What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5118512 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the name and identifying details of the

How much money was awarded in case 5118512?

Lawns and Garden Work: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118512?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118512?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12547574-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5118512 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the name and identifying details of the

How much money was awarded in case 5118512?

Lawns and Garden Work: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118512?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118512?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12547574-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5118512 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5118512. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawns and garden work	$40.00		Lawns and garden work
Rubbish removal	$50.00		Rubbish removal

Both parties appeared in person. The Tribunal also was assisted by two interpreters. Background and parties’ issue

The tenancy commenced on 23 February 2023 and ended on 12 December 2024. The tenant filed a claim on 21 December 2024, followed by a counter claim by the landlord on 25 March 2025. On 16 June 2025, the matters were set down for a Case Management Conference on Tuesday 22 July 2025 (CMC).

The landlord requested a postponement of the CMC on the basis that they would be away from New Zealand. The request was declined. The CMC was conducted by video link, which parties could join from anywhere. The tenant appeared, and a Mandarin interpreter assisted the Tribunal.

There was a preliminary party issue. In their application, the tenant named the landlord, Lucky Trust, and [The agency] as agent for the landlord, Lucky Trust.

[The real estate agent] attended the CMC. She stated that [The agency] had not acted as the landlord’s agent during the tenancy and had been engaged only to enter the agreement and conduct three one off inspections, including the final inspection completed by [The real estate agent].

[The real estate agent] stated that once completed, the agreement and the inspection reports had been provided to the landlord. [The real estate agent] confirmed, and the tenant agreed, that all other tenancy matters were handled by a male named William, whom the tenant believed to be either a trustee or a member of the trustee’s family.

The Tribunal formed the view that [The agency]’s role in this tenancy was limited and fell within the category of an intermediary, and not within the definition of “agent of the landlord” in section 2(1). The Tribunal removed [The agency] as a named party and confirmed the Lucky Trust as the landlord and sole respondent. The Tribunal noted that the landlord’s counterclaim had been filed in the name of Lucky Trust Angela Robb. (see NZTT 5118512, 5210534 dated 18 August 2025).

The Tribunal then issued a witness summons requiring [The real estate agent] to appear at the substantive hearing.

After the CMC had been concluded, the landlord contacted the Tribunal Registry, advising that they did not have audio visual capability, and had been waiting for a phone call.

At the commencement of this hearing Ms Robb requested that the Tribunal call the person who had prepared the landlords application, who was unable to attend due to work commitments. While that individual concerned has prepared the landlord’s application, there was no evidence that they had actual knowledge of the tenancy, nor had Ms Robb established grounds, apart from an interpreter, that she required assistance. The request was declined. Ms Robb also stated that the other landlord Mr William Sun was unable to attend the Tribunal but was available by phone. This had not been previously advised to the Tribunal. The application is not suitable for a phone hearing. The Tribunal remains concerned about the identities of the landlord parties. The request was declined. Claims

The tenant’s claims are that the landlord: i.Has failed to appoint an agent while away from New Zealand, ii.Failed to process the tenant’s vacate notice in a timely manner as stipulated in the tenancy agreement, refused to cooperate with reference checks, and failed to provide a reference, iii.Misrepresented the tenant’s obligations and had attempted to impose responsibilities on the tenant and recover costs that were not the tenant’s liability.

The tenant is seeking refund of the bond of $3,000.00, and compensation of $5,000.00.

The tenant also defends all claims made by the landlord, relying on the final tenancy inspection by [The real estate agent], who the tenant states raised no issues. The tenant therefore argues the landlord should be barred from making claims now.

The landlords’ claims are that the tenant: i.Failed to leave the carpet reasonably clean, ii.Failed to leave the lawns in a reasonable condition, iii.Failed to remove all rubbish, iv.Damaged the carpet and the insinkerator.

The landlord is seeking compensation of $1,174.00.

The onus of proving these claims rests with the party making them. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. Each party must establish more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Tenant’s claims

The tenant claims that the landlord was out of New Zealand for 21 consecutive days and had failed to appoint an agent.

The tenancy agreement provides the landlord’s details as “Lucky Trust”. The tenant states that at the commencement of the tenancy, they were advised by the agent from [The agency] that a male called William was the landlord and provided with an email address. The tenant has produced an email from William dated 01 March 2023 stating that he was overseas. The tenant stated that William then provided the name and phone number for a woman called Grace who would assist with tenancy matters. On seeing Ms Robb for the first time at the hearing, the tenant believed that Ms Robb was in fact Grace. The tenant states William had simply referred to Grace as a sister of the church who was working for free. The tenant stated that upon advising William of issues that Grace would then attend the property and did so on about 3 or 4 occasions.

Toward the end of 2023, there appears to have been a break down in the relationship between Grace and the tenant. The tenant stated that Grace appeared at the property wearing disguises and acted bizarrely, speaking “Chinglish” (a blend of Chinese and English), despite both sharing a common first language. The tenant states that they were concerned about Grace’s mental state, refused her entry, and asked William to appoint a professional agent.

William declined the request, citing cost, and stated he believed that he was not obliged too. William still did not disclose Grace’s true identity as a trustee.

In an email dated 24 September 2024, William advised that Grace no longer wished to assist him, and also stated: “My overseas phone number is also unreachable”. William added in the email that they intended engaging [The real estate agent] to conduct inspections only.

On 01 October 2024, William sent the tenant an email stating that would not be returning to New Zealand and that he already resided overseas. The landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy on the basis that they intended to sell the property. The tenant then gave their own notice. The tenant stated that Grace reappeared around October 2024 after the property was placed on the market. At all times, William was contactable via email.

Ms Robb took the promise to tell the truth and stated that she was a trustee of the Lucky Trust, along with her son Mr William Sun. Ms Robb stated that Mr Sun had adopted two English first names, using either William or Sam.

Ms Robb denied that she had concealed her true identity from the tenant, stating that Grace was a name that she regularly used. She also stated she had advised the tenant that she was a trustee and a landlord. She stated that the tenant had been difficult to deal with and had denied her access to the property. Ms Robb denied changing her phone number. Initially, Ms Robb stated that Mr Sun had been overseas, but then later stated that he had never been overseas but had avoided direct contact with the tenant because he had been unwell, and the tenant had come from the country responsible for Covid. Ms Robb then accused the tenant of being a troublemaker and a foreign agent sent to New Zealand to target vulnerable landlords such as herself by making fraudulent claims.

[The real estate agent] gave evidence by telephone. She stated [The agency] had initially been approached by Grace (whom she also knew as Ms Robb) and Mr Sun to market the property for rent and enter in a tenancy agreement for Lucky Trust. Once this was completed, the landlord would manage the property themselves. During the tenancy, [The agency] had been engaged to conduct some inspections, and in October 2024 had been engaged to conduct a routine inspection, and a final inspection later that year on 12 December 2024. [The real estate agent] stated that in October 2024 she had received an email message from William stating that he would come into their office to sign documents relating to the property. [The real estate agent] stated that a male came to the office purporting to be William. [The real estate agent] stated although she had previously had dealings with Ms Robb, she had not previously met with William. There was no evidence that the male produced proof of identity. Law

Under section 16A (1) of the Act, a landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand.

Section 2(1) RTA defines the meaning of agent and landlord as: • agent, in relation to any person who is a landlord or a tenant, means an agent of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant; and includes an employee of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant. • landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,000.00 (s 16A (6) and Schedule 1A of the Act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent; the effect of the unlawful act; the interests of the other party; and the public interest (s 109(3) RTA).

Section 2(1) defines a tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person [ my emphasis], for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement.

A trust cannot technically enter into a tenancy agreement on its own because a trust is not a legal person. Under section 2(1) only trustees who hold the legal title to the property can enter in a tenancy agreement. Analysis and decision

The issue in this case is who the landlords are. Ms Robb and Mr Sun are both trustees of the Lucky Trust. The evidence of [The real estate agent] is significant. [The real estate agent] stated both Ms Robb and Mr Sun were involved in instructing [The agency]to enter into a tenancy agreement on their behalf of the Lucky Trust. Although a trust cannot grant a tenancy, its trustees can do so on its behalf. Although only the Lucky Trust is named on the agreement, based on the evidence, the landlord were fact Ms Robb and Mr Sun as trustees for the Lucky Trust.

Providing a plausible and consistent narrative appeared to be challenging for Ms Robb. While the reasons for this are unclear, I am satisfied that Ms Robb, and Mr Sun, deliberately concealed Ms Robbs true identity from the tenant. She was nevertheless a “landlord”. On that basis, while they have deceived the tenant, the landlord has not failed to appoint an agent. Although Mr Sun resided overseas, Mrs Robb (aka Grace) remained in New Zealand at all times. The claim is dismissed. Failed to process the tenant’s vacate notice in a timely manner as stipulated in the tenancy agreement, refused to cooperate with reference checks, and failed to provide a reference.

The tenant states that having given notice Mr Sun promised to provide a reference required to secure a new property. The tenant states that despite promising to do so, Mr Sun did not provide one within a reasonable time.

There are no provisions in the agreement or the Act that oblige the landlord to provide the tenant with a reference. The claim is dismissed. Misrepresentation and attempts to impose responsibilities obligations not owed by the tenant.

The property has two storeys. The tenant stated that during the tenancy the landlord advised them that they were liable for cleaning the exterior of the property. The tenant also states that the landlord requested that the tenant have the lawn replaced. Further, the tenant states that during the marketing of the property for sale, the landlord asked the tenant to remove their paintings on the basis that the landlord considered them inappropriate and likely to deter potential buyers. The tenant stated that they took legal advice, which confirmed that they were not obliged to comply with any of the requests, and they declined to do so.

Ms Robb stated that Mr Sun had asked the tenant to clean the exterior of the property because the trust had no money. She said that the tenant had damaged the lawn and was responsible for returning it to the same condition it was at the commencement of the tenancy. Ms Robb also claimed that the paintings were lewd.

Under section 78(1)(g) of the Act, the Tribunal may, where it appears that an agreement between the parties has been induced by misrepresentation, make orders varying or setting aside the agreement, either wholly or in part.

There is no evidence that the tenant was induced into the agreement by a misrepresentation by the landlord.

This claim instead falls to be considered under section 38(2) of the Act which provides that a landlord must not interfere with the tenant’s reasonable peace comfort and privacy.

In Smith v Floris Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated, “Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents”.

If the tenant had damaged the lawn, the landlord was entitled to ask the tenant that the matter be remedied. Although there was no basis for the landlord to request that the tenant clean the exterior of the property or remove their paintings, there is no evidence that the requests significantly impacted on the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. The claim is dismissed. Other claims

The tenant sought to raise additional matters concerning the landlord’s alleged failure to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. However, these were not included in the application filed nor were they mentioned at the CMC, and therefore have not been heard. Landlord’s claims

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the carpet in a reasonably clean condition, return the lawns in a reasonably tidy condition, and remove all rubbish. The landlord is claiming $66.70 for lawns, $408.00 for carpet cleaning (and replacement), and $199.30 for rubbish removal.

The landlord has produced a photograph of a small stain on the carpet located in the living room, along with another blurry closeup photograph showing some soiling. There are three photographs showing the lawn at the rear of the property and along the front fence. The landlord also produced a photograph of the red lid council bin full of rubbish.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.

The provision does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and inspection reports and photographs.

The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises: the better the premises, the higher the standard. Surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly painted surfaces. Generally, tenants are not required to return premises any cleaner than they were at the start of the tenancy (Westwood v Western, DC Otahuhu, TT 2539/93 and 2540/93, 4 November 1994).

The tenant accepted that they had failed to mow the lawn at the end of the tenancy. However, they dispute the amount claimed and have produced bank records showing that a mowing contractor had previously charged $40.00 to mow the lawns. The photographs provided by the landlord do not clearly show the size of the lawn. Based on the evidence, I award the landlord $40.00 to mow the lawn.

The tenant stated they had moved out on 10 December 2024 and that the movers had promised to wheel the bin out for collection on 11 December 2024 but forgot. The bin was therefore left full at the end of the tenancy on 12 December 2024. The tenant accepts responsibility for removing the rubbish but disputes the amount claimed. I agree that the amount claimed is excessive for the quantity of rubbish, and I award the landlord $50.00.

The tenant stated that they were not responsible for the carpet soiling and that it had not been present at the end of the tenancy. If it had [The real estate agent], who had conducted the final inspection on behalf of the landlord on 12 December 2024, had not brought it to her attention.

[The real estate agent] stated that the tenant was not present for the inspection and had only stopped briefly to collect an item left behind. [The real estate agent] stated she had not been instructed to discuss issues with the tenant but had prepared a report for the landlord listing several issues, including “a small stain on the carpet”.

The tenant then questioned whether the stain had occurred during the tenancy.

Ms Robb stated that the property was brand new and that the tenant had been the first occupant. The tenant accepted that the property was new, but questioned whether they were the first occupant, stating that the property was furnished when they viewed it and there was rubbish in the bins. They also stated that the agent showing the property told them that the landlord had been living in the property. Ms Robb denied this.

No pre tenancy inspection report has been produced. There is therefore no evidence on which to make an objective assessment of the carpets condition at the commencement of the tenancy. I cannot be satisfied that the soiling and stain has occurred during the tenancy. The claim for carpet cleaning is dismissed.

Material filed on 25 March 2025, after the application had been lodged, refers to additional claims not included in the original application, specifically for rent arrears of $107.14, and oven cleaning of $100.00. Despite being asked by the Tribunal if these claims were being pursued Ms Robb failed to confirm that they were. Damage

The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the insinkerator and is claiming the replacement cost of $500.00. The landlord also claims that the carpet staining and soiling could not be removed and that the carpet had to be replaced.

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

The landlord states that the insinkerator had not been used property during the tenancy and had been replaced by the landlord. Ms Robb states the tenant was then instructed not to place crustacean shells in the unit and to run water when it was being used. Ms Robb states that at the end of the tenancy the landlord had discovered the unit was again not working.

[The real estate agent] did not check the insinkerator on 12 December 2024. She stated that she had asked the tenant, in passing, whether there were any issues to raise, and that the matter was not mentioned.

The tenant stated that they had not used an insinkerator before and accepted responsibility for first incident of damage but stated that they had reimbursed the landlord. The tenant stated that the unit malfunctioned again, and that Mr Sun arranged for it to be repaired under warranty. The tenant stated the contractor told them the model was of poor quality and prone to failure. The tenant states that it was seldom used and to their knowledge was functioning at the end of the tenancy, which is why it was not raised at the final inspection.

The tenant questioned the landlord’s claim, noting that there was no evidence from someone suitably qualified explaining why the unit had failed. On that basis, fair wear and tear or a mechanical fault could not be ruled out.

The onus is on the landlord to prove the claim. I prefer the tenant’s version of events as the more credible. I cannot rule out that any damage was due to fair wear and tear or fault not attributable to the tenant. The claim is dismissed.

As stated above, there is insufficient evidence to be satisfied that the staining or soiling to the carpet occurred during the tenancy and the claim for damage to the carpet is dismissed. Costs

Under section 102 of the Act, the Tribunal must order reimbursement of the filing fee to a party who has been wholly successful and may do so where a party has been partly successful. In this case, while the landlord has been partly successful with their claim, I decline to reimburse the fee. Name suppression.

Both parties seek name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

In this case neither the tenant nor the landlord has been substantially successful.

[The real estate agent] and [The agency] are not parties to the proceedings, and the Tribunal orders suppression of their names.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5118512. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawns and garden work	$40.00		Lawns and garden work
Rubbish removal	$50.00		Rubbish removal