What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5289759 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5289759?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Legal Costs: $3,965.54 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $670.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5289759?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5289759?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12620597-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5289759 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5289759?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Legal Costs: $3,965.54 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $670.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5289759?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5289759?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12620597-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

25 Horo Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5289759 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5289759 — net $4,663.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Legal costs	$3,965.54	Legal costs
Repairs	$670.45	Repairs
Net award	$4,663.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,663.99

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5289759 — net $4,663.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Legal costs	$3,965.54	Legal costs
Repairs	$670.45	Repairs
Net award	$4,663.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,663.99

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Han Moi (Jordan) Oh and Shengai Jin $0.00 immediately. DescriptionLandlord Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Legal costs$3965.54 Repairs$670.45 Total award$4663.99 Minus Bond

TOTAL

-$3120.00 $1543.99

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $698.45 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The tenant’s applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has claimed for repairs to the property at the end of the tenancy, reimbursement of the filing fee, refund of the bond and compensation towards their legal costs.
The tenants dispute the landlords claim for repairs, seek compensation for psychological and medical costs, exemplary damages for termination of the tenancy without grounds, harassment and breach of quiet enjoyment, breach of healthy homes standards relating to heating, refund of bond and filing fee. Background:
The parties entered a fixed term 12 months tenancy at 25 Horo Road, Flatbush, which commenced on 11 April 2024. The occupants were the two tenants and their two young children.
The landlord met with the tenants on 17 January 2025 to discuss whether they intended to continue with the tenancy at the end of the fixed term. Both parties accept that there were discussions about the possibility of the landlord selling the property later in the year, and that there would be a $30.00 per week rent increase after the fixed term ends.
The parties discussed the tenant’s pregnancy. The landlord said they made a comment about amending the tenancy agreement which provided for 4 occupants. One tenant says that the landlord stated having a baby would mean 5 occupants would be residing in the property and that it would be “illegal” and a breach to the tenancy agreement, therefore the tenants would have to leave the property.
The other tenant did not hear the landlord say this and so could not make any comment on that claim. The landlord absolutely denies that they made comments of this nature.
This is the basis of the tenants claim of unlawful termination of the tenancy without grounds, which will be discussed further in the order.
The tenants made an opening statement in the hearing where they stated the purpose of filing the application before the Tenancy Tribunal was to seek fairness and justice for tenants.
The tenants brought a support person and a witness to talk about the emotional stress the tenants went through during the tenancy.
The tenants objected to Tony Wang attending as a landlord at the hearing, despite naming him in their application as a landlord of the premises. Mr Wang is the husband of the owner of the property and has been involved in the role of a landlord throughout the tenancy. All communication during the tenancy has largely been with Mr Wang. Mrs Shao has instructed legal counsel to attend as her representative in the hearing, alongside Mr Wang.
I consider Mr Wang is entitled to be at the hearing as an agent of the landlord and was the only person who could speak to relevant issues raised in the hearing.
I have previously consented to legal counsel representing the landlord given the amount in dispute is over $6000.00 and the level of complexity regarding the numerous claims. The tenants were aware since July 2025 that the landlord had legal counsel representing them.

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. Standard of proof:
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application (in this case, the landlord and the tenant) to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted 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.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant and Respondent), 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary Damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. Landlords’ claims:

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Scraps, holes, and minor paint damage to the door frames into the garage and front entrance and walls.
The landlord provided an invoice for the cost of repairing the damage and photos taken from an earlier inspection and at the end of the tenancy. The invoice was for $670.45.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I am satisfied that the landlord has been successful in their claim for the repair costs.
I will be dealing with the landlord’s primary claim for legal costs after consideration of the tenant’s claim. That will then determine the remaining landlords claims for suppression, refund of bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Tenants’ claims: Termination of tenancy without grounds
The tenant’s claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA RTA. Section 60AA RTA states: -A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application.
The tenant’s claim is that the landlord’s comments about them having to leave the premises because of the wife’s pregnancy amounts to unlawful termination of the tenancy without grounds.
This was a fixed term tenancy, and it was the tenants that advised the landlord that they did not wish to continue with the tenancy at the end of the fixed term.
Regardless of whether the landlord made such comments, at no time has the landlord served the tenants with notice to terminate the tenancy.
I find there is no merit in the tenants claim and I dismiss this claim. Breach of RTA by harassment and breach quiet enjoyment:
Han Moi (Jordan) Oh and Shengai Jin claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants told the Tribunal that on 20 December 2024 the landlords mother came to do an inspection. The tenants claim that the landlords had rung them at
00pm the night before wanting to inspect the property the next day. The tenants complain that this was not adequate notice in writing.
The landlords said that they rang the tenant to make a suitable time with them, which did not have to be the following day. The landlord said that as the following day was arranged neither he nor his wife could get time off work at short notice to do the inspection themselves. The landlords arranged for their mother to do the inspection on their behave. The landlords advised the tenants of this and there was no disagreement.
The mother turned up the next day when only one of the tenants were home. The tenant said the mother opened and closed their cupboards and made comments apparently regretting letting the property to theses tenants.
The tenant say she was upset and stressed, and these comments caused her psychological damage. The tenant said she went to church and told her friends about the situation.
The landlord claims that the tenants gave permission for the inspection at that date and time. S48(1) (a) RTA provides that a landlord shall not enter except with consent of the tenants freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry.
On another occasion the mother came to look at a leak in the bathroom. The tenant said she spoke loudly and took photos in the bedroom and opened cupboards. The tenants’ children saw this and were shocked. The tenants provided two drawings made by the children, depicting the event, which they wanted included in the evidence. The landlord says the only photos that were taken were solely for the purpose of documenting and recording the condition of the property and any damage. The landlord deny that the mother opened cupboards and drawers and took inappropriate photos of the inside of wardrobes.
The tenants raised the incident on 17 January 2025 where one states that they will have to leave the property because it was illegal to have a 5 th person in the premises.
Both tenants claim that they became very stressed and emotionally harmed by these events. One tenant claimed he needed to seek psychological counselling several months after the end of the tenancy.
The tenants refer to a “without prejudice” letter sent to the tenants from the landlord’s lawyer the day before the case conference in July 2025. The tenants claim the letter was a threat. Furthermore, the request by the landlord to deduct $670.45 from the bond to cover the repairs, was threatening.
The landlord stated the letter was simply an offer to resolve to avoid having to come to the hearing, and that it is not unlawful nor inappropriate to request a refund from the bond for damages.
The purpose of the bond is to be held by the bond centre until the conclusion of the tenancy to provide security to the landlord for rent arrears and damages to the property.
I do not find that the landlords have harassed or breached the quiet enjoyment of the tenants.
I accept that the tenants were stressed by finding themselves having to move after one year, when the wife was heavily pregnant. However, I do not find that the tenants have provided me the standard of proof necessary to satisfy me of their claim and therefore I must dismiss the claim. Breach of Healthy Homes Standards:
Han Moi (Jordan) Oh and Shengai Jin claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1) (bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Han Moi (Jordan) Oh and Shengai Jin considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS heating standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy: or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters,’ with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS.
The heating standard requires that heaters in the particular tenancy have a minimum heating capacity. An on-line calculator has been produced in order to determine what level of heating is required for any particular premises, and that can be found at https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/heating-tool/
The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
In this case I have determined that the landlord has not breached Healthy homes standards relating to heating.
This is a modern home built in 2018. The main lounge is downstairs and has a compliant heat pump. The issue is that the upstairs has a lounge, and the tenants claim that the landlord has an obligation to provide another heat pump for the upstairs lounge.
A landlord is not required to provide two heat pumps if there are two lounges, but they must provide at least one fixed heater that can directly heat the main living room. The main living room is downstairs and used for everyday living.
I find [The landlord/s] have not committed an unlawful act. I am dismissing the tenants claim that the landlord has breached healthy homes standards relating to heating. Failing to provide information:
Han Moi (Jordan) Oh and Shengai Jin claims the landlord has not provided a copy of the insurance policy and healthy homes standards for the premises.
S13 (1A) and (1CA) RTA provided that every tenancy agreement shall include information such as compliance with Healthy homes standards.
Furthermore, a tenant can request the landlord to provide a copy of any insurance policy which relates to the tenant’s liability for destruction of, or damage to, the premises. The landlord must provide a copy of the policy within a reasonable time. The landlord must notify the tenant of any changes to the information provided, or if the premises are no longer insured. See s 45(2B) and (2C) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord had initially used the services of a property management company at the time the tenancy commenced. The landlord assumed that all the necessary documentation required for compliance under the RTA was attended to by the professional property management company.
The landlord was unaware of documentation the tenants had not received and were seeking.
There is no dispute from the tenants that they did not ask the landlord for specific information of any kind relating to Healthy Homes and insurance and had not raised these during the tenancy.
The tenants claimed that they were unsure of the law when they were tenants in the premises, but after leaving the house they sought advise and looked up the RTA. It was then that they realised they could make these claims.
I find the landlord has not breached their obligations to disclose specific documentation to the tenants because the landlord had not been asked for any information from the tenants.
Therefore, I must dismiss the tenants claim that the landlord failed to provided information. Costs:
Generally, costs are not awarded in the Tribunal, except in limited circumstances. Section 102(2)(b) RTA confirms that costs may be ordered where any party is represented by counsel, as in this case. Section 102(3)(b) then provides that the Tribunal may order one party to pay the other party “the reasonable costs of that other party in connection with the proceedings.” Tenants claim for costs:
The tenants are claiming for the cost of psychological treatment and medical expenses. However, during the hearing they advised that they did not have any actual invoices, and it was up to the Tribunal if I considered they should be awarded compensation for stress and emotional harm.
The tenants provided a witness from their church who said that she and the other people at their church had discussions about the stress the tenants were experiencing due to the tenancy.
The witness talked about how shocked and frightened the tenant had been when the fire alarm went off at the house one night. The smoke alarm needed a new battery or was faulty. The churchgoers were worried for the tenants and prayed for them.
On another occasion the tenant told her witness that the landlord’s mother had come to do an inspection in the house and that she spoke loudly and opened cupboard doors and took photos. The witness said the tenant was upset and the children were shocked.
On another occasion the tenant had reported to this witness that the landlord’s mother was rude to her and made a comment about wishing they had not rented the property to these tenants.
Mr Li, counsel for the landlord, objected to the evidence and stated it is hearsay evidence and should not be allowed.
This is a “lay Tribunal” which operates not strictly on rules of evidence that generally applies in the civil jurisdiction. I have heard the evidence and will give it the weight I consider it warrants.
I have heard the tenants witness, and I agree with Mr Li that her evidence is hearsay and has not assisted me greatly with my determination, but I appreciate her efforts to come and give her evidence at the hearing.
The Tenancy Tribunal can award compensation for stress caused by a landlord’s breach of their obligations. However, that is the primary issue for the tenants as I do not consider having heard the evidence from all parties and witness and read all supporting documents, that the landlord has breached their obligations under the tenancy agreement nor the RTA.
Therefore, I cannot award any compensation for stress and emotional harm. I acknowledge that the tenants were stressed, but that was due to several factors not related to the actions of the landlord. Landlord claims for legal costs:
Under s93 RTA, parties are entitled to be represented by counsel if the amount in dispute is more than $6,000. Counsel may also appear if the Tribunal is satisfied that a party should be permitted to instruct counsel due to the nature and complexity of the issues or a disparity between the parties that affects their ability to present their case.
The tenants initial claim was for $70,000.00 which was largely for alleged breaches of the RTA and awards of exemplary damages. The landlord stated in the hearing that given the initial complexity and the quantum of the claim, they sought legal advice.
The landlord seeks an order for costs based on actual costs of $9913.85 (GST inclusive) for the costs of preparing and filing the proceedings, hearing preparation and attendance at the full day hearing. Law and analysis:
Section 102(3)(b) RTA gives the Tribunal discretion to award reasonable costs where a party is represented by counsel. Beyond the requirement that the costs be reasonable the RTA does not provide any further guidance on determining the amount.
It is unusual for a Tribunal or Court in New Zealand to award full indemnity costs against the losing party. What is considered to be “reasonable” costs will depend on a range of factors. In Holden v Architectural Finishes Ltd 1 Justice McGechan confirmed that one approach to costs is to start from actual costs and discount downwards to arrive at a reasonable contribution to costs. He held: “...the sum in issue is a ‘reasonable’ ‘contribution.’ It is not some mere gesture. It is not some virtual payment in full. It is merely a contribution, and a 1 Holden v Architectural Finishes LTD [1997] 3 NZLR 143 reasonable one. At the outer limits, proportions of reasonable actual fees can afford some guidance. A 10% or even 20% contribution – very little indeed – may seldom qualify. A 90% or 80% contribution, virtually the total, may be regarded as likewise...if the ‘reasonable contribution’ earlier determined falls within a middle range, say 40% to 70%, there is a feeling of some comfort...”
McGechan, J acknowledged that in some cases it will be necessary to determine the threshold question of whether the actual costs incurred fall within a reasonable range before deciding what a reasonable contribution to those costs should be in the circumstances. When a party is represented by counsel, there are various “shopping lists” of potentially relevant factors to consider when assessing whether the costs were reasonable and what would be a reasonable contribution. Having regard to the factors outlined in Holden, the following factors should be taken into account in this case: A) The length of the hearing, this was a full day fixture that ran the full course of the day. B) The sum of money involved and/or claimed C) The importance of the issues to the parties generally. D) The legal and factual complexity. E) Unreasonable refusal to settle. G) Whether argument lacking substance was advanced, H) The degree of success achieved by the parties
I consider that the tenant’s application to the Tribunal was largely without merit and frivolous. The landlord has suffered financial loss and harm due to the nature of the claims made about them. The tenants have made a post on Facebook claiming that their landlord was making them leave their home because the wife was pregnant.
The landlord seeks an order that includes that any Face book posts made about them (the landlords), or their tenancy must be removed. The tenant claim there was only the one post that was given in evidence to the Tribunal. The tenants have agreed that they will remove that post immediately and not make any further post on social media about this tenancy.
The landlord has provided detailed time sheets and invoices for the cost of the invoices they have paid and are expecting to pay for their representation at the Tribunal.
I consider that the only reason the landlord has incurred these legal costs was because of the frivolous and unmeritorious claims by the tenants. The initial claim was seeking $70,000.00. I accept that the tenants should pay a portion of the legal costs incurred. I believe the tenants should pay 40% of the total legal costs incurred by the landlord. The tenants must pay the sum of $3965.54 to the landlord towards their legal costs. Filing Fee/ /Bond:
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
As the tenants have not been successful with their claims, I am not reimbursing the filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to refund the bond to the landlord to offset the debt owed by the tenants to the landlord. Name Suppression:
The landlord applies for non-publication of their name and identifying details. The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord was brought before the Tribunal on frivolous claims that had no validity and that the tenants largely accepted that fact when discussing their claims at the hearing.
I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlords conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Non-publication of the landlord’s name is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5289759 — Property damage at 25 Horo Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5289759 — Property damage at 25 Horo Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

TOTAL

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

TOTAL

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions