What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5026348 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5026348?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5026348?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5026348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12839023-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5026348 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5026348?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5026348?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage, Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5026348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12839023-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

52 Union Street, Waihi, Waihi 3610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5026348 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,780.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s claim for damages are not proven and dismissed.
The landlord’s claims for rent arrears cannot be determined until the High Court appeal has been heard. Once the appeal has been determined the landlord can seek to have this matter re-opened and the rent arrears determined.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 4 December 2025.
This tenancy has a long history of litigation in both the Tribunal and in the District Court.
The tenancy began on the 21 June 2018 and ended on the 19 August 2024. On the 10 October 2024 the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears, water rates and compensation for damage to the property. The landlord sought in her application. • Rent arrears $13,325.74. • Water rates owing of $70.00. • Wallpaper $1845.00 • Wallpaper installation $9845.00 • Garage door installation and shipping $945.00 • Window glass replacement $600.00 • Fascia nail hole repair $625.00 • Lock change $42.36 • Letterbox replacement $116.40 • Mowing $135.00 • Alarm $36.00 • Damaged roof $1150.00 • Rubbish cleaning $170.00 • Curtain Replacement $1800.00 • Filing fee $27.00
The landlord’s claim had to be put on hold until an appeal of a previous Tribunal decision (TT 4574589/4562298) was held. That appeal was determined on the 22 May 2025. 1
The matter was set down for a case conference on the 18 September 2025. As the landlord was overseas at that time I vacated the case conference and ordered that the matter be set down for a full day hearing with me. I also ordered that the landlord file any additional documents in support of her claim by the 1 October 2025. The landlord subsequently filed additional documents including a amended claim on the 30 September 2025.
The landlord now seeks as per her amended claim: • Rent $745.71 • Wallpaper – excess $750.00 • Wallpaper installation – excess $750.00 • Garage door replacement -$1,265.00 • Window glass replacement - $278.63. • Window frame replacement- $761.63 • Fascia nail hole damage- $625.00 • Lock change- $42.36 • Letterbox replacement $116.40 • Mowing and rubbish cleaning $717.50 • Smoke alarm replacement $36.00 1 Zhang v Tenant 2024-075-000144 [2025] NZDC 10721, [22 May 2025]. • Damage to covering $750.00 • Carpet replacement - $3,384.68 • Insurance excesses- unspecified $6,000.

Can the Tribunal hear the claims?

The parties have been the same parties to two previous Tenancy Tribunal cross applications 4515570/4530690 and TT 4574589/ 4562298.
In order to prepare for the hearing, I reviewed all of the decisions, claims and evidence on each of the previous tenancy files. Some of the claims and evidence filed by the landlord in this application appear the same as claims and evidence in support of the previous claims in matters that have already been determined.
A party cannot relitigate the same issue twice. The legal principal res judicata applies. What that means is a party cannot bring another claim about the same matter that has already been determined in judicial proceedings. This includes bringing an action against a party which ought to have been properly added to the proceedings in the first instance, known as the rule in Re Henderson 2
Re Henderson was cited in another case Muir, Bradbury, Peebles and Maud v Commissioner of Inland Revenue 3 , and in particular to the paragraphs about striking out and res judicata. The High Court said (when referring to the rule in Henderson) that the question that the court (or Tribunal) should ask is “ is the question before the court one that could have been raised with reasonable diligence in the earlier proceedings ?”
In the recent decision of Cosmo Holdings Ltd v Seager Van Dyk 4 the District Court was asked to consider whether a further claim of discrimination could be brought by the landlord for an incident that was the subject of the first claim, the Court held it could not and the landlord should have properly brought the claim at the time that the first claim was heard apply the rule in Re Henderson. Ms Dai’s submissions demonstrate eloquently the fundamental basis for the principle set out in Henderson v Henderson. In support of the discrimination case, the appellants seek to cast a different light on the events in the lead up to the end of the tenancy. Those events were the subject of the first Tribunal decision (and the evidence about those events is not before me). The appellants do not get another bite at that cherry. To allow the appellants to revisit aspects 2 Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313. 3 Muir, Bradbury, Peebles and Maud v Commissioner of Inland Revenue CIV-2011-404-1132 [2015] NZHC 792A, 4 Cosmo Holdings Ltd v Seager Van Dyk [2025] NZDC 18684 of the first Tribunal decision is an abuse of the courts process. The appellants had the opportunity to bring that claim in the course of those initial proceedings but did not do so. As set out in Henderson, it does not matter whether that was through choice or inadvertence.
The Court went so far as to say that the only error the Tribunal had made was in hearing the landlord’s second claim, it should have been struck out before then.
This means the Tribunal must answer two preliminary questions before considering each of the landlord’s claims, which are:- • Has the landlord brought these claims to the Tribunal or Court before? and if not; • Should those claims have been brought to the Tribunal at the same time as the other proceedings?
It is only if the answer to both of those questions is no, that the Tribunal can proceed to hear the landlord’s claims. The burden of proof and evidence.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
I confirm that before completing this decision I have thoroughly reviewed the evidence provided by both parties in this application and the previous applications before the Tribunal. I have also read the two District Court appeal decisions. 5 Why I did not accept further evidence at the hearing. 5 Zhang v Tenant 2023-075-00052 [2024] NZDC 7915, [11 April 2024] and Zhang v Tenant 2024-075- 0000144 [2025] NZDC 10721, [22 May 2025].
This matter has been before the Tribunal for just over a year waiting for the appeal to be heard before it could be scheduled for hearing. For some of the time Ms Zhang was out of the country. On the 12 September 2025 I made the following order after setting the matter down for a full day hearing: The landlord is to file any further documents that she wishes to rely on in support of her claims by the 1 October 2025.
Ms Zhang filed further documents on the 30 September 2025. At the hearing Ms Zhang sought to produce and file further documents including photographs of the property. I did not allow Ms Zhang to file those documents for the following reasons: a. Both parties in this matter have been involved in extensive litigation. They are aware of how to file documents in support of their claims and the burden of proof. Ms Zhang was given time to file any additional documents she sought to rely on. That she chose only to submit a few documents, is her choice. It would be unfair to allow her to file further photographs from her phone at the hearing. If she had wanted to bring further information, then she should have either submitted it within the past year or brought three hard copies to the hearing. b. The tenancy ended over a year ago. I consider that more than enough time for a landlord to get the evidence in order that they wish to submit to the Tribunal.
The tenant also said that she had photographs on her phone of the property that may be relevant. For the same reasons that I declined to accept the landlord’s photographs, I also declined to accept the tenant’s photographs. Other observations on burden of proof and evidence.
The landlord made reference many times during the hearing that the tenant had not provided documents to defend the claim, and this means that the tenant has not ‘proven’ her side, or what she says happen. I remind the landlord that this is her claim, it is up to the landlord to prove her claim. The absence of a counterclaim or evidence from the tenant does not mean the landlord’s claims are proven by default. The Tribunal must still be satisfied that the landlord has proven her claim on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord made a claim with her insurance company for many of the claims. She has been successful with much of that claim. The landlord submits that the assessor is a professional at assessing damage and that if he accepts the damage as being caused by the tenant, then so should the Tribunal. The insurance assessor was not called to give evidence at the hearing. this meant that I could not question the assessor on his qualifications, what he was told by whom, and what he saw or believed. I do not know for instance if he had independently come to his own conclusion on how the damage was done or to date it, or if he had been told that the tenant had done the damage. The insurance assessor’s written report was not filed in evidence. I was given a summary of the findings and how the compensation would be paid as well as an email from the assessor to the landlord. The relevant law in respect of damage.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 6
Fair wear and tear is the decline in the condition of a property due to ordinary, everyday use or age.
The landlord did not produce any photographs that showed the condition of the property before the tenancy started. The landlord said that at the beginning of the tenancy the landlord and the tenant went through and ticked the property inspection report appended to the tenancy agreement. The tenant denies that she did this. However, in TT 4574589/4562298 the landlord and the tenant both produced a tenancy agreement where the landlord and the tenant had ticked each item. The tenancy agreement says : “This report is intended to help avoid disputes This should be used to record the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy. The landlord (L/L) and the tenant(T) should fill out this form together and tick the appropriate box id the condition is acceptable or record any damage or defects.”
The landlord and the tenant also signed the part of the agreement that said that they had completed the inspection: [Image of signatures redacted]
Given the substantial work orders that transpired in 2023 and the age of the property, I do not consider that a simple ticking of all items gives me a clear picture of the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy although I do accept it as evidence that both parties considered that the property was in a reasonable condition at the beginning of this tenancy in 2018. 6 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord says that as soon as the tenant left, they completed a final inspection. The landlord provided me with some undated photographs, but these were often of the specific complaints of damage and were therefore confined to small areas. The photographs provided did not given me a good overall picture of the house looked like at the end of the tenancy.
There are photographs of the property online. During the hearing I displayed the photographs from [website] on the large screen in the hearing room. Both the landlord and the tenant confirmed that these were the photographs taken by [Real Estate company] who were marketing the property for sale shortly before and just after the tenancy ended. The interior photographs are clearly taken after the tenant has left, but before the landlord undertook the wallpapering and wall work. Therefore, they were taken some time between 19 August2024 and mid November 2024. The landlord says that photographs have been enhanced to show the property in a better condition than what it was in to make it more attractive to buyers. The landlord confirmed that the house had not been sold.
I have also paid particular attention to the tenant’s builder’s report dated July 2023 and accompanying photographs completed by [The builder]. That report has been submitted in evidence as Further Evidence (tenant’s name redacted) in TT 4562298 on the 4 October 2023. I note that Ms Zhang challenged [The builder]’s credentials at the hearing and whether or not he was an LBP or not, but I accept that he is a builder. His report comprehensively addresses issue at the property in July 2023 both by referring me to what is wrong and with accompany photographs, [The builder] says: “This is a basic building report for 52 Union Street Waihi for [The tenant]. General overview is the house is in poor shape and not fit for purpose to be a rental. Most of the issue’s are minor but need attention! The main concern is the roof. 2 maybe 3 sheets need replacing along with the ridge flashings. Also the old lead head nails need to be removed and replaced with screws as over time the nails rust and expand lifting the lead and allowing water to slowly come in. I have put together a few pictures and will explain them in detail.”
As [The builder] has been comprehensive in detailing the problems at the property, I have made the inference that if a problem is not noted on his report then it was more than likely not present at that date. Wallpaper.
The landlord is claiming that the tenant damaged the wallpaper and that as a result of the damage the landlord had to re wallpaper the house. The landlord is seeking two lots of the insurance excess amount of $750.00 for this claim
The landlord says that the wallpaper was new at the beginning of the tenancy, she says that both she and her husband Charlie had renovated the property over 3 months before the new tenants moved in.
She says that she had noticed some damage to the wallpaper during the tenancy and referred me to her claim for termination for damage in TT 4515570. She said that the nature and extent of the damage was not evident until the tenant had moved out, she said that wallpaper was ripped, slashed with a knife, coming off the walls and that the tenant had plastered and painted over holes in the walls. The landlord said that the tenant always had a lot of ‘stuff’ in or around the walls that meant that she could not see the walls during inspections.
The landlord says that the extent of the damage was not known until the insurance assessor showed her that the GIB under the wallpaper had holes in the wall that were not repaired. It is the landlord’s claim that the tenant cause the wall damage.
The tenant disputes the claim for the wallpaper. The tenant says that at the beginning of the tenancy both she and her partner were in emergency housing in a hotel owned and operated by Ms Zhang. They were offered the house to rent. Charlie asked them to paint the wallpaper and walls, which they did. They said Charlie brought the paint and that they did the work. The tenant says that this is why they were given the first week rent free. The tenant says neither she nor her partner were painters, but they wanted the house, so they did the paint work, she accepts that the work was not to a professional standard but says that Charlie was at the house, and he seemed happy with it.
The tenant recalls that they painted over the wallpaper that was already in place. She does not know when the wallpaper was put up, but questions why it would need painting if it was freshly hung? She says that the wallpaper was already ‘sliding’ down the wall in some places and was torn or lifting in others.
The tenant accepts that her young child ripped a small bit of wallpaper when she put her hand through it as there were hollows in the back of the wallpaper, she said this confirms that the holes in the wall were there before she was the tenant and must have been there when the wallpapering was done. The tenant says that she never slashed the wallpaper with a knife, she says that the photograph of the wallpaper that looks like it is cut is actually from the wallpaper sliding down and forming a crease.
The tenant says that the wallpaper is lifting in places, not from anything she has done but from dampness at the property. She says that when she left there was what looked like mould growing under the wallpaper in one room.
I note that the Adjudicator determined in TT 4530690/4515570 that: 24 Ms Zhang claims that [the tenant] damaged the wall in the living room of the premises. [The tenant] said that the wall underneath the wallpaper was dented before the tenancy commenced and her young child (she has a one- year-old and a four year old) pushed the wall paper with her finger which caused the damage.
Even if [the tenant] is liable for the damage to the wall (and I make no finding on that issue), the damage is minor and given the nature and extent of it would not be unfair to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the damage.
The Adjudicator in that case did not make any determination on the cause of the damage to the wallpaper except to say that it was minor and did not warrant termination.
I am not satisfied that the tenant damaged the wallpaper during the tenancy, I say this for the following reasons: a. There are no photographs that show me the condition of the walls and wallpaper at the beginning of the tenancy. Therefore, I cannot compare the condition at the end of the tenancy with that of the beginning of the tenancy. b. The tenant’s builder’s report shows wallpaper that is lifting. Wallpaper usually lifts as a result of moisture and age, this is wear and tear, not damage for which the tenant is liable. c. The photographs on [website] of the property after the tenant moved out show the ‘old wallpaper’ those photographs do not show extensive tearing or cutting or damage. It appears that the wallpaper may be lifting in places, and may be discoloured possibly by mould. If there is mould on or under the wallpaper this would be a landlord responsibility, especially as the landlord had been ordered to repair leaks at the property. d. The landlord admitted in her evidence at the hearing on the 4 December 2025 that the insurance assessor tore a piece of wallpaper off to show her the holes underneath. It is not plausible that the tenants damaged the wall, then re-wallpapered with matching wallpaper. The damage to the walls must have been pre-existing and accords with the tenant’s explanation in TT 4530690 of how her daughter put a small hole in the wallpaper because there was a hollow underneath. e. Damage to the extent that the wallpaper needed replacing throughout the whole house, would have been evident at inspections, the landlord only raised one issue about a small hole in the wallpaper in 2023; a rip in the wallpaper by the tenant’s child would not have warranted the whole house to be re-wallpapered. f. Even if I had found that the tenant had damaged the wallpaper, and I have not done so, then the wallpaper was more than 8 years old and I consider that it was likely at the end of its depreciable life.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the wallpaper is not proven and is dismissed. Windows.
The landlord produced 3 photographs of windows she says were taken at the end of the tenancy that are cracked.
The tenant says that the cracks were preexisting, and that Charlie had put silicon in the cracks to stop the cracks getting worse and to stop water coming in. She said that she had discussed the cracks with Charlie, and he had told her that they could not afford to replace them, and that insurance would not cover the repair.
I consider that at least one of the cracks occurred during the tenancy because in the tenant’s building inspectors photographs in TT 4562298/4574589 it shows one of the windows that appears to be the same and the crack does not appear to be there. I also note that the builder who completed a through building inspection does not mention the cracks in any windows, but he does note that the windowsills are sinking and the dilapidated state of one of the windows outside.
I am therefore of the view that the damage more likely than not occurred during the tenancy. However, I am unable to say with any probability how the windows were damaged. I do not know for instance if the sunken sills or old window frames have somehow contributed to the windows becoming cracked. I do not know if that occurred as a result of the storm or weather events that occurred. It would be unusual for any careless or intentional damage to cause cracking rather than breaking or shattering.
As I am unable to determine what caused the cracking the landlord has not proven that the damage is more than fair wear and tear and therefore the claim for window damage is not proven and is dismissed. Window frames.
The landlord says the window frames are damaged.
As mentioned above the tenant’s builder said in his report that frames were damaged from age, needing a repaint and seal.
The landlord seeks the cost for replacement glass and frames in the garage. The tenant says that there has never been any glass in the window in the garage and that Charlie came and boarded up the window.
I do not have any photographs that show me the condition of the garage window at the beginning of the tenancy. I am left with the landlord saying the damage occurring during the tenancy and the tenant denying that. In the absence of any corroborating documents such as photographs taken at or during the tenancy, then the landlord has not proven their claim and the claim is dismissed. The garage door.
The landlord says that the garage door needed replacement because the tenant put holes in the garage door, and when the landlord went to use the garage door, it was unable to go up properly.
The tenant denies putting nail holes in the garage door, she says that the garage door is buckled at the bottom and has been like that throughout the tenancy. She says that she hardly used the garage door because she parked her car outside and that it was difficult to lift up and down. She says that the garage door is in the same condition as at the beginning of the tenancy.
Again, without any photographs that show me the condition of the garage doors at the beginning of the tenancy, I cannot say with any probability if the garage door became damaged during this tenancy.
Even if the tenant had put holes in the garage door I would not have considered that those holes would have necessitated the replacement of the garage door, rather I consider that it was the buckling and age of the door that meant that it needed replacement. Fascia Nail hole damage.
The landlord says that during the tenancy the tenant put nails in the fascia from which she hung things from, such as her clothesline and tarpaulins.
The landlord says that the pieces of string attached to some of the nails is evidence that the tenant put the nails in.
The tenant says she did not put the nails in, they were already there, and she used existing nails to hang items.
I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for the damage because: a. I do not know when the nails were put in. Again, I have the landlord saying the tenant did the damage and the tenant saying she did not. b. I am not sure if the nails are damage. Some of the photographs provided by the landlord show the nails still in the fascia. If the nails are intact are in the fascia then it is unlikely that water can penetrate the hole. c. The landlord undertook this repair work themselves, but the landlord gave conflicting and confusing evidence about whether this work had been done. I am left with the view that some of this work has been done, but I am not sure what had been done. d. I do not consider it plausible or feasible that any landlord would attend to repairing holes in the fascia at this cost, when there is larger remedial work and watertightness issues to be completed to the roof. If the landlord is under some financial pressure, as the landlord disclosed at hearing then I would expect that the landlord would put their resources into completing the jobs that they were ordered to do by the Tribunal and making the house weathertight. Lock change.
The landlords say that they needed to change the lock at the end of the tenancy because the tenant had not handed back the key.
The tenant says that she only ever had one key. This is also recorded in the tenancy agreement. She says that at the end of the tenancy she left the key in the letterbox late at night and texted the landlord. The landlord confirms that they received a text or email from the tenant that said that the key was in the letterbox but says that the key was not there.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant did not give back the key. The tenant says she did, the landlord says she didn’t. I would have expected if the landlord did not have the key, that the landlord would have responded to the tenant or the tenant’s lawyer saying that the key had not been given back.
The landlord has not proven her claim for lock replacement and her claim for lock replacement is dismissed. The letterbox.
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the letterbox, the tenant says it has been that way throughout her tenancy.
The landlord produced a photograph of the damaged letterbox, full of paper and mail. The photograph is undated, so I do not know when it was taken.
I also do not have a photograph of the condition of the letterbox at the beginning of the tenancy. In the absence of any other corroborating evidence, I am unable to say with any probability when the letter box became damaged and how it was damaged. The landlord has not proven their claim. Mowing
The landlord says that the lawns needed mowing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord produced an undated photograph of the lawn.
The tenant says that she left the lawns mown, she refers to one of the photographs on homes.co.nz and says she believed that the photograph was taken soon after the tenancy ended and show the lawns as mowed.
The landlord did not have the lawns mown until October at least 6 weeks after the tenancy ended. I have no photographs of the lawns from the landlord that show me the condition of the lawns at the end of the tenancy. Lawns grow quickly in September, and I am not satisfied that the tenant should be liable for the cost of the landlord’s lawnmowing in October.
The landlord’s claim for lawnmowing is not proven and is dismissed. Rubbish removal.
The landlord produced photographs showing rubbish left in the exterior of the property. The tenant says that they left behind what was already there at the beginning of the tenancy. She says that the tires etc were already there. This is consistent with her evidence in TT 4515570/4530690
In the absence of any ingoing photographs detailing what was and was not there at the beginning of the tenancy, I am left with conflicting accounts. The landlord has not proven that the rubbish was the tenant’s rubbish and therefore the landlord’s claim for rubbish removal is dismissed. Smoke alarm replacement
The landlord says that the tenant removed two smoke alarms. The tenant says that Charlie removed those alarms and put them elsewhere.
The issue of the placement of the smoke alarms was discussed in previous tribunal hearings.
I do not know how many smoke alarms were in the house at the end of the tenancy as the landlord did not provide me with a room by room inspection report or photographs.
I am not satisfied that the tenant removed smoke alarms and therefore this claim is dismissed. Plastic roof covering in the shed
The landlord seeks the costs of replacing the clear plastic covering in the shed. The landlord submits that the covering has been damaged by the tenant placing objects on or near the covering (making a hole) or heat or chemicals caused from the tenant using an LPG cylinder. She has produced photographs of the covering showing a hole in the covering and discolouration of the plastic.
The tenant denies that she has ever used an LPG cylinder in the shed, or that there has been a fire or other heat source. She also says that the items she stored in or around that area did not make any damage. She said that this claim was raised by the landlord at previous proceedings and produced a FENZ report, completed by [The expert], (who has completed the expert witness course in fire investigation) that was completed on 17 January 2024 on whether LPG or a fire source could have caused the damage to the plastic roof. That report and the accompanying photographs categorically exclude the cause of the damage to the plastic roofing as being from heat or fire it says. An examination of the structure of the carport [shed] area gave no evidence of any fire event having occurred in the area. No evidence of any soot or charring damage from a fire was observed. There was no damage to the timber structure of the carport
The landlord submitted that she believes that the tenant has removed the clear plastic roofing sheets and turned them over so that the damage is more apparent on the exterior than the interior. The landlord produced no evidence to support her theory.
The tenant says that there is a large tree that overhung the shed and she believes that the staining and damage has been caused by leaf or branch fall.
I am not satisfied that the damage to the roof was caused by the tenant. The fire report excludes the possibility of fire or heat damaging the plastic roofing in the manner that the landlord claimed, there is no evidence to support the landlord’s claim that the covering has been damaged by the way the tenant stored items, or from a heat or fire source.
I also note that the landlord referred to this damage in TT 4574589 in a document entitled additional evidence, submitted to the Tribunal on the 4 October 2023 where Ms Zhang submitted: [The tenant] intentionally damaged the premises (see Substantial Damage updated) and neglected to report incidents, which left the pergola significantly burnt.
Ms Zhang made, and the Tribunal determined the Landlords claims for damage in TT4574589. It appears that this claim has already been determined by the Tribunal, or alternatively that Ms Zhang was aware of the damage before 4574589 was determined and should have properly raised that claim at that time.
The landlord’s claim for damage to the plastic roofing is not proven and therefore dismissed. Curtains.
The landlord in her updated claim sheet, confirmed that she was not seeking the cost of the curtains. Carpet.
The landlord is seeking the cost of the replacement carpet which she says that the tenant has stained.
The issue of carpet staining was claimed as part of the TT4574589, the landlord submitted a quote dated April 2023 for the replacement carpet as part of those proceedings.
The landlord purchased the property in 2016, the carpet was in place at the time. The landlord says that the carpet was in very good condition at the beginning of the tenancy and is now in poor condition and stained. The landlord says that the staining occurred during the tenancy. She says that her insurance company has accepted that the damage was caused by the tenant, and I should accept that as well. She seeks the balance of the price of the replacement carpet.
I do not consider that the landlord is able to relitigate the issue of the carpet. The claim for damage to the carpet should have properly been brought at the same time as the landlord sought termination for the damage to the carpet pursuant to the rule in Re Henderson.
Notwithstanding the above, I record that I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for the carpet for the following reasons: a. The carpet in the [website] photographs appear older than the depreciable lifespan of the carpet. b. There are no corresponding photographs showing the condition of the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy. I am therefore unable to say when the carpet became stained. c. The tenant provided photographs in the first application 4530690 that showed a picture of the carpet underneath the heat pump, which the tenant claimed was leaking and which the Tribunal made a work order that it was to be assessed. The picture of the carpet shows some discolouration which the tenant said that the time was from the leaks. I consider it more likely that any damage to the carpet, if any was caused by the leaking not by the tenant carelessly or intentionally damaging the carpet. d. The photographs of the carpet in [The builder]’s report provided in evidence in TT 4574589/4562298 show carpet that is worn in places such as the front door. I do not consider that carpet that is worn to that extent was likely to be in ‘very good condition as submitted by the landlord. e. The landlord has not provided an invoice for the carpet replacement, only a quote. f. The landlord says that the carpet has been replaced but has provided no evidence (such as an invoice or photographs) that prove that this is the case. g. As mentioned above in this decision, I am not bound by the decisions of the insurance assessor. I do not know what the insurance assessor was told or how they came to their conclusions. Rent.
The landlord is seeking rent arrears. When the landlord first submitted their claim they were seeking $13,325.74, now the landlord is seeking $745.71.
At the time that the landlord filed this claim the landlord had a live appeal in the District Court regarding a decision by another Adjudicator not to grant a rehearing. If that appeal had been successful, it would have had the effect of the Tribunal rehearing a number of claims including the amount of rent to paid per week. Therefore, I adjourned the hearing of this claim until after the appeal was heard, so as not to prejudice both parties’ positions.
In or about June 2025 the Tribunal was advised that the District Court had heard the appeal and that the appeal was dismissed, meaning that this matter could now be heard.
At the hearing of the 4 December 2025, Ms Zhang advised that she had appealed the District Court decision to the High Court in June this year. I do not know the status or outcome of that appeal.
I cannot make any determination on the rent owed, if any, until that appeal is heard. I therefore have not made any determination on the rent. Once the appeal has been determined the landlord may seek to reopen this claim only in relation to the claim for rent arrears and I will determine that claim. The bond
I do not consider it fair for the tenant to be deprived of her bond awaiting the High Court Appeal. I say this because the tenancy has been over now for over a year. Most of the claims have been determined. The landlord has not paid the tenant any monies awarded to the tenant by the Tribunal, this is despite the District Court confirming that Ms Zhang was to pay the amounts awarded immediately in May 2025. Ms Zhang has not provided any evidence that the District Court’s decision has been stayed and in fact only raised that she appealed that decision at hearing on the 4 December 2025, 6 months after she says she filed an appeal against the District Court’s decision. It would be unfair to stop the tenant having access to her bond. Name suppression.
The tenant has been successful in her defence of the claims. She is granted name suppression as requested.
The landlord has sought name suppression. She has not been successful in her claims and therefore she is not granted name suppression. There is public interest in knowing the names of unsuccessful litigants in the tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5026348 — Rent arrears at 52 Union Street, Waihi, Waihi 3610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5026348 — Rent arrears at 52 Union Street, Waihi, Waihi 3610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Can the Tribunal hear the claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Can the Tribunal hear the claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions