What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5080514?

The tribunal order states: Jinru Jia and Wen Li to pay Auckland City-Living Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5080514?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,104.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080514?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11513691-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5080514?

The tribunal order states: Jinru Jia and Wen Li to pay Auckland City-Living Management Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5080514?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,104.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080514?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11513691-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Cotesmore Way, Parnell, Auckland 1010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5080514 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5080514 — net $3,131.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,104.71	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,131.71
Bond	$3,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,131.71

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5080514 — net $3,131.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,104.71	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,131.71
Bond	$3,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,131.71

Order

Jinru Jia and Wen Li to pay Auckland City-Living Management Limited As Agent For Jack Ho $3,131.71 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,160.00 (5025584-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Auckland City-Living Management Limited As Agent For Jack Ho: $3,131.71 Jinru Jia and Wen Li: $28.29
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by both the landlord and tenants.
Both parties appeared at the hearing in Auckland today.

BACKGROUND

The background in this case is reasonably complicated.
The landlord is Jack Ho, by way of an agent, property manager Auckland City Living Management Ltd. The two respondents are Wen Li and Jinru Jia, but as will be discussed shortly, there is an initial matter to consider, that is whether the respondents are tenants at these premises.
A tenancy commenced on 17 March 2024, and was a fixed-term tenancy to 16 March 2025. The original tenants were Wanping Shi, Melissa Tu Linh Bui. Those two tenants signed the agreement. I note however that the written tenancy agreement includes a box further down for “other tenants” and in that box is recorded Wen Li, however Ms Li did not sign that agreement. It is not entirely clear to me whether Ms Li would be considered a tenant on that agreement at the time, but nothing turns on that.
Both parties agree that the original tenants (Ms Shi and Ms Bui) moved out of the tenancy in April, and Ms Li continued living there, and in addition a new tenant moved in, Ms Jia. Precisely what happened then is disputed between the parties.
As I understand matters, Ms Li disputes that she was ever a tenant, she considers that while she signed a tenancy agreement on 13 August 2024, she did not know what she was agreeing to.
I have not received evidence from Ms Jia on the position she takes, but she was represented by a representative at the hearing today.
However, the position the landlord takes is that there was a change of tenant form completed by Ms Li and Ms Jia on 8 May 2024. A copy of that form has been produced to the Tribunal, and I accept it carries the signatures of Ms Li and Ms Jia, and both are dated 8 May 2024.
The landlord stated that what happened was another copy of the full tenancy agreement was provided in late April 2024 to Ms Li and Ms Jia, which was identical to the tenancy agreement for the original tenants, other than the tenant’s names. The intention was to update the tenancy agreement to the new tenants. However the landlord states this new tenancy agreement was not signed by the tenants until 13 August 2024. We Chat messages
The best evidence I have to resolve this conflict, is a range of We Chat messages that have been provided, and that supports the history as the landlord has presented it.
In relation to those messages, on 25 April 2024, one of the original tenants messaged, saying: Hello, I would like to ask, if I want to move out but have already found someone new, can you re-sign the contract?
The next two messages that same day are from Mr Li, who says: I can sigh I can sign with another girl
The landlord replied saying there would be a fee, with Ms Li questioning that, saying:

Do I still have to pay the fee even if I am the tenant?

That does provide a strong inference that Ms Li considered she was an original tenant, but the landlord responded that because Ms Li was “not on the contract” that they would need to resign.
The messages then record that Ms Jia moved in, and the landlord requested her details.
There was then a discussion about the bond. It was agreed that the incoming tenants (Ms Li and Ms Jia), would pay the outgoing tenants the bond directly, and it seems that occurred. That means the bond in the Bond Centre remained in place, but there then needed to be a change of tenant form completed so that the bond was officially under Ms Li and Ms Jia’s names.
On 7 May 2024, the landlord sent a change of tenant form to the tenants, which was plainly the bond transfer form. In that regard the landlord records that “All four people need to sign this for transferring the deposit”. It appears that Ms Jia signed and returned that form on 8 May 2024.
Also on 7 May 2024, the landlord emailed Ms Li, requesting her to complete a ‘Tenancy application form’. I presume that was in order to get Ms Li’s details, with the landlord writing that “I am working on your contract with the new tenant”. There are further discussions around a third tenant needing to go on the contract.
In any event, on 7 May 2024 the landlord sent the updated tenancy agreement in a file labelled “RTA 2 Cotesmore New”, saying in the message “contract”.
At some stage, the relationship between Ms Jia and Ms Li broke down, and they requested to end the tenancy early. In one of the tenants application forms, the situation was described as follows: Because I had an argument with my roommate and could no longer share the house, I have moved out and rented another house. The living expenses given by my family are not enough for me to pay the rent for two houses. The other two roommates refused to pay any fees. I cannot bear all the rent by myself until the agency finds a new tenant.
On 10 August 2024 Ms Li returned the Change of Tenant form, which I understand was the bond transfer form. That would seem to be on a separate form to that returned by Ms Jia (meaning one tenant’s signature on each form), with Ms Li suggesting that the landlord “splice” the forms together. Ms Li stated at the hearing today that she did not read the form, she just signed it, thinking it was a bond refund form.
Also on 10 August 2024, Ms Jia messaged the landlord claiming that she signed the tenancy agreement as she was bullied to sign it.
It seems that the ‘new’ tenancy agreement was not signed by both Ms Li and Ms Jia, so on 12 August 2024 the landlord sent that form to them again. The tenant replied that same day saying that: I am going out now. I am going to print the contract. I will definitely send it to you before 3pm.
On 13 August 2024 Ms Li signed the new agreement, and it was returned to the landlord by We Chat then. I note the tenancy agreement also includes Ms Jia’s signature – both tenants dated the document 13 August 2024.
As noted, the tenants requested to end the tenancy early. On 13 August 2024, the landlord sent Ms Li the “early check-out procedures”.
The Ms Li and Ms Jia vacated the premises on or about 25 August 2025.
The landlord advertised the tenancy, and found new tenants who moved in on 3 October 2024. Summary
In summary, the evidence is that the original tenants (Ms Bui and Ms Shi) entered into a fixed term tenancy between 17 March 2024 and 16 March 2025. However after about one month, they moved out, and the tenancy was assigned (transferred) to Ms Li and Ms Jia. That was not a new tenancy, but an assignment. That means all the rights and responsibilities transferred to Mr Jia and Ms Li.
A new tenancy agreement was provided to Ms Jia and Ms Li on 7 May 2024, to update the agreement on the basis that they were the tenants. However that was not returned to the landlord until August 2024, around the same time that the completed bond transfer form was sent from Mr Jia and Ms Li to the landlord.
The relationship between the tenants broke down, and they moved out. The landlord readvertised the premises, and the new tenants moved in on 3 October 2024. Procedural note
The landlord was the first to file an application. That came to a hearing on 14 November 2024 before adjudicator Ms Small. That hearing was adjourned.
Two applications were filed by the tenants. a. The first filed on 10 September 2024, sought a reduction of the fixed term tenancy, because the tenant had an argument with her co- tenant, and moved out, and could not afford to pay rent in two premises. b. The second was filed on 25 November 2024, and was from both tenants, seeking wide-ranging orders.
A hearing was convened in Auckland on 3 March 2025, with the assistance of an interpreter.

LANDLORDS CLAIM

The only claim from the landlord was for rent arrears of $3,104.71, being arrears as of 30 September 2024.
The landlord states that there was a falling out between the two tenants. The landlord agreed to release the original tenants from the tenancy agreement. Ultimately, a new tenant was found and they took the tenancy from 3 October 2024, but the landlord is only seeking rent arrears until 30 September 2024.
The tenant’s position is that the keys were returned in August, but the tenants claim the rent was paid up the tenancy end.
At the today I asked the tenant and representative whether any payments for rent had been made and missed from the landlords rent record. The tenant and representative confirmed the record of payments was correct. Analysis
I am satisfied that Ms Li and Ms Jia were tenants at these premises, and the tenancy was a fixed-term tenancy until 16 March 2025. I reach that view for these reasons.
The operative contract is the tenancy agreement dated 13 August 2024, signed by both Ms Li and Ms Jia. Ms Li states that she had not read the agreement and did not know what she was signing. When I consider the We Chat messages, I do not accept that Ms Li did not know she was signing a contract for the tenancy, rather the messages as I have indicated above indicate that she knew what that document related to. If Ms Li had not read the document, or obtained the support of an English translation, that would not be a ground to find the contract did not apply. The obligation was on Ms Li to know what she was agreeing to.
However, even if I were wrong in that finding, I would have concluded that when the original tenants moved out of the premises in April 2024, that Ms Li and Ms Jia took over the tenancy by way of assignment. That simply means that the original contract was transferred to them, so they took over the obligations on that fixed-term agreement.
One of the key obligations was to pay rent until the tenancy ended on 16 March 2025, or an earlier date agreed by the parties.
In this case the parties agreed to end the tenancy earlier, on 30 September 2025, so the tenants are liable for rent until that tenancy end date.
The landlords claim for rent arrears is established in full.

TENANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed they had three claims as follows: a. Failure to provide written tenancy b. Healthy Homes Standards c. Failure to bring people to house after paying relisting fees. Claim 1 – Failure to provide tenancy agreement
The tenants state that the landlord failed to provide a written tenancy agreement. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that a landlord provide the tenants with a written tenancy agreement at the start of the tenancy.
The tenants have not proven this claim for these reasons.
Firstly, the tenants have not proven that the landlords failed to provide the original tenants with a written tenancy agreement. The obligation exists at the start of the tenancy, and Ms Li and Ms Jia have not proven that the landlord did not provide Ms Shi and Ms Bui with an agreement at that time.
Secondly, it is apparent that the landlord provided a written tenancy agreement to Ms Li and Ms Jia when they updated their tenancy in August 2024. In fact, Ms Li and Ms Jia provided a copy of the signed agreement with their application to the Tribunal.
Because Ms Li and Ms Jia have not proven any breach, this claim must be dismissed. Claim 2 – Healthy Homes Standards / cleanliness
The tenant state that when they moved in the premises did not have curtains, and the house was dirty. The tenant showed the Tribunal a photograph on her laptop of stairs that the tenant says was taken on the day she moved in in March 2024, showing stairs which appeared unclean. Another photograph showed venetian blinds which were in poor condition.
The landlord disputes that the premises were unclean. The landlord provided a copy of photographs taken before the tenancy commenced on 14 March 2024. The landlord also provided an invoice from a commercial cleaner (Green Acres) of that same date. The landlord produced an invoice for curtains in the lounge (a different area to the blinds raised by the tenant above). Analysis
There is no legal obligation on the landlord to supply curtains in a tenancy, and it is not a Healthy Homes Standards obligation.
In terms of the cleanliness of the premises, the best evidence I have is the photographs from the ‘Routine Inspection Report’ prior the commencement of the tenancy with the original tenants. The photographs in that report are extensive, and I have no reservation in saying they show a very clean premises generally. That combined with the commercial cleaning invoice, satisfies me that the landlord rented the premises in a reasonably clean condition.
I do not know what to make of the photographs provided by the tenant, because they do not accord with the photographs that are dated in the inspection report from the landlord. In short, I consider that the inspection report provides a better standard of evidence as to how the premises were rented in March 2024.
Finally, I note that the premises needed to be clean when the tenancy started originally. When the tenancy was assigned to the new tenants, there was no obligation on the landlord to have the premises cleaned again, because it was in effect a transfer of the tenancy.
This claim has not been established. Claim 3 – Failure to bring new prospective tenants to the premises after paying relisting fee
The tenants state they paid the landlord $790 excluding GST each, to have the landlord find a new tenant, and that was paid on 12 August 2024, but the landlord did not do anything to find a replacement tenant.
The landlord disputes receiving the fee from both tenants, but agreed they received one payment of $1,052.00 from Ms Jia. The landlord also disputes doing nothing, and has produced evidence to show that they advertised the premises, and infact, found the replacement tenant who took over the tenancy on 3 October 2025. Analysis
The tenants claim they paid a fee to have the landlord re-advertise the tenancy, and find a replacement tenant, but the landlord did not do anything in that regard.
I do not accept that is the case. At the hearing the landlord provided a printout of a trade me advertisement for the tenancy, which records the listing was placed on 2 September 2024. Plainly the landlord advertised the tenancy.
The landlord also provided an email sent on 3 October 2024 to both tenants, and also their representative Ms Zhang. That email states in part: I am writing to inform you that we have successfully secured a tenant who will take over the tenancy at 2 Cotesmore Way, Parnell effective 1 st October, 2024...
Ms Li and Ms Zhang say they did not receive that email, but I have no reason to believe it was not sent as is apparent from the copy of the email provided to the Tribunal.
But what remains, is that there was an agreement that the landlord would re-advertise the tenancy, it looks like that is just what the landlord did, and found the replacement tenant to take over from Ms Li and Ms Jia.
I can see no breach on the part of the landlord, so this claim must be dismissed.

BOND

The bond is to be released principally to the landlord, to cover the rent arrears and filing fee paid to commence this proceeding.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the tenants have applied for name suppression, the landlord has not. But because the tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in the claims, tenant name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080514 — Rent arrears at 2 Cotesmore Way, Parnell, Auckland 1010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080514 — Rent arrears at 2 Cotesmore Way, Parnell, Auckland 1010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

Do I still have to pay the fee even if I am the tenant?

LANDLORDS CLAIM

TENANTS CLAIMS

BOND

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

Do I still have to pay the fee even if I am the tenant?

LANDLORDS CLAIM

TENANTS CLAIMS

BOND

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions