurred here.
The tenant left before the fixed term expired. Accordingly, this unlawful act did not occur.
The claim is dismissed. Section 40(3A)(e) - (Exceeding maximum number of occupants)
The tenancy agreement records a maximum of four occupants.
In support of this allegation, the landlord relies on a text message dated 28 May 2024 reminding the tenant of that obligation. The landlord also states that during an inspection one bedroom contained more than one bed and inferred from this that more than four people were residing at the property.
The tenant denies exceeding four occupants and states there was insufficient space for additional residents.
The issue appears to have been raised once in May 2024 and not pursued thereafter. There is no direct evidence of more than four persons residing at the premises. On the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that an intentional breach has been established.
This claim is dismissed. Section 40(3A)(d) - (Harassment of landlord or neighbours)
The landlord seeks $3,000 alleging harassment of herself and a neighbour.
In support, she provided screenshots showing that a neighbour telephoned her twice on 19 December 2024 and once on 30 December 2024. She also states that in February the tenant contacted the neighbour seeking support in relation to her financial circumstances.
The respondent denies harassment and says she had a good relationship with the neighbour. She showed an MSD form to demonstrate that she required a witness and says this is what she asked the neighbour to sign and that the request was in the context of a friendly neighbour relationship.
The applicant produced a letter dated 8 February 2026 purportedly from the neighbour alleging the tenant had left some items in their yard. This was more than one month after the tenant had vacated. The letters appeared to be written in the landlord’s language. When questioned, the landlord initially stated they were written by the neighbour. Upon further clarification, she acknowledged that she drafted them and the neighbour signed them.
The landlord also produced text message exchanges, largely after the tenancy had ended. Although many messages were sent by the tenant, the wording makes clear they were responses to communications initiated by the landlord.
The landlord also provided letters from a health professional explaining her health status and the effect of the proceedings on her. I acknowledge the landlord’s stated health concerns and the stress she experienced. As a result she says she felt pressured to refund the bond because of the tenant’s substantial monetary claim. However, parties are entitled to file applications and pursue claims through the Tribunal. This will naturally be stressful to the other party, however this does not amount to harassment.
In assessing harassment, the Tribunal considers the nature, frequency, context, and intention of the conduct. Communications responding to messages instigated by the landlord cannot reasonably be characterised as harassment by the tenant. While relations between the parties were strained, the conduct described does not meet the statutory threshold.
The claim under s 40(3A)(d) is dismissed. Section 48(4)(b) - (Failure to permit lawful entry)
The final claim concerns an alleged breach of s 48(4)(b), namely failure to permit entry when the landlord was entitled to enter.
The landlord refers to an inspection conducted for re-tenanting purposes between 18 and 30 December 2024. She alleges that during this inspection the respondent yelled at a prospective tenant, causing them to leave.
The respondent denies this and says she cooperated with the inspection, merely pointing out issues with the property.
Even accepting the landlord’s description, the conduct described does not establish that entry was refused or prevented within the meaning of s 48(4)(b). The section concerns a tenant failing to allow entry when the landlord is lawfully entitled to enter. It does not extend to disputes arising during an inspection.
This claim is dismissed. The filing fee:
I do not consider this application to be wholly or substantially successful. Both parties have had applications to the tribunal and each party can bear their own fee. Suppression:
The applicant seeks name suppression under s 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The applicant has not been wholly or substantially successful and therefore does not qualify for automatic suppression.
This tenancy has been contentious and the parties appear to be part of the same community. In those circumstances, granting suppression for only one party would risk creating an incomplete or misleading public record of the outcome. The Tribunal must balance privacy interests against the principle of open justice.
I am not satisfied there are special circumstances justifying suppression. The application for name suppression is therefore declined. H Ben Fayed 18 February 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5394582 — Rent arrears at 18 Mandarin Place, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5394582 — Rent arrears at 18 Mandarin Place, Half Moon Bay, Auckland 2012

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Is the respondent liable for the rent arrears?

Is the respondent liable for the electricity reconnection fee?

Is the respondent liable for the remainder of the costs?

Did the tenant commit unlawful acts for which exemplary damages are payable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Is the respondent liable for the rent arrears?

Is the respondent liable for the electricity reconnection fee?

Is the respondent liable for the remainder of the costs?

Did the tenant commit unlawful acts for which exemplary damages are payable?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions