What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5074693?

The tribunal order states: XiaoHua Wang must pay Chen-Chia Shih as agent for Patricia Duke $2,809.71

How much money was awarded in case 5074693?

Water Rates: $627.41 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to maintain pa…: $216.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain wi…: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $6,685.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5074693?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5074693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11737260-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5074693?

The tribunal order states: XiaoHua Wang must pay Chen-Chia Shih as agent for Patricia Duke $2,809.71

How much money was awarded in case 5074693?

Water Rates: $627.41 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Failure to maintain pa…: $216.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Failure to maintain wi…: $60.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $6,685.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5074693?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5074693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11737260-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Ohinerau Street, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5074693 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5074693 — net $2,809.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 November 2024	$6,685.71		Rent arrears to 22 November 2024
By consent: Water rates	$627.41		By consent: Water rates
Compensation: Failure to maintain window latch		$60.00	Failure to maintain window latch
Compensation: Failure to maintain paint and draught		$216.00	Failure to maintain paint and draught
Total award	$7,313.12	$276.00
Net award	$2,809.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,809.71

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5074693 — net $2,809.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 22 November 2024	$6,685.71		Rent arrears to 22 November 2024
By consent: Water rates	$627.41		By consent: Water rates
Compensation: Failure to maintain window latch		$60.00	Failure to maintain window latch
Compensation: Failure to maintain paint and draught		$216.00	Failure to maintain paint and draught
Total award	$7,313.12	$276.00
Net award	$2,809.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,809.71

Order

XiaoHua Wang must pay Chen-Chia Shih as agent for Patricia Duke $2,809.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,227.41 (3162791-013) to Chen-Chia Shih as agent for Patricia Duke immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 27 March 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water rates, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has filed a cross-application seeking compensation for breach of the landlord’s obligations under section 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant has also applied for a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they 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 this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo 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 of 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 do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
I deal with the landlord’s claims first and tenant’s claims second. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS Rent arrears Background
The tenancy began on 8 November 2023 and was a fixed-term tenancy to 6 November 2024.
There is a disagreement between the parties regarding the date the tenancy ended. The landlord claims the tenancy ended on 22 November 2024 and the tenant claims it ended on 6 November 2024.
When determining the landlord’s claim for rent arrears, I must make a finding regarding the date the tenancy ended. The law
The relevant section of the RTA is section 60A. This section was amended on 30 January 2025. The Tribunal applies the older version of section 60A RTA in this case, because the tenancy ended in late 2024 before the amendment occurred.
Section 60A RTA states: 60A Fixed-term tenancy becomes periodic unless contrary notice given (1) On the expiry of a fixed-term tenancy of more than 90 days, the tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy with the same terms as the terms contained in the expired tenancy so far as those terms are consistent with a periodic tenancy. (2) However, the tenancy does not continue as a periodic tenancy if – (a) Before the expiry, the parties renew or extend the existing tenancy agreement; or (b) Before the expiry, the parties agree not to continue with the tenancy; or (c) At least 28 days before the expiry, the tenant gives the landlord written notice of the tenant’s intention not to continue with the tenancy; or (d) Before the expiry, a party gives notice as mentioned in any of section 50(1)(a) to (b) that terminates the tenancy on or before the expiry or that would do if the tenancy were already periodic. ... Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord submits that the tenant gave notice on 18 September 2024 that the tenancy would end on the expiry date of 6 November 2024, but that this notice was revoked by the tenant on 27 September 2024. Thereafter, the landlord claims the parties agreed that the tenancy would end when the tenant gave the landlord 4 weeks’ notice.
The tenant claims the tenancy ended on the expiry date of 6 November 2024. The tenant gave evidence that they advised the landlord on 18 September 2024 of their intention not to continue the tenancy after the expiry date. The tenant had found a new property and asked the landlord to send the prospective landlord a reference. The tenant claims that it took the landlord too long to send the reference and the tenant missed out on this property. The tenant claims that they continued to look to find a new tenancy and that the landlord knew that they were intent on moving into a new property. Therefore, the tenant claims it should not have come as a surprise to the landlord when they advised them on 26 October 2024 that they had found a new property and that the tenancy would end on the expiry date of 6 November 2024.
The tenant gave evidence that they believed that unless they advised the landlord that they wanted to renew or extend the fixed-term tenancy, it ended on the expiry date.
Both parties submitted messages exchanged via WeChat. These messages were in Mandarin and had been translate by the parties. The interpreter confirmed the translation at the hearing. The relevant messages read: 18 September 2024 Tenant We would like to move away from the rented house. We are looking for a house now. Thank you both for the assistance. @Jerry @ Marilyn Marilyn Shih Please contact the agent They need a reference letter It is a bit urgent, Please help to arrange it Landlord @Rosie Can you give me the agent’s email? I will write it. On the other hand, please continue to pay your rent until the expiry of the tenancy. Bond will be refunded from Tenancy Services on expiry. Tenant Absolutely no problem. 27 September 2024 Tenant Hi to both of you. We are searching for new place. I am not sure whether we can vacate on the 6 th of November now. Once confirmed the new place I will give you 4-weeks-notice in advance to you. Thank you very much. Landlord Received with thanks @Rosie 18 October 2024 Landlord @Rosie, Can you please advise whether you have found an ideal place? Our agreement is expiring on 6 th of November. To the landlord, we need to find new tenant. It is unfair if you served the notice to the landlord until you are back to Auckland it will make the landlord having difficulties and loss in finding tenant on time. Can you give me a time frame with certainty? Tenant I will advise you with 4 weeks notice in advance. We are working hard on searching 26 October 2024 Tenant How are you Jerry We have decided to vacate on the 7 th as on the tenancy agreement. Thank you for looking after us Thank you again Landlord Rosie. Hua I asked you to give me a more accurate time frame previously. You replied that you will notify us with 4 weeks notice. I was considering your situation so I didn’t force yo to do so as recorded on the tenancy agreement. However, you suddenly change your mind and I think you do not respect the agreement we achieved. This is also a breach of legislation this is also showing your disrespect to the landlord. I cannot agree with your decision. I will only accept your 4 weeks termination notice as from today (26 Oct). Analysis
Under section 60A RTA, a landlord or tenant is required to give a certain amount of notice to the other party of their intention not to continue the tenancy after the expiry of the fixed-term. The required notice period can only be waived if there is agreement between the parties. The purpose of the notice requirements in section 60A RTA are to ensure that the party receiving the notice has sufficient time to prepare their affairs and is not caught off-guard.
In this case, I find that on 18 September 2024 the tenant gave the landlord notice that they did not wish to continue with the tenancy after the expiry date. This notice was given at least 28 days before the expiry date however, on 27 September 2024, I find that the tenant revoked this notice. They did this by advising the landlord that they were unsure whether they would be able to vacate the premises on 7 November 2024. The tenant advised the landlord that they would provide them with 4 weeks’ notice.
On 18 October 2024, the tenant again advised the landlord that they would provide them with 4 weeks’ notice. This message was sent in reply to a message from the landlord asking for clarity as to the end date of the tenancy. Understandably, the landlord wanted to know when the tenancy was ending so that they could have time to find a new tenant and minimise any financial loss from the property being vacant. The landlord accepted the tenant’s offer to provide them with 4 weeks’ notice.
On 26 October 2024, the tenant advised the landlord that they had found a new property and the tenancy would end on 7 November 2024. This notice was given only 10 days before the expiry date. The landlord did not agree to end the tenancy on the expiry date with such short notice.
On the balance of probabilities, I find that the parties agreed that the tenancy would end on the expiry of 4 weeks’ notice given by the tenant.
The tenant gave the landlord notice to end the tenancy on 26 October 2024. The date that is 4 weeks later is 22 November 2024. This is the date the tenancy ended and the tenant is liable to pay rent up to this date.
The landlord submitted a rent summary which shows rent arrears are $6,685.71 up to 22 November 2024. The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted in full for this amount. Water rates
The tenant did not dispute the landlord’s claim for outstanding water rates totalling $627.41. TENANT’S CLAIMS Healthy homes standards The law
Section 45(1)(bb) RTA states: The landlord shall comply with the healthy homes standards.
The healthy homes standards are found in the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019. These regulations provide a minimum set of requirements for residential tenancies in relation to heating, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture and drainage. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the property is not healthy homes compliant.
The tenant gave evidence that there was a significant amount of condensation and mould in the house, including in the wardrobes. The tenant also gave evidence that her son and mother got sick very often. The tenant states that her son and mother have asthma, which was bad during the tenancy and they also developed red spots on their skin.
The tenant submitted two photographs taken underneath the house. The tenant also submitted photographs of small mould spots on the ceiling and mould on a wooden chest of drawers.
The landlord gave evidence that the property was healthy homes compliant and submitted an assessment report dated 22 December 2020. The report records that the property complies with the healthy homes standards in all respects.
The landlord gave further evidence that no previous tenants have raised any concerns about moisture or mould. The landlord also states that a tradesperson was sent to the address during the course of the tenancy after receiving a complaint from the tenant. The landlord claims the insulation was patched and levelled out. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019 are complex. The Tribunal usually requires the assistance of an expert to help determine whether a property is healthy homes compliant or not. In this case, the tenant has not submitted any expert evidence or their own healthy homes report. I am unable to determine from the photographs alone whether the property meets the healthy homes standards.
The landlord has submitted an expert report that states the property is compliant. Whilst it is relatively dated, more evidence than photographs of small amounts of mould or underfloor insulation is needed to prove that it does not meet the healthy homes standards on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant bares the onus of proving that the property does not meet the healthy home standards on the balance of probabilities. In the absence of any expert evidence, I am unsure whether this is the case or not. The tenant has not proven their claim and it is dismissed. Failure to maintain The law
Section 45(1)(b) RTA states: (1) The landlord shall – ... (a) Provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes; and ...
It is well settled that a landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA are to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. As to what is a reasonable will depend upon the gravity of the problem and objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate and remedy the problem. 1
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach. 2 However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair or the need for repair was apparent from observation. 3
There is a failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-compliant or unsafe. 4
The tenant claims the landlord failed to remedy the following issues within a reasonable timeframe: a. Crack in a window frame; b. Paint peeling from window frame; c. Draught stopping tape peeling away inside a window frame; and d. Broken latch on window frame.
The tenant submitted photographs of the above. These show some small cracks in the pain of the window frame where the timber joins. There is also some paint peeling on the face of the wooden windows. There is a photograph of a window latch, which the tenant says was broken. There are also some photographs of draught stopping tape peeling away.
The tenant submitted WeChat messages sent to the landlord in July 2024. The first message sent to the landlord on 2 July 2024 states: This is the current condition of the master bedroom and ensuite windows. There is significant water on the window ledge and the paint has cracked.
The tenant attached three photographs to this message which show the paint peeling from the face of the window frames and the window latch. The tenant did not submit any photographs of the draught stopping tape peeling away to the landlord in this message.
The tenant submitted other WeChat messages sent to the landlord. In one of these messages, the tenant mentions the draught stopping tape stating: 1 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 2 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT 1848/1, 27 May 2002 at [13]. 3 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Case DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 4 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. I understand that you are not professionals, but because the insulation of the house and window seals have affected our physical and mental health, this is not something that can be fixed by doing maintenance. Please reply to us ASAP.
The tenant claims that the window latch was repaired sometime in mid-August 2024, but none of the other issues were repaired by the time the tenant vacated the premises on 7 November 2024.
The landlord accepts that the window latch was the only item to be repaired. The landlord claims it took some time to find a replacement latch or missing screw, because of the age of the window latch. The landlord called their builder/handyman “Ted” as a witness. Ted gave evidence confirming that the latch was fixed sometime in mid-August 2024. Ted did not give any evidence about there being a delay due to the difficulty in finding a replacement latch or screw.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant was in Australia and the repair could only be completed when they returned. The landlord claims that whilst repairs could have been completed with the tenant’s consent when the tenant was absent, out of courtesy, the landlord prefers to complete repairs when the tenant is home.
Regarding the peeling paint on the window frame, the landlord gave evidence that this was not fixed, because it is a very big job that requires a lot of sanding and the tenant would most likely have had to vacate the property.
Regarding the peeling draught stopping paint, the landlord gave evidence that the defect was not fairly brought to their attention by the tenant. Analysis
I find there was an unreasonable delay in fixing the window latch. It was reported to the landlord on 2 July 2024 and was not fixed until mid-August 2024, which is approximately 6 weeks later. I do not accept the landlord’s evidence that the delay was due to the age of the latch and difficulty in finding a replacement latch or screw. No evidence from the landlord’s builder was given to support this.
The broken latch is a small issue, but I accept that it posed a safety concern for the tenant. In all the circumstances, I consider compensation equivalent to $10.00 per week to be reasonable.
The tenant’s claim for compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the window latch is granted for a total of $60.00.
I also find there was an unreasonable delay in fixing the cracked and peeling paint on the window frame, as well as the peeling draught stopping seal. These issues were first reported to the landlord in early July 2024 and not remedied by the date the tenant vacated the premises on 6 November 2024, which is a period of approximately 18 weeks. I do not accept the landlord’s evidence that sanding and repainting the window frame was a big job that would have required the tenant to vacate the premises.
I accept the landlord’s submission that the issue regarding the peeling draught stopping seal was not brought to the landlord’s attention in an obvious way. The tenant only mentioned it once in the WeChat messages submitted by them and no photographs were sent to the landlord.
I consider the cracked and peeling paint to primarily be a cosmetic issue. Baring this in mind, together with the factors noted above, I consider compensation of $12.00 per week to be reasonable.
The tenant’s claim for compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the cracked and peeling paint on the window frame, as well as the peeling draught stop seal is granted for a total of $216.00.

BOND

The bond paid by the tenant was $4,800.00. The Bond Centre has confirmed that the tenant received a partial refund of $572.59 on 16 December 2024, leaving a balance of $4,227.41.
The bond is to be refunded to the landlord in full.

FILING FEE

Both parties have been successful with their claim and therefore, I do not order that either party reimburse the filing fee.
Neither party applied for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5074693 — Rent arrears at 24 Ohinerau Street, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5074693 — Rent arrears at 24 Ohinerau Street, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BOND

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BOND

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions