What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4916458 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant’s] name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4916458?

Rent On Fixed Term: ¾ Of: $8,400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $238.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916458?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916458?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11387664-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4916458 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant’s] name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4916458?

Rent On Fixed Term: ¾ Of: $8,400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $238.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916458?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916458?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11387664-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

212 East Coast Road, Castor Bay, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4916458 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4916458 — net $5,038.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent on fixed term: ¾ of	$8,400.00	Rent on fixed term: ¾ of
Water rates	$238.15	Water rates
Net award	$5,038.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,038.15

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4916458 — net $5,038.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent on fixed term: ¾ of	$8,400.00	Rent on fixed term: ¾ of
Water rates	$238.15	Water rates
Net award	$5,038.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,038.15

Order

[The tenant’s] name and identifying details must not be published.
[The tenant] must immediately pay Bayleys Real Estate Limited as agent for R B & S F Zhu Family Trust $5,038.15, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is directed to immediately release the bond of $3,600.00 to Bayleys Real Estate Limited as agent for R B & S F Zhu Family Trust.
All other claims are dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Rent on fixed term: ¾ of $12,600.00$8,400.00 Water rates$238.15 Total award$8,638.15 Bond$3,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,038.15

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing in person. 1
Anna Zhou attended for the landlords’ agent.
The tenant claims the landlord unreasonably withheld consent for her to sublet the premises and was too selective in choosing a replacement tenant and was not reasonably diligent in finding a replacement tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation for wall damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
Tenancy began on 29 March 2024. The tenant committed to a fixed term tenancy which was to run until 28 March 2025.
When the tenant moved in, she was disappointed to find that some of the blinds were mouldy, and there was plaster left on one of the bedroom room’s floors where contractors had been repairing some holes in the gib. There were wall repairs in other rooms that had been plastered but not painted. She also found that the gas cooker was not working properly.
The tenant owned a home near to the premises with her husband but had decided to live separately from her husband. The tenant initially lived at the premises with her mother and two children. Not long after the tenancy began, the tenant’s mother and children moved out.
On 13 May 2024, the tenant emailed the landlord for permission to sublet the premises. The landlord refused that request. However, the landlord agreed to relet the premises if the tenant paid a $1,150.00 break fee. In addition to the break fee, the tenant had to pay the weekly rent until a new tenancy commenced.
The tenant reunited with her husband and moved out of the premises on 7 June 2024. By that time she had brought in two flatmates who contributed $400.00 per week for rent and utility costs.
On 20 May 2024, the tenant paid the agreed break fee to the landlord.
The tenant paid rent to 20 June 2024.
At the time of the discussions in May, the landlord erroneously thought that the tenant had been subletting the premises and that she had damaged the premises’ walls. 1 I heard this matter on Friday 31 January 2025.
The tenant had put up some MDF boards to separate off bedroom spaces for more privacy. However, the boards were not attached to the walls; they were held in place by furniture. The landlord’s manager (not the property manager who conducted the inspections) wrongly concluded that the MDF boards had caused damage to the walls. However, the only wall damage was pre-existing damage that the landlord had not fully repaired prior to the tenant’s tenancy beginning.
The two people who were still in the premises after the tenant left were not sub- tenants. They were the landlord’s flatmates. The landlord thought – no doubt partly because of the tenant installing the boards to partition the premises - that the tenant’s flatmates were sub-tenants and demanded the tenants to move out.
The landlord, an experienced property manager, had begun advertising for new tenants after the tenant paid the break fee.
Naturally, the tenant who was still having to pay $900.00 weekly rent until new tenants were found, was eager to help find new tenants for the premises. She also advertised for new tenants and referred several prospective tenants to the landlord.
The tenant became increasingly concerned that the landlord was not exercising reasonable diligence and was being too selective in obtaining new tenants. She believes the landlord unreasonably rejected or did not follow up on several prospective tenants she introduced.
On 23 June 2024, the tenant We-Chatted the landlord to ask the landlord about accepting prospective tenants who were WINZ beneficiaries. The landlord responded: Landlord said they wouldn’t consider WINZ clients at this time.
Eventually, the landlord found a new tenant who moved into the premises on 27 September 2024, more than four months after the tenant paid the break fee.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices.
An order is made for water rates in the amount of $238.15. The amount sought by the landlord, $482.09 is reduced because the tenant was invoiced for water use that predated the tenancy and the premises had a leak by the roadside water meter that inflated the tenant’s final invoice.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed the tenant damaged the premises’ walls.
The landlord’s claim was misconceived.
The damage the landlord attributed to the tenant existed prior to the tenancy beginning.
This claim is dismissed.

Did landlord breach a duty to permit subletting?

The tenant already had flatmates in place, who she could have sublet the premises too after she moved out. She claims the landlord unreasonably withheld its consent to allow her to sublet the premises.
However, landlords have the power to refuse tenants permission to sublet if it is a term of the tenancy agreement under s 44(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which provides: 44 Subletting or parting with possession by tenant (1) There may be included in a tenancy agreement a provision that expressly and unconditionally prohibits the tenant from subletting or parting with possession of the premises during the term of the tenancy.
The parties’ tenancy agreement at Part 4 includes a prohibition on subletting:
The Tenant(s) shall not assign sub-let or part with any possession or chattels belonging to the property during the term of the tenancy. Tenants are jointly and severally liable for debts arising from this tenancy.
The tenant did not have a legal right to sublet.
This claim is dismissed.

Did landlord seek a new tenant with reasonable diligence?

The tenant submitted the landlord was not reasonably diligent in finding a new tenant. She says the landlord’s property manager was slow to respond to enquiries and failed to accept prospective tenants the tenant referred to the landlord.
Moreover, the landlord rejected prospective tenants who were on benefits, which it was not entitled to do.
The landlord submitted that it did pursue re-letting the premises with due diligence and only rejected prospective tenants for legitimate reasons such as the applicant group having excessive numbers. The reason it took so long to find a new tenant was that it was Winter, a slow time of year for rentals.

Did the landlord exclude beneficiaries from consideration?

The tenant’s We-Chat evidence has the landlord’s property manager plainly stating that the landlord would not consider WINZ clients.
Ms Zhou says that the We-Chat message was inaccurate. The landlord was happy to accept beneficiaries. It was just that the message-writer had poor Chinese writing skills.
It is unlawful to discrimination against beneficiaries in letting premises.
Section 12 of the RTA provides: 12 Discrimination to be unlawful act (1) Each of the following is hereby declared to be an unlawful act: (a)discrimination against any person in respect of the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination, or renewal of a tenancy agreement in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993; ...
Under s 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993, being a recipient of a benefit is a protected category of person: 21 Prohibited grounds of discrimination (1) For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are - ... (k) employment status, which means— (i) being unemployed; or (ii) being a recipient of a benefit as defined in Schedule 2 of the Social Security Act 2018 or an entitlement under the Accident Compensation Act 2001...
I find it improbable that the landlord’s property manager’s Chinese text ability was so bad it misstated such a basis response as to whether WINZ beneficiaries were acceptable. In any event even if the We-Chat message was mis-speaking and inadvertent, the result was the same.
The relevance in this case is not the breach itself because the tenant did not claim for that and probably had no standing to do so. The relevance here is that by discounting (whether intentionally or not) a whole group of potential tenants, the landlord may have taken longer to find a tenant than it otherwise would have.
There is no cogent evidence that any particular tenant on a benefit would have been suitable. It was not established, for example, that genuine prospective tenants who were on a benefit would have passed other checks on their character and financial circumstances and did not have other factors that would have excluded them from consideration.
Nonetheless, the landlord’s stance on beneficiaries lessened the probability of it finding a replacement tenant sooner.

Did the landlord otherwise act with reasonable diligence?

The tenant alluded to various instances of the landlord allegedly failing to act with reasonable diligence and being too selective on what tenants it would accept.
However, Ms Zhou answered each allegation. The prospective tenants were either unsuitable or did not respond when the landlord attempted to make contact with them.
Another factor that may have potentially affected the rentability of the premises was the landlord’s failure to properly repair the partially repaired walls. The landlord presented the premises in a damaged state to this tenant and perversely blamed her for the damage. The landlord should have known the condition of the premises and should have properly repaired the premises to maximise its appeal. Again, however, it is not proven the damage did add to the time it took to relet. Discussion
I am satisfied the landlord failed to seek new tenants with reasonable diligence by excluding beneficiaries as prospective tenants.
It is more probable than not that this contributed to the landlord taking more than four months to find a new tenant. It is not possible to identify an exact date on which the landlord would have found a tenant if it had not excluded beneficiaries. Under s 85(2) of the RTA, the Tribunal must decide cases in accordance with legal principles and the substantial merits. That subsection provides: (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
The Tribunal therefore needs to make a fair, proportionate order based on the circumstances.
Upon reflection, I consider it fair to order the tenant to reimburse the landlord for two-thirds of the outstanding rent, which amounts to $8,400.00. Filing fee
No order is made for the filing fee as both parties have had a fair measure of success. Bond
The bond is to be released to the landlord in part-payment of the tenant’s debt. Non-publication
The tenant seeks an order for non-publication.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 2
The tenant has substantially succeeded in these proceedings by significantly reducing the monetary amounts the landlord sought against her. Publication is not in the public interest or justified by the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances.
Non-publication of her name and identifying details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4916458 — Tenancy dispute at 212 East Coast Road, Castor Bay, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4916458 — Tenancy dispute at 212 East Coast Road, Castor Bay, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did landlord breach a duty to permit subletting?

Did landlord seek a new tenant with reasonable diligence?

Did the landlord exclude beneficiaries from consideration?

Did the landlord otherwise act with reasonable diligence?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did landlord breach a duty to permit subletting?

Did landlord seek a new tenant with reasonable diligence?

Did the landlord exclude beneficiaries from consideration?

Did the landlord otherwise act with reasonable diligence?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions