Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5301992 — Property damage at 14 Dianthus Place, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630
Decided 20 Nov 2025 · Published 20 Nov 2025 · Application 5301992
- Property damage
- Rent arrears
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The Tribunal orders the suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- The landlord’s application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties appeared in person at the hearing.
- There was initial uncertainty regarding the attendance of the landlord’s solicitor, Yiming (Andrew) Shao, who had questioned the basis of the Registry’s notice of hearing – despite being the applicant – and later advised he was overseas. Fortunately, the hearing proceeded as scheduled.
- The landlord alleged that the tenant remained in the property after being served with a termination notice dated 29 March 2025, which was posted to her.
- Based on this, the landlord sought possession of the property and the following amounts: DescriptionLandlordTenant Possession and rent until possession Rent arrears to 8 July 2025 Unknown $13,340.00 Water rates$4,311.90 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Replacement keyUnknown Amount claimed$17,679.90 (Minimum)
- The tenant stated that in mid-February, the property manager had phoned and informed her that she and her two children had two weeks to vacate the property due to a sale (reportedly the second sale). They moved out by the end of February 2025, despite no formal written notice apparently being given. She provided photographic evidence showing she had taped the key to the front door upon vacating.
- Upon hearing and seeing this, Mr Shao effectively abandoned the landlord’s claims, advising that the landlord’s main concern was possession, as the (development) property was scheduled for demolition the following week. The application had been based on information received from the property manager.
- The applicant is responsible for proving their case to the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. It is regrettable that the landlord did not verify the relevant facts before initiating proceedings – especially given the significant amount claimed and the possibility that the tenant may have grounds for a separate claim regarding the notice to vacate. Whether to pursue such a claim is a matter for the tenant.
- Under sections 102(2) and (3)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal may award reasonable costs to a party if the claim is found to be frivolous or vexatious, a party is legally represented, the matter could have been resolved in mediation, or a party failed to attend the hearing without reasonable excuse.
- In this case, the tenant did not seek costs. However, had she done so, the Tribunal would have been inclined to consider awarding them in the circumstances.
- Considering the outcome, the tenant’s name and identifying information are suppressed.