Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287202 — Mould at 26 Vintage Drive, Henderson, Auckland 0612

Decided 20 March 2026 · Published 20 March 2026 · Application 5287202

Tenant favoured

Mould
Healthy homes
Leaks

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Tenant favoured

From published order

Location

Auckland

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

R Woodhouse

Dispute themes

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287202. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Order

Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant must pay Ammie Elizabeth Currie $2,500.00 immediately, being compensation for loss of amenity.
Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant must pay Ammie Elizabeth Currie $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,200.00 (BN-00065395) to Ammie Elizabeth Currie immediately.
All claims against By Realty Limited are dismissed.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord.
The claims relate principally to defects with the premises when the tenant rented them, and an associated failure to maintain the dwelling.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy is located at 26 Vintage Drive, Henderson, Auckland.
The tenancy agreement records the tenancy commencing on 21 March 2025, as being a periodic tenancy.
The landlords are recorded as Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant, by way of an agent, M2 Real Estate Limited (“M2”). Ms Wang and Mr Meurant were married and recently separated at the time of the tenancy. However, during the entire period of the tenancy, both were co-owners of the dwelling.
The sole tenant is Ammie Currie.
The weekly rental was $1,050.00.
As will be discussed further below, when Ms Currie took over the tenancy, there were a range of issues she found with the dwelling, and a range of later issues that have arisen.
On 28 April 2025 2025, M2 resigned from managing the premises effective from 1 June 2025. My impression from the documentation on file is that the property manager was having difficulty managing the premises, given the conflict between the two owners (landlords).
A replacement property manager, By Realty Limited, was appointed to manage the tenancy.
On 31 May 2025, the tenant wrote to By Realty by email, recording that three maintenance notices provided to M2 were attached to that email, and referring to work outstanding which includes: a. Missing kitchen rubbish bins for the bin drawer b. Broken oven seal c. Water leak in the front yard d. Further gutter leak e. Piles of wood under the house f. Laundry table leak
The file also includes a spreadsheet, which identifies work necessary to the premises, and records the date the notice was issued to the landlord regarding that work, the dates between 7 April and 28 May 2025. In addition to the work in the above paragraph, the spreadsheet includes: a. Non-functioning heated floor heating. b. Ventilation system not working. c. Premises being unclean at the start of the Tenancy. d. Gardens being overgrown. e. Loose stone on the driveway wall. f. Frayed washing line. g. Garage ramp slider damaged. h. Two wooden gate needing repair. i. Remediation required to interior wall linings. j. Missing TV aerial cables. k. Oven not cleaned at start of tenancy. l. Problems with kitchen floor flooring. m. Doorstops missing. n. Missing and broken shelving in bedroom. o. Hallway light fixture coming away from ceiling.
The tenant filed this application with the Tribunal. The matter came before Adjudicator Northwood who issued an order dated 26 September 2025, in which she confirmed the correct respondents were By Realty Limited, Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant. The adjudicator expressly confirmed that M2 Realty was not a respondent. That order carried with it a right of rehearing and appeal, which were not exercised.
At the hearing today, the landlords wanted to point to M2 as being responsible for the matters claimed by the tenant which are the subject of this hearing. The problem for the landlords, is that if they disagreed with Adjudicator Northwood’s decision around who the correct respondents were, then they needed to appeal that decision, which is now binding on all parties and myself.
Even if that were not the case, ultimately M2 was an agent, so applying the usual agency law principles, the principals of the agency (Ms Wang and Mr Meurant) are ultimately responsible for the actions of their agent. If M2 breach any obligation for which the landlords are found liable, then that would be a matter between the landlords and their agent, which this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider. Landlord / property manager relationship issues
One of the overarching issues in this case is that the landlords have been in a significant relationship conflict between themselves, and this conflict has also been with the property manager.
Ms Wang and M2 have been or are currently before the Disputes Tribunal. An order is on file from the Disputes Tribunal dated 28 July 2025, which records that Ms Wang and M2 both filed claims against one another, in relation to money they say should have been paid by the other party (CIV- 2025-090-001085.
As I told the landlords at the hearing today, the Tribunal has no ability to involving itself with their relationship issues. That is because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider disputes between landlords or disputes between landlords and property managers. What the Tribunal is concerned about is the relationship between the landlords and tenants.
As the tenant said at the hearing, she has been “stuck in the middle” of the conflict with the landlords. That is relevant for this matter before me.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

At the hearing, the tenant presented a number of claims, which I will now consider in return. Claim 1 – Bond release
The tenant seeks repayment of her bond.
The landlords confirm there is no claim against the tenant. Analysis
The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant at the end of the tenancy, seeking recovery of her bond, totalling $4,200.00.
Section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies, that provision confirms that: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The effect of this provision is that when the tenant applies to the Tribunal for release of the bond in whole or in part, if the landlord wishes to argue that it has any call on that bond, then the landlord “must” file a counterclaim for it. In the absence of a counterclaim, the Tribunal must order that the bond be released to the tenant.
For the above reasons, in the absence of a counterclaim from the landlord, the Tribunal orders that the full bond be refunded to the tenants. Claim 2 - Compensation
The tenant presented a number of compensation claims. a. Hot water
The tenant states that when she had power connected to the premises after she took possession, she found that the hot water was not working in the kitchen and master bathroom, and the cylinder required replacement. The tenant said she needed to meet a plumber on site, but the plumber did not arrive when he was meant to. It took a week for the cylinder to be replaced. The tenant said that while the landlord reimbursed half the rental for a week, she considers that the premises were not habitable for a week, so did not move in until the cylinder was replaced. The tenant said that there was hot water in the children’s bathroom, but not the main bathroom and kitchen.
Ms Wang states that there are two hot water cylinders, and she had arranged for the faulty cylinder to be replaced prior to the commencement of the tenancy, but M2 did not get this organised in time. Analysis
There is no dispute that one of the hot water cylinders was not working when the tenancy commenced.
The tenant says that she did not move in because she did not consider the premises habitable. I am not convinced about that. There was a bathroom with hot water, so the tenant and her children would have hot water for bathing, and for the kitchen, there were other ways to get water heated, such as from a kettle. I consider the premises were habitable. The landlord has provided a 50% rent credit, in my assessment that was a fair offer in the circumstances. I decline to make any further order. Mould on blinds
The tenant states that in the dining area the blinds had black mould. Some blinds were replaced, and some were cleaned, but that took about three weeks. The tenant said she had an asthmatic child, and this effected their ability to live in the premises. This was raised with the property manager on the day the premises were handed over.
Ms Wang states that this was only raised in April, and the work was fixed for the tenant. Analysis
I am satisfied that the premises were not provided to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy state, as it relates to the blinds. There are photographs on file showing what is likely to be mouldy blinds. The blinds should have been reasonably clean when the tenancy was taken over, so it is fair that she be compensated for this.
This claim relates to a loss of amenity, and I will address the compensation that should be provided under the ‘rent reimbursement’ claim below. Dishwasher
The tenant said that there was no power on handover, so the dishwasher could not be tested. However, when the power came on they found that the dishwasher had stagnant water in the bottom of it, and it would not drain. Following an assessment, the dishwasher could not be fixed, and it was eventually replaced in early or mid April, so about 2-3 weeks into the tenancy.
The landlord does not dispute that the dishwasher was faulty. Analysis
There is no dispute that the dishwasher was faulty and needed replacement. The tenancy was rented with a dishwasher, so that means the dishwasher needed to be repaired or replaced. It was replaced within about 2 weeks, but the tenant did not have the amenity of the dishwasher over that time. It is fair that the tenant be compensated for not getting the benefit of the dishwasher she was paying rent to receive.
This claim relates to a loss of amenity, and I will address the compensation that should be provided under the ‘rent reimbursement’ claim below. Plumbing
The tenant said that the laundry tub appeared to have been leaking under the tub given mould. When she hooked up her washing machine it leaked. The tenant needed to get her own plumber to attend. The invoice from the plumber records the following work: Travelled to site and found the washing machine connector was leaking when turning on water. Capped off hot water line because there was no connection for hot line from the washing machine. Capped off connection point due to leakage. Reconnected the washing machine water feed to combi tap under the laundry tub. Turned on the machine and tested it. No further leaks detected. Tied up the washing machine drain with a cable tie.
I am not certain what the cause of the leak was in this case. The evidence is not clear if the water was coming from the tenant’s washing machine, and fitting she was responsible for, or the laundry tub, including supply lines, which the landlord is responsible for.
Given I have been unable to establish if the fault was from landlord or tenant property, I must find this claim has not been established. DVS and underfloor heating not working
The tenant states that the DVS and underfloor heating was not working, and never worked during the tenancy.
Ms Wang accepts that these items were not working during the tenancy, but says that it was not raised, and not recorded on the contract.
The tenant said that she did raise this right at the start of the tenancy with the property manager when the power came on. Analysis
Again there is no dispute that these items were not working. For the same reasons above, when the premises were rented, then the items in the house that were rented, needed to work. If it was that the property manager was clear that a particular item was not working, and the tenant agreed to contract for the property anyway, then the landlord would not be liable. But here, the tenant says that she was not told these items were not working.
It is not relevant that these items were not listed on the tenancy agreement. The vast majority of items in any rented dwelling are not recorded. Liability turns on whether the tenant would have reasonably believed that the item was part of the tenancy they were renting, and I find that is the case here. A good example is the dishwasher. The dishwasher was not listed in the tenancy agreement, but any reasonable tenant who viewed the premises and saw a dishwasher in place would rightfully believe that the dishwasher was a part of the dwelling that they were renting.
It is fair that the tenant be compensated for a loss of amenity with these features of the house not working. This claim relates to a loss of amenity, and I will address the compensation that should be provided under the ‘rent reimbursement’ claim below. Claim 3 – Rent reimbursement
The tenant said that there were defects with the premises when she took it over, so she is seeking rent reimbursement for the premises not being of an adequate standards. At the hearing the tenant detailed what the issues with the premises were.
In addition to the matters raised above, Ms Currie also raised issues with general maintenance being required, and in particular the following issues that needed to be repaired during the tenancy: a. One gate not being able to be opened. b. One gate not having a lock c. Door stops missing d. Gutters leaking e. Rubbish under the house. f. Premises not being clean. g. Gardens not being tidy h. Rubbish bin i. Missing pavers j. Oven seal k. Kitchen floor boards l. Light fittings
Ms Wang states that when issues were raised, she did get on and got the work done immediately. Ms Wang says that there was hot water, and the premises were not unlivable. The premises were not new, so there would be problems expected. Analysis
This claim is really a claim of loss of amenity, and like the amenity claims above. Broadly, the tenant’s position is that there were multiple defects with the premises that needed to be addressed or repaired, and she should not be paying rent for those items.
It is virtually impossible to calculate the exact loss incurred by a tenant, when the claim relates to a loss of amenity. The best that the Tribunal can do, is establish whether there has in fact been an amenity loss, and then step back, and work out what a fair level of compensation would be.
In this case, I decline to order further compensation in relation to the hot water, I believe that the tenant has been adequately compensated for that already. I have also declined to order compensation for the plumbing, because the evidence available does not prove a breach on the part of the landlord.
Beyond that, I find that the claims have been established. The tenant has shown that there were wide-ranging problems with this Tenancy when she took possession. The items described above should have been sorted out before possession passed to Ms Currie, but ultimately she has paid rent for premises that require required reasonably significant maintenance.
Taking into account that the tenancy was of reasonably short duration, and that the landlord has also provided a half week of rent reimbursement for the hot water, I have determined that a fair level of compensation to be provided would be $2,500.00, about 2 ½ weeks of rental. Claim 4 – Time to meet people
Ms Currie states that she would often need to leave work to meet contractors. Analysis
I find this claim must be dismissed. There is no statutory requirement for tenants to be present to allow contractors to attend the premises. In fact, the scheme of the RTA is that the landlord can give the tenant notice for maintenance, and if the correct notice is given, or if the tenant consents otherwise, the landlord and its contractors can enter the house whether or not the tenant is there.
While I understand that often tenants like to be at the premises when contractors are there, strictly that is their decision, and if they wish to be present, the landlord is not liable to compensate the tenant for their time for this. Claim 5 – Market rent
The tenant states that when she rented the premises, she expected a higher-than-average property. However, when I asked the tenant whether she considered the rent would have been right, if the maintenance issues discussed above were not required, she agreed it would have. Analysis
Section 25 of the RTA confirms that the Tribunal can make a market rent order, reducing the rent to be paid, if the rent is substantially higher than a market rate.
In this case, the tenant considers that if the property had been properly maintained, the rent would be right. As I indicated at the hearing, I will consider the compensation claims, I have considered them above. Any compensation for the premises not being maintained properly sits as compensation, not rent reduction. If I were to reduce the rent, then that would mean a doubling up of ‘compensation’, and I cannot do that. Therefore, if any money is to be paid, it needs to be paid as compensation for failing to maintain the property, or loss of amenity, as opposed to a global rent reduction. For that reason, the application for a market rent order, must be dismissed.

ORDER AGAINST BY REALTY LIMITED

By Realty Limited is the property manager that took over from M2. Over the course of the hearing, no specific allegations were made in relation to failings from By Realty, and I could see no basis for any order being made against that company. Therefore, any application against By Realty is dismissed.

ORDER AGAINST BOTH LANDLORDS JOINTLY

Mr Meurant says that he had nothing to do with renting the premises to Ms Currie, he only found out about the tenancy around the time that M2 had resigned. Ms Wang disputes that Mr Meurant did not know about the tenancy, because he had been copied into all of the communications.
However the problem that Mr Meurant faces with that argument is that the file includes an exclusive property management agreement for 26 Vintage Drive, appointing M2 as the property manager. This authority has been signed by both Ms Wang and Mr Meurant and is dated 19 October 2022. That means that M2 are the landlords agents, and so whether or not the landlords had approved any particular tenancy, is not particularly relevant, because the actions of an agent, bind its principal.
I am satisfied, therefore, that this order should be made against both Ms Wang and Mr Meurant jointly.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Mould Healthy homes Leaks Auckland

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s1, s16, s20, s22B, s24, s25, s27, s34, s36, s38, s42, s50, s55, s56, s62

Key findings

Dispute theme: healthy homes
Dispute theme: mould
Dispute theme: leaks

Property management

By Realty Limited As Agent for Miao Wang & Andrew Meurant (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5287202?

The tribunal order states: Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant must pay Ammie Elizabeth Currie $2,500.00

How much money was awarded in case 5287202?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287202?

The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287202?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13319480-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287202 — Mould at 26 Vintage Drive, Henderson, Auckland 0612

Decided 20 March 2026 · Published 20 March 2026 · Application 5287202

Tenant favoured

Mould
Healthy homes
Leaks

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Tenant favoured

From published order

Location

Auckland

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

R Woodhouse

Dispute themes

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287202. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Order

Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant must pay Ammie Elizabeth Currie $2,500.00 immediately, being compensation for loss of amenity.
Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant must pay Ammie Elizabeth Currie $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,200.00 (BN-00065395) to Ammie Elizabeth Currie immediately.
All claims against By Realty Limited are dismissed.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord.
The claims relate principally to defects with the premises when the tenant rented them, and an associated failure to maintain the dwelling.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy is located at 26 Vintage Drive, Henderson, Auckland.
The tenancy agreement records the tenancy commencing on 21 March 2025, as being a periodic tenancy.
The landlords are recorded as Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant, by way of an agent, M2 Real Estate Limited (“M2”). Ms Wang and Mr Meurant were married and recently separated at the time of the tenancy. However, during the entire period of the tenancy, both were co-owners of the dwelling.
The sole tenant is Ammie Currie.
The weekly rental was $1,050.00.
As will be discussed further below, when Ms Currie took over the tenancy, there were a range of issues she found with the dwelling, and a range of later issues that have arisen.
On 28 April 2025 2025, M2 resigned from managing the premises effective from 1 June 2025. My impression from the documentation on file is that the property manager was having difficulty managing the premises, given the conflict between the two owners (landlords).
A replacement property manager, By Realty Limited, was appointed to manage the tenancy.
On 31 May 2025, the tenant wrote to By Realty by email, recording that three maintenance notices provided to M2 were attached to that email, and referring to work outstanding which includes: a. Missing kitchen rubbish bins for the bin drawer b. Broken oven seal c. Water leak in the front yard d. Further gutter leak e. Piles of wood under the house f. Laundry table leak
The file also includes a spreadsheet, which identifies work necessary to the premises, and records the date the notice was issued to the landlord regarding that work, the dates between 7 April and 28 May 2025. In addition to the work in the above paragraph, the spreadsheet includes: a. Non-functioning heated floor heating. b. Ventilation system not working. c. Premises being unclean at the start of the Tenancy. d. Gardens being overgrown. e. Loose stone on the driveway wall. f. Frayed washing line. g. Garage ramp slider damaged. h. Two wooden gate needing repair. i. Remediation required to interior wall linings. j. Missing TV aerial cables. k. Oven not cleaned at start of tenancy. l. Problems with kitchen floor flooring. m. Doorstops missing. n. Missing and broken shelving in bedroom. o. Hallway light fixture coming away from ceiling.
The tenant filed this application with the Tribunal. The matter came before Adjudicator Northwood who issued an order dated 26 September 2025, in which she confirmed the correct respondents were By Realty Limited, Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant. The adjudicator expressly confirmed that M2 Realty was not a respondent. That order carried with it a right of rehearing and appeal, which were not exercised.
At the hearing today, the landlords wanted to point to M2 as being responsible for the matters claimed by the tenant which are the subject of this hearing. The problem for the landlords, is that if they disagreed with Adjudicator Northwood’s decision around who the correct respondents were, then they needed to appeal that decision, which is now binding on all parties and myself.
Even if that were not the case, ultimately M2 was an agent, so applying the usual agency law principles, the principals of the agency (Ms Wang and Mr Meurant) are ultimately responsible for the actions of their agent. If M2 breach any obligation for which the landlords are found liable, then that would be a matter between the landlords and their agent, which this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider. Landlord / property manager relationship issues
One of the overarching issues in this case is that the landlords have been in a significant relationship conflict between themselves, and this conflict has also been with the property manager.
Ms Wang and M2 have been or are currently before the Disputes Tribunal. An order is on file from the Disputes Tribunal dated 28 July 2025, which records that Ms Wang and M2 both filed claims against one another, in relation to money they say should have been paid by the other party (CIV- 2025-090-001085.
As I told the landlords at the hearing today, the Tribunal has no ability to involving itself with their relationship issues. That is because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider disputes between landlords or disputes between landlords and property managers. What the Tribunal is concerned about is the relationship between the landlords and tenants.
As the tenant said at the hearing, she has been “stuck in the middle” of the conflict with the landlords. That is relevant for this matter before me.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

At the hearing, the tenant presented a number of claims, which I will now consider in return. Claim 1 – Bond release
The tenant seeks repayment of her bond.
The landlords confirm there is no claim against the tenant. Analysis
The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant at the end of the tenancy, seeking recovery of her bond, totalling $4,200.00.
Section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies, that provision confirms that: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The effect of this provision is that when the tenant applies to the Tribunal for release of the bond in whole or in part, if the landlord wishes to argue that it has any call on that bond, then the landlord “must” file a counterclaim for it. In the absence of a counterclaim, the Tribunal must order that the bond be released to the tenant.
For the above reasons, in the absence of a counterclaim from the landlord, the Tribunal orders that the full bond be refunded to the tenants. Claim 2 - Compensation
The tenant presented a number of compensation claims. a. Hot water
The tenant states that when she had power connected to the premises after she took possession, she found that the hot water was not working in the kitchen and master bathroom, and the cylinder required replacement. The tenant said she needed to meet a plumber on site, but the plumber did not arrive when he was meant to. It took a week for the cylinder to be replaced. The tenant said that while the landlord reimbursed half the rental for a week, she considers that the premises were not habitable for a week, so did not move in until the cylinder was replaced. The tenant said that there was hot water in the children’s bathroom, but not the main bathroom and kitchen.
Ms Wang states that there are two hot water cylinders, and she had arranged for the faulty cylinder to be replaced prior to the commencement of the tenancy, but M2 did not get this organised in time. Analysis
There is no dispute that one of the hot water cylinders was not working when the tenancy commenced.
The tenant says that she did not move in because she did not consider the premises habitable. I am not convinced about that. There was a bathroom with hot water, so the tenant and her children would have hot water for bathing, and for the kitchen, there were other ways to get water heated, such as from a kettle. I consider the premises were habitable. The landlord has provided a 50% rent credit, in my assessment that was a fair offer in the circumstances. I decline to make any further order. Mould on blinds
The tenant states that in the dining area the blinds had black mould. Some blinds were replaced, and some were cleaned, but that took about three weeks. The tenant said she had an asthmatic child, and this effected their ability to live in the premises. This was raised with the property manager on the day the premises were handed over.
Ms Wang states that this was only raised in April, and the work was fixed for the tenant. Analysis
I am satisfied that the premises were not provided to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy state, as it relates to the blinds. There are photographs on file showing what is likely to be mouldy blinds. The blinds should have been reasonably clean when the tenancy was taken over, so it is fair that she be compensated for this.
This claim relates to a loss of amenity, and I will address the compensation that should be provided under the ‘rent reimbursement’ claim below. Dishwasher
The tenant said that there was no power on handover, so the dishwasher could not be tested. However, when the power came on they found that the dishwasher had stagnant water in the bottom of it, and it would not drain. Following an assessment, the dishwasher could not be fixed, and it was eventually replaced in early or mid April, so about 2-3 weeks into the tenancy.
The landlord does not dispute that the dishwasher was faulty. Analysis
There is no dispute that the dishwasher was faulty and needed replacement. The tenancy was rented with a dishwasher, so that means the dishwasher needed to be repaired or replaced. It was replaced within about 2 weeks, but the tenant did not have the amenity of the dishwasher over that time. It is fair that the tenant be compensated for not getting the benefit of the dishwasher she was paying rent to receive.
This claim relates to a loss of amenity, and I will address the compensation that should be provided under the ‘rent reimbursement’ claim below. Plumbing
The tenant said that the laundry tub appeared to have been leaking under the tub given mould. When she hooked up her washing machine it leaked. The tenant needed to get her own plumber to attend. The invoice from the plumber records the following work: Travelled to site and found the washing machine connector was leaking when turning on water. Capped off hot water line because there was no connection for hot line from the washing machine. Capped off connection point due to leakage. Reconnected the washing machine water feed to combi tap under the laundry tub. Turned on the machine and tested it. No further leaks detected. Tied up the washing machine drain with a cable tie.
I am not certain what the cause of the leak was in this case. The evidence is not clear if the water was coming from the tenant’s washing machine, and fitting she was responsible for, or the laundry tub, including supply lines, which the landlord is responsible for.
Given I have been unable to establish if the fault was from landlord or tenant property, I must find this claim has not been established. DVS and underfloor heating not working
The tenant states that the DVS and underfloor heating was not working, and never worked during the tenancy.
Ms Wang accepts that these items were not working during the tenancy, but says that it was not raised, and not recorded on the contract.
The tenant said that she did raise this right at the start of the tenancy with the property manager when the power came on. Analysis
Again there is no dispute that these items were not working. For the same reasons above, when the premises were rented, then the items in the house that were rented, needed to work. If it was that the property manager was clear that a particular item was not working, and the tenant agreed to contract for the property anyway, then the landlord would not be liable. But here, the tenant says that she was not told these items were not working.
It is not relevant that these items were not listed on the tenancy agreement. The vast majority of items in any rented dwelling are not recorded. Liability turns on whether the tenant would have reasonably believed that the item was part of the tenancy they were renting, and I find that is the case here. A good example is the dishwasher. The dishwasher was not listed in the tenancy agreement, but any reasonable tenant who viewed the premises and saw a dishwasher in place would rightfully believe that the dishwasher was a part of the dwelling that they were renting.
It is fair that the tenant be compensated for a loss of amenity with these features of the house not working. This claim relates to a loss of amenity, and I will address the compensation that should be provided under the ‘rent reimbursement’ claim below. Claim 3 – Rent reimbursement
The tenant said that there were defects with the premises when she took it over, so she is seeking rent reimbursement for the premises not being of an adequate standards. At the hearing the tenant detailed what the issues with the premises were.
In addition to the matters raised above, Ms Currie also raised issues with general maintenance being required, and in particular the following issues that needed to be repaired during the tenancy: a. One gate not being able to be opened. b. One gate not having a lock c. Door stops missing d. Gutters leaking e. Rubbish under the house. f. Premises not being clean. g. Gardens not being tidy h. Rubbish bin i. Missing pavers j. Oven seal k. Kitchen floor boards l. Light fittings
Ms Wang states that when issues were raised, she did get on and got the work done immediately. Ms Wang says that there was hot water, and the premises were not unlivable. The premises were not new, so there would be problems expected. Analysis
This claim is really a claim of loss of amenity, and like the amenity claims above. Broadly, the tenant’s position is that there were multiple defects with the premises that needed to be addressed or repaired, and she should not be paying rent for those items.
It is virtually impossible to calculate the exact loss incurred by a tenant, when the claim relates to a loss of amenity. The best that the Tribunal can do, is establish whether there has in fact been an amenity loss, and then step back, and work out what a fair level of compensation would be.
In this case, I decline to order further compensation in relation to the hot water, I believe that the tenant has been adequately compensated for that already. I have also declined to order compensation for the plumbing, because the evidence available does not prove a breach on the part of the landlord.
Beyond that, I find that the claims have been established. The tenant has shown that there were wide-ranging problems with this Tenancy when she took possession. The items described above should have been sorted out before possession passed to Ms Currie, but ultimately she has paid rent for premises that require required reasonably significant maintenance.
Taking into account that the tenancy was of reasonably short duration, and that the landlord has also provided a half week of rent reimbursement for the hot water, I have determined that a fair level of compensation to be provided would be $2,500.00, about 2 ½ weeks of rental. Claim 4 – Time to meet people
Ms Currie states that she would often need to leave work to meet contractors. Analysis
I find this claim must be dismissed. There is no statutory requirement for tenants to be present to allow contractors to attend the premises. In fact, the scheme of the RTA is that the landlord can give the tenant notice for maintenance, and if the correct notice is given, or if the tenant consents otherwise, the landlord and its contractors can enter the house whether or not the tenant is there.
While I understand that often tenants like to be at the premises when contractors are there, strictly that is their decision, and if they wish to be present, the landlord is not liable to compensate the tenant for their time for this. Claim 5 – Market rent
The tenant states that when she rented the premises, she expected a higher-than-average property. However, when I asked the tenant whether she considered the rent would have been right, if the maintenance issues discussed above were not required, she agreed it would have. Analysis
Section 25 of the RTA confirms that the Tribunal can make a market rent order, reducing the rent to be paid, if the rent is substantially higher than a market rate.
In this case, the tenant considers that if the property had been properly maintained, the rent would be right. As I indicated at the hearing, I will consider the compensation claims, I have considered them above. Any compensation for the premises not being maintained properly sits as compensation, not rent reduction. If I were to reduce the rent, then that would mean a doubling up of ‘compensation’, and I cannot do that. Therefore, if any money is to be paid, it needs to be paid as compensation for failing to maintain the property, or loss of amenity, as opposed to a global rent reduction. For that reason, the application for a market rent order, must be dismissed.

ORDER AGAINST BY REALTY LIMITED

By Realty Limited is the property manager that took over from M2. Over the course of the hearing, no specific allegations were made in relation to failings from By Realty, and I could see no basis for any order being made against that company. Therefore, any application against By Realty is dismissed.

ORDER AGAINST BOTH LANDLORDS JOINTLY

Mr Meurant says that he had nothing to do with renting the premises to Ms Currie, he only found out about the tenancy around the time that M2 had resigned. Ms Wang disputes that Mr Meurant did not know about the tenancy, because he had been copied into all of the communications.
However the problem that Mr Meurant faces with that argument is that the file includes an exclusive property management agreement for 26 Vintage Drive, appointing M2 as the property manager. This authority has been signed by both Ms Wang and Mr Meurant and is dated 19 October 2022. That means that M2 are the landlords agents, and so whether or not the landlords had approved any particular tenancy, is not particularly relevant, because the actions of an agent, bind its principal.
I am satisfied, therefore, that this order should be made against both Ms Wang and Mr Meurant jointly.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Mould Healthy homes Leaks Auckland

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s1, s16, s20, s22B, s24, s25, s27, s34, s36, s38, s42, s50, s55, s56, s62

Key findings

Dispute theme: healthy homes
Dispute theme: mould
Dispute theme: leaks

Property management

By Realty Limited As Agent for Miao Wang & Andrew Meurant (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5287202?

The tribunal order states: Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant must pay Ammie Elizabeth Currie $2,500.00

How much money was awarded in case 5287202?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287202?

The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287202?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13319480-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287202 — Mould at 26 Vintage Drive, Henderson, Auckland 0612

Decided 20 March 2026 · Published 20 March 2026 · Application 5287202

Tenant favoured

Mould
Healthy homes
Leaks

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Tenant favoured

From published order

Location

Auckland

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

R Woodhouse

Dispute themes

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287202. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Order

Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant must pay Ammie Elizabeth Currie $2,500.00 immediately, being compensation for loss of amenity.
Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant must pay Ammie Elizabeth Currie $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,200.00 (BN-00065395) to Ammie Elizabeth Currie immediately.
All claims against By Realty Limited are dismissed.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord.
The claims relate principally to defects with the premises when the tenant rented them, and an associated failure to maintain the dwelling.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy is located at 26 Vintage Drive, Henderson, Auckland.
The tenancy agreement records the tenancy commencing on 21 March 2025, as being a periodic tenancy.
The landlords are recorded as Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant, by way of an agent, M2 Real Estate Limited (“M2”). Ms Wang and Mr Meurant were married and recently separated at the time of the tenancy. However, during the entire period of the tenancy, both were co-owners of the dwelling.
The sole tenant is Ammie Currie.
The weekly rental was $1,050.00.
As will be discussed further below, when Ms Currie took over the tenancy, there were a range of issues she found with the dwelling, and a range of later issues that have arisen.
On 28 April 2025 2025, M2 resigned from managing the premises effective from 1 June 2025. My impression from the documentation on file is that the property manager was having difficulty managing the premises, given the conflict between the two owners (landlords).
A replacement property manager, By Realty Limited, was appointed to manage the tenancy.
On 31 May 2025, the tenant wrote to By Realty by email, recording that three maintenance notices provided to M2 were attached to that email, and referring to work outstanding which includes: a. Missing kitchen rubbish bins for the bin drawer b. Broken oven seal c. Water leak in the front yard d. Further gutter leak e. Piles of wood under the house f. Laundry table leak
The file also includes a spreadsheet, which identifies work necessary to the premises, and records the date the notice was issued to the landlord regarding that work, the dates between 7 April and 28 May 2025. In addition to the work in the above paragraph, the spreadsheet includes: a. Non-functioning heated floor heating. b. Ventilation system not working. c. Premises being unclean at the start of the Tenancy. d. Gardens being overgrown. e. Loose stone on the driveway wall. f. Frayed washing line. g. Garage ramp slider damaged. h. Two wooden gate needing repair. i. Remediation required to interior wall linings. j. Missing TV aerial cables. k. Oven not cleaned at start of tenancy. l. Problems with kitchen floor flooring. m. Doorstops missing. n. Missing and broken shelving in bedroom. o. Hallway light fixture coming away from ceiling.
The tenant filed this application with the Tribunal. The matter came before Adjudicator Northwood who issued an order dated 26 September 2025, in which she confirmed the correct respondents were By Realty Limited, Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant. The adjudicator expressly confirmed that M2 Realty was not a respondent. That order carried with it a right of rehearing and appeal, which were not exercised.
At the hearing today, the landlords wanted to point to M2 as being responsible for the matters claimed by the tenant which are the subject of this hearing. The problem for the landlords, is that if they disagreed with Adjudicator Northwood’s decision around who the correct respondents were, then they needed to appeal that decision, which is now binding on all parties and myself.
Even if that were not the case, ultimately M2 was an agent, so applying the usual agency law principles, the principals of the agency (Ms Wang and Mr Meurant) are ultimately responsible for the actions of their agent. If M2 breach any obligation for which the landlords are found liable, then that would be a matter between the landlords and their agent, which this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider. Landlord / property manager relationship issues
One of the overarching issues in this case is that the landlords have been in a significant relationship conflict between themselves, and this conflict has also been with the property manager.
Ms Wang and M2 have been or are currently before the Disputes Tribunal. An order is on file from the Disputes Tribunal dated 28 July 2025, which records that Ms Wang and M2 both filed claims against one another, in relation to money they say should have been paid by the other party (CIV- 2025-090-001085.
As I told the landlords at the hearing today, the Tribunal has no ability to involving itself with their relationship issues. That is because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider disputes between landlords or disputes between landlords and property managers. What the Tribunal is concerned about is the relationship between the landlords and tenants.
As the tenant said at the hearing, she has been “stuck in the middle” of the conflict with the landlords. That is relevant for this matter before me.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

At the hearing, the tenant presented a number of claims, which I will now consider in return. Claim 1 – Bond release
The tenant seeks repayment of her bond.
The landlords confirm there is no claim against the tenant. Analysis
The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant at the end of the tenancy, seeking recovery of her bond, totalling $4,200.00.
Section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies, that provision confirms that: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The effect of this provision is that when the tenant applies to the Tribunal for release of the bond in whole or in part, if the landlord wishes to argue that it has any call on that bond, then the landlord “must” file a counterclaim for it. In the absence of a counterclaim, the Tribunal must order that the bond be released to the tenant.
For the above reasons, in the absence of a counterclaim from the landlord, the Tribunal orders that the full bond be refunded to the tenants. Claim 2 - Compensation
The tenant presented a number of compensation claims. a. Hot water
The tenant states that when she had power connected to the premises after she took possession, she found that the hot water was not working in the kitchen and master bathroom, and the cylinder required replacement. The tenant said she needed to meet a plumber on site, but the plumber did not arrive when he was meant to. It took a week for the cylinder to be replaced. The tenant said that while the landlord reimbursed half the rental for a week, she considers that the premises were not habitable for a week, so did not move in until the cylinder was replaced. The tenant said that there was hot water in the children’s bathroom, but not the main bathroom and kitchen.
Ms Wang states that there are two hot water cylinders, and she had arranged for the faulty cylinder to be replaced prior to the commencement of the tenancy, but M2 did not get this organised in time. Analysis
There is no dispute that one of the hot water cylinders was not working when the tenancy commenced.
The tenant says that she did not move in because she did not consider the premises habitable. I am not convinced about that. There was a bathroom with hot water, so the tenant and her children would have hot water for bathing, and for the kitchen, there were other ways to get water heated, such as from a kettle. I consider the premises were habitable. The landlord has provided a 50% rent credit, in my assessment that was a fair offer in the circumstances. I decline to make any further order. Mould on blinds
The tenant states that in the dining area the blinds had black mould. Some blinds were replaced, and some were cleaned, but that took about three weeks. The tenant said she had an asthmatic child, and this effected their ability to live in the premises. This was raised with the property manager on the day the premises were handed over.
Ms Wang states that this was only raised in April, and the work was fixed for the tenant. Analysis
I am satisfied that the premises were not provided to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy state, as it relates to the blinds. There are photographs on file showing what is likely to be mouldy blinds. The blinds should have been reasonably clean when the tenancy was taken over, so it is fair that she be compensated for this.
This claim relates to a loss of amenity, and I will address the compensation that should be provided under the ‘rent reimbursement’ claim below. Dishwasher
The tenant said that there was no power on handover, so the dishwasher could not be tested. However, when the power came on they found that the dishwasher had stagnant water in the bottom of it, and it would not drain. Following an assessment, the dishwasher could not be fixed, and it was eventually replaced in early or mid April, so about 2-3 weeks into the tenancy.
The landlord does not dispute that the dishwasher was faulty. Analysis
There is no dispute that the dishwasher was faulty and needed replacement. The tenancy was rented with a dishwasher, so that means the dishwasher needed to be repaired or replaced. It was replaced within about 2 weeks, but the tenant did not have the amenity of the dishwasher over that time. It is fair that the tenant be compensated for not getting the benefit of the dishwasher she was paying rent to receive.
This claim relates to a loss of amenity, and I will address the compensation that should be provided under the ‘rent reimbursement’ claim below. Plumbing
The tenant said that the laundry tub appeared to have been leaking under the tub given mould. When she hooked up her washing machine it leaked. The tenant needed to get her own plumber to attend. The invoice from the plumber records the following work: Travelled to site and found the washing machine connector was leaking when turning on water. Capped off hot water line because there was no connection for hot line from the washing machine. Capped off connection point due to leakage. Reconnected the washing machine water feed to combi tap under the laundry tub. Turned on the machine and tested it. No further leaks detected. Tied up the washing machine drain with a cable tie.
I am not certain what the cause of the leak was in this case. The evidence is not clear if the water was coming from the tenant’s washing machine, and fitting she was responsible for, or the laundry tub, including supply lines, which the landlord is responsible for.
Given I have been unable to establish if the fault was from landlord or tenant property, I must find this claim has not been established. DVS and underfloor heating not working
The tenant states that the DVS and underfloor heating was not working, and never worked during the tenancy.
Ms Wang accepts that these items were not working during the tenancy, but says that it was not raised, and not recorded on the contract.
The tenant said that she did raise this right at the start of the tenancy with the property manager when the power came on. Analysis
Again there is no dispute that these items were not working. For the same reasons above, when the premises were rented, then the items in the house that were rented, needed to work. If it was that the property manager was clear that a particular item was not working, and the tenant agreed to contract for the property anyway, then the landlord would not be liable. But here, the tenant says that she was not told these items were not working.
It is not relevant that these items were not listed on the tenancy agreement. The vast majority of items in any rented dwelling are not recorded. Liability turns on whether the tenant would have reasonably believed that the item was part of the tenancy they were renting, and I find that is the case here. A good example is the dishwasher. The dishwasher was not listed in the tenancy agreement, but any reasonable tenant who viewed the premises and saw a dishwasher in place would rightfully believe that the dishwasher was a part of the dwelling that they were renting.
It is fair that the tenant be compensated for a loss of amenity with these features of the house not working. This claim relates to a loss of amenity, and I will address the compensation that should be provided under the ‘rent reimbursement’ claim below. Claim 3 – Rent reimbursement
The tenant said that there were defects with the premises when she took it over, so she is seeking rent reimbursement for the premises not being of an adequate standards. At the hearing the tenant detailed what the issues with the premises were.
In addition to the matters raised above, Ms Currie also raised issues with general maintenance being required, and in particular the following issues that needed to be repaired during the tenancy: a. One gate not being able to be opened. b. One gate not having a lock c. Door stops missing d. Gutters leaking e. Rubbish under the house. f. Premises not being clean. g. Gardens not being tidy h. Rubbish bin i. Missing pavers j. Oven seal k. Kitchen floor boards l. Light fittings
Ms Wang states that when issues were raised, she did get on and got the work done immediately. Ms Wang says that there was hot water, and the premises were not unlivable. The premises were not new, so there would be problems expected. Analysis
This claim is really a claim of loss of amenity, and like the amenity claims above. Broadly, the tenant’s position is that there were multiple defects with the premises that needed to be addressed or repaired, and she should not be paying rent for those items.
It is virtually impossible to calculate the exact loss incurred by a tenant, when the claim relates to a loss of amenity. The best that the Tribunal can do, is establish whether there has in fact been an amenity loss, and then step back, and work out what a fair level of compensation would be.
In this case, I decline to order further compensation in relation to the hot water, I believe that the tenant has been adequately compensated for that already. I have also declined to order compensation for the plumbing, because the evidence available does not prove a breach on the part of the landlord.
Beyond that, I find that the claims have been established. The tenant has shown that there were wide-ranging problems with this Tenancy when she took possession. The items described above should have been sorted out before possession passed to Ms Currie, but ultimately she has paid rent for premises that require required reasonably significant maintenance.
Taking into account that the tenancy was of reasonably short duration, and that the landlord has also provided a half week of rent reimbursement for the hot water, I have determined that a fair level of compensation to be provided would be $2,500.00, about 2 ½ weeks of rental. Claim 4 – Time to meet people
Ms Currie states that she would often need to leave work to meet contractors. Analysis
I find this claim must be dismissed. There is no statutory requirement for tenants to be present to allow contractors to attend the premises. In fact, the scheme of the RTA is that the landlord can give the tenant notice for maintenance, and if the correct notice is given, or if the tenant consents otherwise, the landlord and its contractors can enter the house whether or not the tenant is there.
While I understand that often tenants like to be at the premises when contractors are there, strictly that is their decision, and if they wish to be present, the landlord is not liable to compensate the tenant for their time for this. Claim 5 – Market rent
The tenant states that when she rented the premises, she expected a higher-than-average property. However, when I asked the tenant whether she considered the rent would have been right, if the maintenance issues discussed above were not required, she agreed it would have. Analysis
Section 25 of the RTA confirms that the Tribunal can make a market rent order, reducing the rent to be paid, if the rent is substantially higher than a market rate.
In this case, the tenant considers that if the property had been properly maintained, the rent would be right. As I indicated at the hearing, I will consider the compensation claims, I have considered them above. Any compensation for the premises not being maintained properly sits as compensation, not rent reduction. If I were to reduce the rent, then that would mean a doubling up of ‘compensation’, and I cannot do that. Therefore, if any money is to be paid, it needs to be paid as compensation for failing to maintain the property, or loss of amenity, as opposed to a global rent reduction. For that reason, the application for a market rent order, must be dismissed.

ORDER AGAINST BY REALTY LIMITED

By Realty Limited is the property manager that took over from M2. Over the course of the hearing, no specific allegations were made in relation to failings from By Realty, and I could see no basis for any order being made against that company. Therefore, any application against By Realty is dismissed.

ORDER AGAINST BOTH LANDLORDS JOINTLY

Mr Meurant says that he had nothing to do with renting the premises to Ms Currie, he only found out about the tenancy around the time that M2 had resigned. Ms Wang disputes that Mr Meurant did not know about the tenancy, because he had been copied into all of the communications.
However the problem that Mr Meurant faces with that argument is that the file includes an exclusive property management agreement for 26 Vintage Drive, appointing M2 as the property manager. This authority has been signed by both Ms Wang and Mr Meurant and is dated 19 October 2022. That means that M2 are the landlords agents, and so whether or not the landlords had approved any particular tenancy, is not particularly relevant, because the actions of an agent, bind its principal.
I am satisfied, therefore, that this order should be made against both Ms Wang and Mr Meurant jointly.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Mould Healthy homes Leaks Auckland

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s1, s16, s20, s22B, s24, s25, s27, s34, s36, s38, s42, s50, s55, s56, s62

Key findings

Dispute theme: healthy homes
Dispute theme: mould
Dispute theme: leaks

Property management

By Realty Limited As Agent for Miao Wang & Andrew Meurant (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5287202?

The tribunal order states: Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant must pay Ammie Elizabeth Currie $2,500.00

How much money was awarded in case 5287202?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287202?

The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287202?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13319480-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287202 — Mould at 26 Vintage Drive, Henderson, Auckland 0612

Decided 20 March 2026 · Published 20 March 2026 · Application 5287202

Tenant favoured

Mould
Healthy homes
Leaks

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Tenant favoured

From published order

Location

Auckland

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

R Woodhouse

Dispute themes

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287202. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason

Order

Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant must pay Ammie Elizabeth Currie $2,500.00 immediately, being compensation for loss of amenity.
Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant must pay Ammie Elizabeth Currie $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee paid to commence this proceeding.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,200.00 (BN-00065395) to Ammie Elizabeth Currie immediately.
All claims against By Realty Limited are dismissed.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord.
The claims relate principally to defects with the premises when the tenant rented them, and an associated failure to maintain the dwelling.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy is located at 26 Vintage Drive, Henderson, Auckland.
The tenancy agreement records the tenancy commencing on 21 March 2025, as being a periodic tenancy.
The landlords are recorded as Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant, by way of an agent, M2 Real Estate Limited (“M2”). Ms Wang and Mr Meurant were married and recently separated at the time of the tenancy. However, during the entire period of the tenancy, both were co-owners of the dwelling.
The sole tenant is Ammie Currie.
The weekly rental was $1,050.00.
As will be discussed further below, when Ms Currie took over the tenancy, there were a range of issues she found with the dwelling, and a range of later issues that have arisen.
On 28 April 2025 2025, M2 resigned from managing the premises effective from 1 June 2025. My impression from the documentation on file is that the property manager was having difficulty managing the premises, given the conflict between the two owners (landlords).
A replacement property manager, By Realty Limited, was appointed to manage the tenancy.
On 31 May 2025, the tenant wrote to By Realty by email, recording that three maintenance notices provided to M2 were attached to that email, and referring to work outstanding which includes: a. Missing kitchen rubbish bins for the bin drawer b. Broken oven seal c. Water leak in the front yard d. Further gutter leak e. Piles of wood under the house f. Laundry table leak
The file also includes a spreadsheet, which identifies work necessary to the premises, and records the date the notice was issued to the landlord regarding that work, the dates between 7 April and 28 May 2025. In addition to the work in the above paragraph, the spreadsheet includes: a. Non-functioning heated floor heating. b. Ventilation system not working. c. Premises being unclean at the start of the Tenancy. d. Gardens being overgrown. e. Loose stone on the driveway wall. f. Frayed washing line. g. Garage ramp slider damaged. h. Two wooden gate needing repair. i. Remediation required to interior wall linings. j. Missing TV aerial cables. k. Oven not cleaned at start of tenancy. l. Problems with kitchen floor flooring. m. Doorstops missing. n. Missing and broken shelving in bedroom. o. Hallway light fixture coming away from ceiling.
The tenant filed this application with the Tribunal. The matter came before Adjudicator Northwood who issued an order dated 26 September 2025, in which she confirmed the correct respondents were By Realty Limited, Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant. The adjudicator expressly confirmed that M2 Realty was not a respondent. That order carried with it a right of rehearing and appeal, which were not exercised.
At the hearing today, the landlords wanted to point to M2 as being responsible for the matters claimed by the tenant which are the subject of this hearing. The problem for the landlords, is that if they disagreed with Adjudicator Northwood’s decision around who the correct respondents were, then they needed to appeal that decision, which is now binding on all parties and myself.
Even if that were not the case, ultimately M2 was an agent, so applying the usual agency law principles, the principals of the agency (Ms Wang and Mr Meurant) are ultimately responsible for the actions of their agent. If M2 breach any obligation for which the landlords are found liable, then that would be a matter between the landlords and their agent, which this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider. Landlord / property manager relationship issues
One of the overarching issues in this case is that the landlords have been in a significant relationship conflict between themselves, and this conflict has also been with the property manager.
Ms Wang and M2 have been or are currently before the Disputes Tribunal. An order is on file from the Disputes Tribunal dated 28 July 2025, which records that Ms Wang and M2 both filed claims against one another, in relation to money they say should have been paid by the other party (CIV- 2025-090-001085.
As I told the landlords at the hearing today, the Tribunal has no ability to involving itself with their relationship issues. That is because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider disputes between landlords or disputes between landlords and property managers. What the Tribunal is concerned about is the relationship between the landlords and tenants.
As the tenant said at the hearing, she has been “stuck in the middle” of the conflict with the landlords. That is relevant for this matter before me.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

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 unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

At the hearing, the tenant presented a number of claims, which I will now consider in return. Claim 1 – Bond release
The tenant seeks repayment of her bond.
The landlords confirm there is no claim against the tenant. Analysis
The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant at the end of the tenancy, seeking recovery of her bond, totalling $4,200.00.
Section 22B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies, that provision confirms that: (1) If there is a dispute between the parties as to the payment of a bond, either party may apply to the Tribunal for an order determining to whom the bond, or any part of it, is to be paid. (2) If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim.
The effect of this provision is that when the tenant applies to the Tribunal for release of the bond in whole or in part, if the landlord wishes to argue that it has any call on that bond, then the landlord “must” file a counterclaim for it. In the absence of a counterclaim, the Tribunal must order that the bond be released to the tenant.
For the above reasons, in the absence of a counterclaim from the landlord, the Tribunal orders that the full bond be refunded to the tenants. Claim 2 - Compensation
The tenant presented a number of compensation claims. a. Hot water
The tenant states that when she had power connected to the premises after she took possession, she found that the hot water was not working in the kitchen and master bathroom, and the cylinder required replacement. The tenant said she needed to meet a plumber on site, but the plumber did not arrive when he was meant to. It took a week for the cylinder to be replaced. The tenant said that while the landlord reimbursed half the rental for a week, she considers that the premises were not habitable for a week, so did not move in until the cylinder was replaced. The tenant said that there was hot water in the children’s bathroom, but not the main bathroom and kitchen.
Ms Wang states that there are two hot water cylinders, and she had arranged for the faulty cylinder to be replaced prior to the commencement of the tenancy, but M2 did not get this organised in time. Analysis
There is no dispute that one of the hot water cylinders was not working when the tenancy commenced.
The tenant says that she did not move in because she did not consider the premises habitable. I am not convinced about that. There was a bathroom with hot water, so the tenant and her children would have hot water for bathing, and for the kitchen, there were other ways to get water heated, such as from a kettle. I consider the premises were habitable. The landlord has provided a 50% rent credit, in my assessment that was a fair offer in the circumstances. I decline to make any further order. Mould on blinds
The tenant states that in the dining area the blinds had black mould. Some blinds were replaced, and some were cleaned, but that took about three weeks. The tenant said she had an asthmatic child, and this effected their ability to live in the premises. This was raised with the property manager on the day the premises were handed over.
Ms Wang states that this was only raised in April, and the work was fixed for the tenant. Analysis
I am satisfied that the premises were not provided to the tenant in a reasonably clean and tidy state, as it relates to the blinds. There are photographs on file showing what is likely to be mouldy blinds. The blinds should have been reasonably clean when the tenancy was taken over, so it is fair that she be compensated for this.
This claim relates to a loss of amenity, and I will address the compensation that should be provided under the ‘rent reimbursement’ claim below. Dishwasher
The tenant said that there was no power on handover, so the dishwasher could not be tested. However, when the power came on they found that the dishwasher had stagnant water in the bottom of it, and it would not drain. Following an assessment, the dishwasher could not be fixed, and it was eventually replaced in early or mid April, so about 2-3 weeks into the tenancy.
The landlord does not dispute that the dishwasher was faulty. Analysis
There is no dispute that the dishwasher was faulty and needed replacement. The tenancy was rented with a dishwasher, so that means the dishwasher needed to be repaired or replaced. It was replaced within about 2 weeks, but the tenant did not have the amenity of the dishwasher over that time. It is fair that the tenant be compensated for not getting the benefit of the dishwasher she was paying rent to receive.
This claim relates to a loss of amenity, and I will address the compensation that should be provided under the ‘rent reimbursement’ claim below. Plumbing
The tenant said that the laundry tub appeared to have been leaking under the tub given mould. When she hooked up her washing machine it leaked. The tenant needed to get her own plumber to attend. The invoice from the plumber records the following work: Travelled to site and found the washing machine connector was leaking when turning on water. Capped off hot water line because there was no connection for hot line from the washing machine. Capped off connection point due to leakage. Reconnected the washing machine water feed to combi tap under the laundry tub. Turned on the machine and tested it. No further leaks detected. Tied up the washing machine drain with a cable tie.
I am not certain what the cause of the leak was in this case. The evidence is not clear if the water was coming from the tenant’s washing machine, and fitting she was responsible for, or the laundry tub, including supply lines, which the landlord is responsible for.
Given I have been unable to establish if the fault was from landlord or tenant property, I must find this claim has not been established. DVS and underfloor heating not working
The tenant states that the DVS and underfloor heating was not working, and never worked during the tenancy.
Ms Wang accepts that these items were not working during the tenancy, but says that it was not raised, and not recorded on the contract.
The tenant said that she did raise this right at the start of the tenancy with the property manager when the power came on. Analysis
Again there is no dispute that these items were not working. For the same reasons above, when the premises were rented, then the items in the house that were rented, needed to work. If it was that the property manager was clear that a particular item was not working, and the tenant agreed to contract for the property anyway, then the landlord would not be liable. But here, the tenant says that she was not told these items were not working.
It is not relevant that these items were not listed on the tenancy agreement. The vast majority of items in any rented dwelling are not recorded. Liability turns on whether the tenant would have reasonably believed that the item was part of the tenancy they were renting, and I find that is the case here. A good example is the dishwasher. The dishwasher was not listed in the tenancy agreement, but any reasonable tenant who viewed the premises and saw a dishwasher in place would rightfully believe that the dishwasher was a part of the dwelling that they were renting.
It is fair that the tenant be compensated for a loss of amenity with these features of the house not working. This claim relates to a loss of amenity, and I will address the compensation that should be provided under the ‘rent reimbursement’ claim below. Claim 3 – Rent reimbursement
The tenant said that there were defects with the premises when she took it over, so she is seeking rent reimbursement for the premises not being of an adequate standards. At the hearing the tenant detailed what the issues with the premises were.
In addition to the matters raised above, Ms Currie also raised issues with general maintenance being required, and in particular the following issues that needed to be repaired during the tenancy: a. One gate not being able to be opened. b. One gate not having a lock c. Door stops missing d. Gutters leaking e. Rubbish under the house. f. Premises not being clean. g. Gardens not being tidy h. Rubbish bin i. Missing pavers j. Oven seal k. Kitchen floor boards l. Light fittings
Ms Wang states that when issues were raised, she did get on and got the work done immediately. Ms Wang says that there was hot water, and the premises were not unlivable. The premises were not new, so there would be problems expected. Analysis
This claim is really a claim of loss of amenity, and like the amenity claims above. Broadly, the tenant’s position is that there were multiple defects with the premises that needed to be addressed or repaired, and she should not be paying rent for those items.
It is virtually impossible to calculate the exact loss incurred by a tenant, when the claim relates to a loss of amenity. The best that the Tribunal can do, is establish whether there has in fact been an amenity loss, and then step back, and work out what a fair level of compensation would be.
In this case, I decline to order further compensation in relation to the hot water, I believe that the tenant has been adequately compensated for that already. I have also declined to order compensation for the plumbing, because the evidence available does not prove a breach on the part of the landlord.
Beyond that, I find that the claims have been established. The tenant has shown that there were wide-ranging problems with this Tenancy when she took possession. The items described above should have been sorted out before possession passed to Ms Currie, but ultimately she has paid rent for premises that require required reasonably significant maintenance.
Taking into account that the tenancy was of reasonably short duration, and that the landlord has also provided a half week of rent reimbursement for the hot water, I have determined that a fair level of compensation to be provided would be $2,500.00, about 2 ½ weeks of rental. Claim 4 – Time to meet people
Ms Currie states that she would often need to leave work to meet contractors. Analysis
I find this claim must be dismissed. There is no statutory requirement for tenants to be present to allow contractors to attend the premises. In fact, the scheme of the RTA is that the landlord can give the tenant notice for maintenance, and if the correct notice is given, or if the tenant consents otherwise, the landlord and its contractors can enter the house whether or not the tenant is there.
While I understand that often tenants like to be at the premises when contractors are there, strictly that is their decision, and if they wish to be present, the landlord is not liable to compensate the tenant for their time for this. Claim 5 – Market rent
The tenant states that when she rented the premises, she expected a higher-than-average property. However, when I asked the tenant whether she considered the rent would have been right, if the maintenance issues discussed above were not required, she agreed it would have. Analysis
Section 25 of the RTA confirms that the Tribunal can make a market rent order, reducing the rent to be paid, if the rent is substantially higher than a market rate.
In this case, the tenant considers that if the property had been properly maintained, the rent would be right. As I indicated at the hearing, I will consider the compensation claims, I have considered them above. Any compensation for the premises not being maintained properly sits as compensation, not rent reduction. If I were to reduce the rent, then that would mean a doubling up of ‘compensation’, and I cannot do that. Therefore, if any money is to be paid, it needs to be paid as compensation for failing to maintain the property, or loss of amenity, as opposed to a global rent reduction. For that reason, the application for a market rent order, must be dismissed.

ORDER AGAINST BY REALTY LIMITED

By Realty Limited is the property manager that took over from M2. Over the course of the hearing, no specific allegations were made in relation to failings from By Realty, and I could see no basis for any order being made against that company. Therefore, any application against By Realty is dismissed.

ORDER AGAINST BOTH LANDLORDS JOINTLY

Mr Meurant says that he had nothing to do with renting the premises to Ms Currie, he only found out about the tenancy around the time that M2 had resigned. Ms Wang disputes that Mr Meurant did not know about the tenancy, because he had been copied into all of the communications.
However the problem that Mr Meurant faces with that argument is that the file includes an exclusive property management agreement for 26 Vintage Drive, appointing M2 as the property manager. This authority has been signed by both Ms Wang and Mr Meurant and is dated 19 October 2022. That means that M2 are the landlords agents, and so whether or not the landlords had approved any particular tenancy, is not particularly relevant, because the actions of an agent, bind its principal.
I am satisfied, therefore, that this order should be made against both Ms Wang and Mr Meurant jointly.

FILING FEE

The applicant has been partly successful in their claim before the Tribunal. I find it is reasonable therefore to award the filing fee paid to commence the proceeding.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Mould Healthy homes Leaks Auckland

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s1, s16, s20, s22B, s24, s25, s27, s34, s36, s38, s42, s50, s55, s56, s62

Key findings

Dispute theme: healthy homes
Dispute theme: mould
Dispute theme: leaks

Property management

By Realty Limited As Agent for Miao Wang & Andrew Meurant (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5287202?

The tribunal order states: Miao Wang and Andrew Meurant must pay Ammie Elizabeth Currie $2,500.00

How much money was awarded in case 5287202?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287202?

The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: Healthy homes, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287202?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13319480-Tribunal_Order.pdf.