What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5278739?

The tribunal order states: Luxian Li to pay Geena Han $230.17 from the bond, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 5278739?

Power Account: $52.69 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $177.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5278739?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5278739?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12351538-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5278739?

The tribunal order states: Luxian Li to pay Geena Han $230.17 from the bond, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 5278739?

Power Account: $52.69 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $177.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5278739?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5278739?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12351538-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 906, 37 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5278739 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5278739 — net $230.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Power account	$52.69	Power account
Water rates	$177.48	Water rates
Net award	$230.17
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$230.17

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5278739 — net $230.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Power account	$52.69	Power account
Water rates	$177.48	Water rates
Net award	$230.17
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$230.17

Order

Luxian Li to pay Geena Han $230.17 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (6517121-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Geena Han: $230.17 Luxian Li: $1,849.83
The tenant’s application in respect of her bond is allowed. The remaining claims are dismissed.
The landlord’s application in respect of outstanding power and water charges is allowed. The remaining claims are also dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by the court appointed Mandarin interpreter.
The landlord has applied for outstanding power and water charges, vacated compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for the return of her bond, reimbursement of a doctor’s invoice, compensation for mental stress and application preparation time. The tenant also claims that the landlord did not provide a copy of a signed Healthy Homes compliance statement.
Before I address the specific claims, I will summarise some general legal principles that apply.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely or has a likelihood of more than 50%. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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 Kaipo 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 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.
The premises are an apartment with one bedroom and one bathroom. The tenant resided there by herself. She confirmed that she moved in on 1 January 2024 and moved out on 31 December 2024. The apartment building is approximately 15 years old. Replacement tenants moved in towards the end of March 2025. The landlord has owned the apartment for 6 years. Landlord application
The landlord has filed the following claims: a. Cleaning b. Cleaning parking fee c. Petrol reimbursement d. Doctor’s invoice for mental stress e. Compensation for mental stress f. Labour costs g. Parking fee for repairs h. Fridge replacement i. Toilet flush set replacement j. Showerhead and main set replacement k. Bathroom sink unblocking l. Loss of rent for the period 1 January to 13 January 2025
The landlord also claims the following where only quotes have been provided: a. Dishwasher replacement b. Curtain replacement c. Rangehood repair d. Bookcase surface replacement e. Kitchen surface replacement f. Kitchen tap replacement g. Waste disposal replacement h. Indoor stool replacement i. Wall repair

How much is owed for outstanding power and water charges?

The tenancy ended on 31 December 2024. The landlord provided water and power invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant confirmed during the hearing that she accepts these claims.
I have also sighted the landlord’s evidence in support of these two claims.
The claims for outstanding power and water charges are proven.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord claims $460.10 for cleaning. She says that it took 11 hours to clean the apartment. She says that she took some of the photos on 31 December 2024. These photos included the bathroom, kitchen oven and microwave. The landlord says that the microwave is 4 years old.
The tenant has provided a video and photos of her own. The tenant does not accept the cleaning claim. She says that the landlord has a different standard than her of what is clean. She also disputes the rate charged. The tenant believes that she has met the standard for cleanliness based on her photos. Blocked bathroom sink
The landlord says that the body corporate had to come and unblock the bathroom sink. An invoice was provided from Barfoot and Thompson for a Body Corporate service fee dated 23 January 2025.
The invoice is for $400.00 and only notes ‘bathroom sink dredging repair and replace’. There are no photos to support this claim. The tenant says that during her stay the bathroom sink was in working order. The tenant also said that she engaged a professional cleaner to clean the property on 31 December 2024. Analysis
The landlord has provided a selection of photos in support of her cleaning claim which I have carefully considered. I have also considered the tenant’s photographic evidence in respect of this claim.
A tenant is only required to leave a property reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant is not required to leave a property in an immaculate standard of cleanliness. The standard is what an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably tidy”.
The landlord has also failed to provide an entry inspection report in support of her claims. Having considered the evidence provided in support I am not satisfied that the tenant breached her obligations in this regard.
The landlord has also failed to satisfy me that the tenant is responsible for the cost of unblocking the bathroom sink. The landlord has only provided an invoice. At the very least I would have expected entry and exit inspection photographs in support of the claim for a blocked sink.
The claims for cleaning and unblocking the bathroom sink have not been established. Doctor’s invoice and compensation for time off work for mental stress
The landlord claims that she attended with her doctor on 1 February 2025 and 4 February 2025. She has provided two invoices, one from Westcare White Cross Henderson on 1 February 2025 and the second from Hobsonville Medical Centre on 4 February 2025.
She attended at Westcare White Cross for an injury to her arm which she says was caused by stress. She further attended at the Hobsonville Medical Centre on 4 February 2025 for stress.
The tenant does not agree with these claims.
The landlord says that she also had to take two days off work due to stress. She claims the amount of $669.23. The landlord could not recall the two days she could not go to work. There is no evidence in support of this claim. The tenant does not accept this claim. She says that there is no evidence to support that the tenant should be responsible for these amounts. Analysis
The Tribunal dismisses the landlord’s claim for medical expenses and compensation relating to stress. While the Tribunal acknowledges the landlord’s concerns, it is well established that compensation for medical expenses or damages for stress is not generally available under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 unless there is clear evidence of a breach by the landlord that directly caused actual loss or damage.
In this case, there is insufficient evidence to establish that any actions by the tenant amounted to a breach of the Act or that any such alleged breach was the direct cause of the landlord’s medical condition. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award compensation for personal injury or medical costs arising from stress, as these matters are more appropriately addressed through other legal avenues.
Accordingly, the claim for medical expenses is dismissed. Parking and petrol claims
The landlord claims reimbursement for parking her car on 14 January 2025 for attending at the apartment. The tenant disputes this claim and feels she should not have to pay for this charge.
The landlord further claims $40.00 for having to park again to do the repairs. No receipt provided. The tenant does not accept this claim saying that she should not have to pay for this.
The landlord says that she has provided calculations for the amount of petrol used going back and forth getting the apartment sorted. The tenant says that she should not have to pay for this. Analysis
The landlord has claimed reimbursement for parking and petrol expenses incurred in relation to the tenancy. However, there is no provision in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 or the tenancy agreement that entitles a landlord to recover such costs from the tenant.
In the absence of a specific contractual or statutory basis for this claim, the Tribunal is unable to award parking and petrol expenses. The landlord has also made a commercial decision to own an investment property in and therefore it is inevitable that they will have costs which are associated with this decision.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for parking and petrol expenses is dismissed. Compensation for labour
The landlord claims labour costs of $209.15. The landlord says that they had to go and get parts for the shower, rangehood, toilet flusher and kitchen tap. The tenant does not accept this claim saying that it is unreasonable for her to pay for this amount. Analysis
There is no evidence presented by the landlord which satisfies me on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for the claims relating to this. And as noted earlier the landlord has made a commercial decision to own an investment property in and therefore it is inevitable that they will have costs which are associated with the operation of an investment property.
The claim for compensation for labour costs has not been established. Compensation for loss of rent
The landlord says that she was unable to rent her apartment for two weeks from 1 January 2025 to 13 January 2025. The landlord says that she was unable to fix everything before having new tenants move in. They claim two weeks rent of $1040.00.
The tenant does not accept this claim. She feels that she should not have to compensate the landlord for her apartment being vacant. She also believes that it is unrealistic for a landlord to expect that they can sign up a new tenant the following day after a tenant moves out. Analysis
The evidence filed by the landlord does not support this claim. I am not satisfied from the photographic evidence provided that the landlord was prevented from renting the premises because of a breach of tenant obligations.
After considering the evidence and the relevant provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, I am not satisfied that the landlord is entitled to this compensation. The landlord has not established that the loss of rent was caused by any breach of the tenancy agreement or the Act by the tenant. In the absence of such evidence, the application for compensation for loss of rent is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Fridge, toilet flush set and showerhead set replacement.
The landlord says that the fridge was not working at the end of the tenancy. The fridge was approximately 4 years old. When the landlord went to do the cleaning on 3 January 2025 they discovered that the fridge was not working.
The landlord says that there was no power to the fridge. She did not attempt to repair the fridge or receive confirmation from a technician that the fridge was not working.
The landlord decided to purchase a new fridge.
The tenant says that the fridge had been working while she was living there. The tenant also says that the landlord did not mention anything about the fridge not working as part of her final inspection of 31 December 2024.
The tenant also says that she saw a social media post, dated 31 December 2024 from the landlord selling a fridge in working order. This was a post on the social media platform Little Red Book. The tenant says that the fridge was working when she was living there. The landlord does not know anything about a post on social media. The landlord provided an invoice from Appliance Outlet dated 14 January 2025 confirming that the old fridge was collected.
The landlord claims that the toilet flush button was not working and had to replaced. The landlord says that the tenant did not advise her of any issue with this during the tenancy. The tenant says that everything was functioning well while she was living there. The tenant does not accept this claim.
The landlord claims that the shower head and hose were leaking at the connection. The landlord also says that this was replaced 1 year prior to this tenant moving in. The tenant says that it was only a matter of tightening the hose to the shower head. She also stated that if it was that bad she would not have been able to use the shower. Analysis
The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the fridge, toilet flusher system and showerhead. However, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the tenant caused the alleged damage, whether intentionally or negligently. Under section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a tenant is only liable for intentional or careless damage to the premises or chattels. In this case, the landlord has not provided any credible evidence to show that the damage was the result of the tenant’s actions, rather than fair wear and tear or a pre-existing fault.
The landlord has claimed compensation for damage to the shower head. However, after considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the condition of the shower head is consistent with fair wear and tear resulting from normal use over time. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the tenant acted negligently or intentionally in a manner that would have caused damage beyond normal use.
The claims for fridge replacement, toilet flush set and showerhead set replacement are not established.
The landlord’s remaining claims are based on quotes. As discussed with the landlord during the hearing quotes are generally not accepted as evidence of actual loss.
While the landlord has provided quotes to support the claimed loss, quotes represent only an estimate of potential costs and do not constitute evidence that the loss has actually been incurred.
For a claim of compensation to be successful, the Tribunal requires proof that the loss is real and has been suffered, typically in the form of invoices or receipts showing payment. As quotes do not demonstrate that any payment has been made or that the work has been completed, they are insufficient as evidence of actual loss.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim cannot be established on the basis of quotes alone. Tenant application Reimbursement for doctor’s invoice and compensation for mental stress
The tenant says that she after she moved out there had been disputes with the landlord. The tenant says that the landlord accused her of damaging the property.
The tenant also stated that they were supposed to undertake the final inspection together. Unfortunately, this did not happen. The tenant text the landlord about the inspection. The landlord replied stating that she was in a meeting and would be late. The tenant advised the landlord that she had a dinner appointment and could not wait. The tenant advised the landlord that she had left the keys in the apartment and had locked up and left. The tenant took photos and videos of the apartment as she left the apartment on 31 December 2024. The tenant claims that these events caused her stress.
The tenant says she had to go to the doctor due to the stress caused by the lengthy email exchanges. The tenant started to worry that she was in the wrong, so much so that she could not sleep at night. The tenant also says that the landlord sent her a list of costs which required payment.
The tenant claims for mental stress of $330.00. This amount included doctors prescriptions which she collected from Chemist Warehouse. The tenant went to ask for formal proof and could only obtain consultation notes. The landlord says that her claim for this is unreasonable.
The landlord says that she is unsure how she could be stressed. The landlord says that she explained to the tenant how to solve the issues.
The tenant further stated that after refusing to sign the bond refund form the tenant could not see the point of arguing with the landlord any further. She then says that when she notified the landlord that she would go to the Tribunal the landlord accused her of committing robbery. The tenant further stated that the landlord threatened to contact Immigration New Zealand.
The landlord says that after she did the inspection alone she sent the tenant an email with a list of issues. She says that the tenant responded stating fair wear and tear. The parties were to meet at 6pm for the final inspection. The landlord said that she messaged the tenant sating that she was trying to find at carpark. She arrived approximately 6.15pm and the tenant had left. The landlord says that she offered the return of her bond less the costs claimed. Analysis
The Tribunal dismisses the tenant’s claim for medical expenses and compensation relating to stress. It is well established that compensation for medical expenses or damages for stress is not generally available under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 unless there is clear evidence of a breach by the landlord that directly caused actual loss or damage.
In this case, there is insufficient evidence to establish that any alleged breach was the direct cause of the tenant’s medical condition. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award compensation for personal injury or medical costs arising from stress, as these matters are more appropriately addressed through other legal avenues.
The tenant’s claim for compensation in respect of medical costs and stress has not been established and is dismissed. Application preparation compensation
The tenant has sought compensation for the time spent preparing her application to the Tenancy Tribunal. However, there is no provision under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that entitles a party to compensation for time or effort expended in preparing or presenting their case.
The Tribunal may only award compensation for actual loss suffered as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement or the Act. As such, the tenant’s claim for compensation for time spent preparing her application is dismissed. Healthy Homes compliance statement
Luxian Li claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must, if requested by the tenant, supply the records or other documents that relate to the landlords’ compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards within 21 days after receiving the request.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 45(1AD) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that she only received the first 4 pages of the tenancy agreement. The tenant further stated that the landlord brought two copies of the agreement to sign with each party keeping a copy.
The landlord says that they both signed two copies of the agreement. The landlord also provided a signed copy of the Healthy Homes compliance statement dated 29 December 2023 with their application.
Based on the evidence filed by the landlord I am satisfied that a compliance statement was signed as part of the tenancy agreement. There is also no evidence before me that the tenant made a formal request for a copy of the compliance statement.
The tenant’s claim has not been established and is dismissed.
The parties have not been wholly or substantially successful in their applications and therefore I do not reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details. She has not substantially succeeded in the proceedings and therefore I make no order in respect of this.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5278739 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 906, 37 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010,

Tenancy Tribunal case 5278739 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 906, 37 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for outstanding power and water charges?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for outstanding power and water charges?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions