What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5357245 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5357245?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Moving Costs: $1,428.88 awarded to tenant; Moving Trailer: $147.50 awarded to tenant; Sleepout Issues – Rent Reduction: $741.32 awarded to tenant; Storage Costs: $708.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5357245?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5357245?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13175344-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5357245 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5357245?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; Moving Costs: $1,428.88 awarded to tenant; Moving Trailer: $147.50 awarded to tenant; Sleepout Issues – Rent Reduction: $741.32 awarded to tenant; Storage Costs: $708.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5357245?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5357245?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13175344-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

9 Dornwell Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5357245 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5357245. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Moving costs	$1,428.88	Moving costs
Moving trailer	$147.50	Moving trailer
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Sleepout issues – rent reduction	$741.32	Sleepout issues – rent reduction
Storage costs	$708.00	Storage costs
Compensation for emotional harm	$2,000.00	Compensation for emotional harm
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5357245. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Moving costs	$1,428.88	Moving costs
Moving trailer	$147.50	Moving trailer
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Sleepout issues – rent reduction	$741.32	Sleepout issues – rent reduction
Storage costs	$708.00	Storage costs
Compensation for emotional harm	$2,000.00	Compensation for emotional harm
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
Mission Property Management Limited as agent for Sharonhong Chen and Yuxi Jiang must pay [the tenants] $5,553.70 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionTenant Moving costs$1,428.88 Moving trailer$147.50 Cleaning$500.00 Sleepout issues – rent reduction$741.32 Storage costs$708.00 Compensation for emotional harm$2,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$5,553.70 1 The order was originally issued on 14 February 2026. This amended order dated 24 February 2026, amends the original order at the landlord’s request to correct the owners’/principal landlords’ names.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams by video.
The tenants attended for themselves.
Sarah Wang, the property manager, and Wallace Wang, a manager, attended the hearing for the landlord. 2
The tenants claim that the landlord did not provide vacant possession of part of the garage, did not provide the premises reasonably clean, that the “fourth bedroom” sleepout was unconsented and unsanitary, and that the tenancy agreement contained inaccurate information.
For remedy, the tenants seek compensation. Background
This was a brief and unsuccessful tenancy.
The tenancy began on 29 March 2025 and was meant to continue until 27 March 2026. However, the tenancy went badly, and the parties ended the tenancy early on 4 May 2025 by mutual agreement.
The property’s section is about 700m 2 . The house is an approximately 100-year-old bungalow. It has original features such as timber-clad rooms and has been altered and added to over the decades. The house itself has three bedrooms. A garage that was built in about 2005 has a space within it that has been converted to be an additional bedroom.
The tenants went to a viewing of the property three weeks before the tenancy began on 8 March 2025. They became interested in renting the property and asked the letting agent, Karen, about the general garage area which was locked off at the time of viewing. Mr [[tenant’s surname] is a builder/project manager who needed an accessible secure storage area for his tools of trade and materials. Rightly or wrongly, the tenants left the viewing with the clear impression that Karen has told them that the general garage was part of the tenancy. 2 Mission Property Management is the landlord for this claim. The tenancy agreement names the principals as “Sharonhong and Yuxi”. Victor Jiang gave evidence as one of the landlords. I assume he is also known as “Yuxi”.
The tenants have two younger children aged eight and seven and an older child in her late teens. The tenants planned to have the younger children’s bedrooms inside and for the teenager to have the sleepout.
At the time of the tenants’ first viewing, the landlord and other people were working on the property. They inferred that premises was in the process of being cleaned and repaired as required so as to bring the premises up to a reasonable letting standard by the time any tenancy began.
Regrettably, having accepted the tenancy, when the tenants moved in they found the premises was not as clean as they had anticipated. The bathrooms were so grubby by their standards they found were uncomfortable using them. They thoroughly cleaned one of the bathrooms before it was sufficiently hygienic for use and spent their first weekend in the home cleaning.
Then it soon became apparent that the general garage area that was so important to them was excluded from the premises; it had been reserved to hold the owner’s belongings. The owner’s belongings were also occupying two basement rooms and the garage’s rear storage room. Those rooms were dirty, dusty, and generally unclean. This further discomforted the tenants because these areas were in close proximity to their living areas.
The tenants were disappointed to find the sleepout smelt musty and chemically and that its construction appeared - including its electrical connections – to be below modern building standards. They did not feel confident the sleepout was safe or healthy to use.
The tenants also found that the tenancy agreement’s assurance of Healthy Homes compliance was misleading. It mentioned a heat pump but there was no heat pump. Nor could the house comply with the heating standard (as asserted in the tenancy agreement) because it had no qualifying heater. The house was also draughty, and among other excessive gaps, the back door had a one-inch gap from the floor, so the house could not meet the draught-stopping standard as claimed either.
The tenants’ teenage daughter moved out to live with friends because the tenants were concerned that it was not safe or healthy for their daughter to live in.
The landlord was conciliatory and offered compensation for the tenants time to clean and additional storage space, including eventually access to the general garage. However, the tenants found the property unsuitable and had determined to move on. The landlord agreed to the early termination of the tenancy. Issues for determination
The issues the Tribunal must decide are: a. Did the landlord provide the premises reasonably clean? b. Did the landlord need to provide vacant possession of the general garage? c.Did the sleepout comply with building rules? d. What remedies should be ordered?

Did the landlord provide the premises reasonably clean?

The tenants claim that the premises was not provided to them in a reasonably clean condition. Legal principles
Under s 45(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies 45 Landlord’s responsibilities (1) The landlord shall— (a) provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness...
A “reasonable state of cleanliness” means clean to the standard an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. A “reasonable” state of cleanliness does not mean spotless, immaculate, or commercially clean, hotel or motel standard.
It is the overall standard of cleanliness of the premises that matters. One or two isolated areas of minor uncleanliness does not mean the premises are not reasonably clean overall.
The onus for establishing the claim, sits with the person making it on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the tenants allege the premises was not provided clean. Therefore, they bear the onus of proof. Discussion
The tenants submitted videos and photographs of various parts of the premises and gave direct evidence of their experiences when they moved in.
The landlord provided a video of the premises at move-in which indicated that the premises were not in an appalling condition by any means.
Having reviewed the photographs and videos and listened to the parties’ oral evidence, I am satisfied that the bathrooms were not cleaned to a reasonable standard of cleanliness for the commencement of a tenancy. The stove was blocked up with grease so was not sufficiently clean to use. The premises were not generally filthy, but various areas needed further cleaning. The back stairs were well below the standard of cleanliness that an objective bystander would consider was reasonably clean. Other parts of the house such as some of the kitchen shelves needed wiping down. 3
The premises would have benefitted from a thorough professional clean prior to the commencement of the tenancy. Conclusion
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord did not provide the premises reasonably clean. The tenants have proved this claim.
Remedies for the breach are discussed below.

Did the landlord need to provide vacant possession of the general garage?

The tenants say that the landlord did not provide vacant possession of the general part of the garage. A preliminary issue in deciding this matter is whether “the premises” under tenancy agreement included the general garage area or not.
The garage building, as a whole building, was constructed in 2005. When built, it only comprised a garage and a toilet. However, since 2025 someone has divided the garage into three areas: a bedroom and separate bathroom; a main general garage space; and a storage area at the rear.
The tenants say the landlord provided vacant possession of the bedroom and bathroom, but not the storage area, nor – most importantly – the main general garage space, which was essential for Mr [tenant’s surname] to conveniently secure his expensive tools of trade and materials. 3 The Tenancy Compliance Investigation Team issued the landlord a warning for cleanliness and tenancy agreement breaches. Legal principles
Under s 37(1) of Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), tenants are entitled to vacant possession of the premises: 37 Vacant Possession (1) The tenant shall have vacant possession of the premises on the date on which, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, the tenant is entitled to enter into occupation of the premises.
That means the landlord must remove all of their own possessions from the premises. Discussion
The tenants say the landlord’s letting agent told them that the main garage was included in the tenancy. The landlords says the main garage was not part of the tenancy premises and their letting agent did not say otherwise. Rather, the tenants probably misunderstood what the agent said to them given the somewhat vague nature of the word “garage”, which could cover the storage area, the bedroom area, and the general garage are..
Mr [tenant’s surname] told the Tribunal that at the viewing of the house about three- and-a-half weeks before the tenancy began, the letting agent from Mission Property Management, Karen Yang, confirmed that the main general garage was included in the premises. He says he and his partner could not view the garage because the agent did not have a key. He specifically asked the agent about the area because he is a builder, and a convenient secure storage area for his tools and materials was essential.
Ms Wang says that she spoke to Ms Yang on the phone at that time and confirmed to her that the general garage area was not included in the premises. Therefore, it does not make sense that Ms Yan would tell them that it was.
However, Mr [tenant’s surname] is adamant Ms Yang told him that the garage was included, and he would not have agreed to take the tenancy if it were otherwise.
Ms Wang pointed out that the landlord’s communications with the tenants prior to the tenancy beginning included an icon that indicates car garaging is not available. However, that did nothing to alert the tenants the garage was unavailable because they did not want the garage for a car, they wanted the garage to store tools and materials.
Importantly, the tenancy agreement gives the tenancy address as 9 Dornwell Road and does not make any mention of part of the premises as being excluded for the landlord’s use. The tenants were entitled to rely upon the description of the premises given in the tenancy agreement. Nor could the landlord provide any written communications from the time of the formation of the agreement which suggested the main garage was excluded.
It is not possible to know with certainty exactly what Ms Wang said to the tenants about the garage. I accept, however, Mr [tenant’s surname] believed as a result of what she said that the main garage was included in the premises. The landlord failed to exclude the main garage in either the tenancy agreement or in any subsequent communications – as they should have if it were to be excluded. The tenants ought to be able to rely upon the tenancy agreement’s text and it would not be fair to find otherwise. In these circumstances, I find that the premises under the tenancy agreement included the main garage. 4 Conclusion
I find that under the tenancy contract, “the premises” included the general garage. It follows, the landlord had to provide vacant possession of the garage, and the landlord is in breach of its duty.
Remedies for the breach are addressed below.

Did the sleepout meet building enactments?

The landlord represented the premises as having four bedrooms. The tenants submit that one of the purported bedrooms, the “sleepout” that had been built by dividing the original garage, was unconsented and was unsuitable for use as a bedroom. In particular, the bedroom had a door that opened to the rear storage area and a gap in the door allowed foul air to flow into the bedroom. Legal principles
The landlord must comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises. 5 4 I could have analysed the issue under ss 35 and 37 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. However, I consider focusing on the landlord’s statutory duty under s 37 of the RTA is preferable. 5 Under s 45(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Discussion
The landlord provided a copy of the final code compliance certificate for the garage issued by Auckland City Council on 22 September 2005. That document confirms that the work consented and certified was: Erect Garage with Wc and Remove On-Ground Swimming Pool
The CCC does not refer to a “bedroom” nor any other habitable space. It follows, the bedroom must have been created later.
Converting part of the garage to a bedroom entailed changing a portion of the garage to a habitable space. “An owner must not change the use of the building” without a building consent. 6 Conclusion
The bedroom’s construction did not comply with s 115 of the Building Act 2004. It follows, the bedroom was not a legal bedroom and the landlord’s description of the premises as having four bedrooms (which must include the inference that they are all legally compliant bedrooms) was inaccurate. Remedies
The cumulative effect of the landlord’s breaches was that the property proved to be unsuitable for the tenants and their family. The tenants were put to the trouble of moving twice within a few weeks. In addition to their work and family obligations they had to clean the premises. The problems caused significant additional stress at a time when the tenants were already struggling. The tenants submit: 7 As a result of the above breaches, we effectively moved unnecessarily into an inappropriate rental property and our family suffered significant financial losses and emotional distress were incurred extra expenses directly caused by the misrepresentation, unsafe and dirty conditions, and lack of vacant possession.
The tenants seek reimbursement of their move-in costs for a truck and a trailer. They submitted invoices to prove the cost. These costs are ordered. 6 See s 115(b) of the Building Act 2004. 7 Tenancy Tribunal – Breaches & Compensation Statement p 3.
The tenants seeks an order for reimbursement of all of the rent they paid. I decline to order the full amount of the rent. However, I order the landlord to reimburse the tenants 15 per cent of the rent they paid to account for sleepout being non-compliant (the general garage unavailability is dealt with separately). That reduction reflects the tenants’ lost amenity in the premises due to the sleepout issues. The Tribunal orders the landlord to repay the tenants $741.32 of the rent.
For cleaning, the tenants seek an order for $500.00. That amount is apposite by reference to the tenant’s photographs and the probable cost of commercial cleaning if it had been done professionally.
The tenants had to store property in a storage unit. Their costs of $708.00 were proven.
The tenants claim for emotional harm. I am satisfied that they did suffer significant stress, worry, insecurity, and inconvenience.
The Tribunal in Palmer v Housing New Zealand No 2) 8 held that when assessing the quantum of general damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c.The effect of the breach on the party.
The Tribunal in Ogbourne described the range of emotional harm damages awarded in the Tribunal as falling within three bands: 9
Whilst it is not easy to set a figure for compensation, especially with the loss being largely the Owners mental distress, there is a general band within which there is a fair objective measure.
In a breach that is at the lower end of the scale, there may be nothing lost in monetary terms, but the party may still have had to put up with the inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment that comes from such a breach. Awards in such cases have tended to be $100.00-$450.00.
In a breach that intrudes further into the party’s life, the party may have endured a greater degree of inconvenience and the mental distress will have probably increased to worry, stress, tension, or anxiety. Awards in such cases have tended to be $450.00-$1,000.00. 8 Palmer v Housing New Zealand (No 2) Auckland TT 2378/92, 25 August 1993. 9 Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens [2017] NZTT 4046775;4052092 at [29]-[31]. Compare, for example, the Human Rights Review Tribunal where damages for emotional harm have been summarised as: Band 1 - up to $10,000; Band 2 - up to $50,000.00; and Band 3 - over $50,000.00. See Hammond v Credit Union Baywide [2015] HRRT 6 at [176]. $98,000.00 for emotional harm was ordered in that case.
In a major breach towards the highest end of the scale, the party may have experienced all or some hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, and fear. Awards in such cases have tended to be $1,000.00-$2,000.00.
The Tribunal’s power to award compensation has been increased from $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 by s 50 of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020, which emphasises the Tribunal’s orders can potentially range as high as $100,000.00. However, the Tribunal’s orders for general damages have traditionally been modest.
in 2020, Judge Neave described the Tribunal’s awards for emotional harm damages as “not particularly generous” and “fairly conservative” and described the Tribunal’s award in the case before him as “close to being derisory”. 10 In that case the tenant lived in an apartment building operated by a social housing provider. The landlord had been carrying out asbestos removal work which required it to arrange for its contractors to access the apartments according to a schedule of works. One day the tenant returned to her unit and found that the contractors had entered her apartment while she was out leaving their materials, without giving her any notice. The landlord thought it had given the tenant proper notice but had mis-recorded the apartment numbers that it had given notice to. His Honour found the Tribunal’s award of $200.00 for emotional harm “close to being derisory”. He substituted an award of in the sum of $2,000.00 for the “significant intrusion on [the tenant’s] rights”.
In Sun v Kang 11 the landlord had briefly entered the tenant’s unit on two occasions with a plumber to investigate and repair leaking pipes, believing the tenant had consented. On appeal in the District Court Judge Clark upheld the Tribunal’s order for $3,000.00 in general damages, observing: 12 [69] Ultimately any assessment of damages will be based on all the circumstances of the case including (but not intending to make a prescriptive list) the intentions of the landlord; whether there was a lawful purpose which sat behind the conduct; the conduct of the tenant; the effect on the tenant; whether the conduct was ongoing, whether there were any aggravating or mitigating factors from both the landlord or tenant.
The landlord’s breaches did go to the heart of the value of the tenancy. The duration of the breaches was not prolonged. The breaches did have significant effect on the tenants. The landlord probably did not intend to commit the breaches. There was an 10 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing [2020] NZDC 17667. Compare, for example, the Human Rights Review Tribunal where damages for emotional harm have been summarised as: Band 1 - up to $10,000.00; Band 2 - up to $50,000.00; and Band 3 - over $50,000.00. See Hammond v Credit Union Baywide [2015] HRRT 6 at [176]. $98,000.00 for emotional harm was ordered in that case. 11 Sun v Kang [2023] NZDC 24786 12 Ibid at [69]. . element of miscommunication and lack of attention to detail. The landlord was reactive to issues rather than proactively ensuring that the issues did not occur in the first place. For instance, the landlord should have realised the premises did not have a heat pump. It should have ensured the premises were cleaner rather than passively waiting for the tenants to complain. The landlord did, however, respond to the tenants’ complaints. It offered to compensate them for the cleaning, arranged to provide them with the storage they needed, and released them form the tenancy early, which mitigated the harm the tenants would have otherwise suffered.
The tenants already had a lot on their plate causing life-shattering problems. The purpose of emotional harm damages is to compensate them for the contributory distress of the landlord’s breaches, not for pre-existing harm. I am satisfied that each tenant suffered emotional harm as a result of the breaches and that an order for $1,000.00 for each tenant is apposite. Filing fee
The landlord must reimburse the tenants for their filing fee. 13 Non-publication
The tenants seek an order for non-publication of their names 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 tenants have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or otherwise justified.
Non-publication is allowed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5357245 — Cleanliness at 9 Dornwell Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5357245 — Cleanliness at 9 Dornwell Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord provide the premises reasonably clean?

Did the landlord need to provide vacant possession of the general garage?

Did the sleepout meet building enactments?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord provide the premises reasonably clean?

Did the landlord need to provide vacant possession of the general garage?

Did the sleepout meet building enactments?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions