What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5363847 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 5363847?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $91.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5363847?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5363847?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13265409-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5363847 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 5363847?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $91.17 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5363847?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5363847?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13265409-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Apartment 505, 6A Nugent Street, Grafton, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5363847 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5363847 — net $119.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: (4 July 2025 - 1 September 2025	$91.17	Water rates: (4 July 2025 - 1 September 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$119.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$119.17

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5363847 — net $119.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: (4 July 2025 - 1 September 2025	$91.17	Water rates: (4 July 2025 - 1 September 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$119.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$119.17

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Xia Liu and Panlong Li must pay [The landlord/s] $119.17 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 2 March 2026.
The tenancy agreement records the start date for the tenancy as being 5 July 2025. The tenant accepts they were given early access to the premises on 4 July 2025. The first water bill sent to the tenant was for $91.17 for the period covering 4 July 2025 – 1 September 2025. The tenant claims they should only pay $90.93 for the period covering 5 July 2025 – 1 September 2025. The dispute involves an amount of 0.24 cents. Unfortunately, the inability of the parties to agree on who should pay this 0.24 cents has led to a deterioration in their relationship and ultimately, these proceedings. The tenant has filed an application alleging multiple breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) by the landlord. The landlord has filed a cross-application seeking payment of $91.17 for the water bill. The issues I must determine are: a. How much should the tenant pay the landlord for the first water bill? b. Did the landlord interfere with the tenant’s supply of water? c. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? d. Did the landlord breach the tenancy agreement or RTA by failing to provide the tenant with an entry inspection report? e. Did the landlord require the tenant to pay rent more than 2 weeks in advance? f. Should the Tribunal restrain the landlord from committing unlawful acts under section 109A RTA?
A lot of evidence and submissions were given at the hearing. Whilst this decision might not refer to all of it, the parties can be assured that I have considered it. Standard of proof
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This 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 by the District Court in Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

How much should the tenant pay the landlord for the first water bill?

The law

Section 39(3) RTA states the tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or use of the facilities. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The first water bill covers the period from 2 July 2025 – 1 September 2025 and is for a total of $92.76.
The landlord took a photograph of the water meter on 4 July 2025 at 1:11pm. The reading is 474927. The landlord claims the tenant should pay for water consumed from 4 July 2025 – 1 September 2025, which is $91.17. This is because the tenant was given early access to the premises on 4 July 2025 to move their furniture.
The tenant took a photograph of the water meter on 5 July 2025 at 11:40am. The reading is 474967. The tenant claims that they should pay for water consumed from 5 July 2025 – 1 September 2025, which is $90.93. This is because the tenancy agreement states the tenancy began on 5 July 2025, and the tenant began living in the premises on this date. Analysis
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced the tenant was the only person who accessed the premises after 1:11pm on 4 July 2025. No evidence to the contrary was submitted and the timeline of when the tenant picked up the keys and began moving their belongings into the premises supports this conclusion. For this reason, I find that any water consumed after 1:11pm on 4 July 2025, is exclusively attributable to the tenant’s use of the facilities. Therefore, the tenant should pay the landlord $91.17 for water consumed from 4 July 2025 – 1 September 2025.
The fact that the tenancy did not officially begin until 5 July 2025 and the tenant did not begin living in the premises until this date is not determinative. The Tribunal must determine disputes fairly, according to the substantial merits and justice of the case. It is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights, obligations or technicalities. 1 In this case, I am convinced the tenant is responsible for water consumed at the premises after 1:11pm on 4 July 2025. The finding that they must pay for water consumed by them one day before the tenancy began is consistent with the requirement in the RTA that a tenant must pay for water after the tenancy has ended when they remain in occupation of the premises. 2
For these reasons, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $91.17. TENANT’S CLAIMS Did the landlord interfere with the tenant’s supply of water? The law
Section 45(2) RTA states that the landlord shall not interfere with the supply of water to the premises, except where the interference is necessary to avoid danger to any person or to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims they did not have water at the premises on the morning of 10 October 2025. The tenant claims the issue was isolated to their unit and submitted text messages from the building manager confirming there was no building wide issue with the supply of water.
The tenant claims the landlord turned off the supply of water to the premises, because of the dispute involving the first water bill. The tenant submitted a copy of an email sent to the landlord on 10 October 2025 at 7:25am advising them that the tenant intended to file an application with the Tribunal regarding the disputed water bill. The tenant claims their water was turned back on 15 minutes later. Therefore, the tenant claims the Tribunal can infer that it was the landlord who turned the water off.
The tenant also claims the landlord had a malicious intent towards them, which is evidenced by the fact the landlord sent the tenant a 14-day notice on 14 October 2025 regarding the water bill. The tenant claims this shows the landlord had ill-intentions towards them, because the landlord knew the bill was in dispute and should not have sent them a 14-day notice in these circumstances.
The landlord denies interfering with the tenant’s supply of water. They claim they were never notified about the fact the premises did not have water on 10 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 85. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 60(1). October 2025. The landlord claims that as far as they know, they do not have the ability to turn the water meter on and off remotely. Analysis
Insufficient evidence was submitted to prove the landlord interfered with the supply of water to the premises on the morning of 10 October 2025. No evidence that the landlord was physically at the premises on this date and time was submitted. No evidence that the water meter has the ability to be turned on and off remotely was submitted. Even if it does, no evidence that the landlord accessed the water meter remotely on 10 October 2025 and turned the water off was submitted.
The tenant requested the Tribunal to order disclosure of documents relating to the water meter and its use. I declined to do this for the following reasons: a. An adjournment would have been required. b. A whole day had been set aside for the hearing and an interpreter had also been booked for the whole day. c. The tenant’s request was made once the hearing was already underway.
The fact that the parties were engaged in a dispute about the first water bill at the time, does not prove that the landlord turned the water off on 10 October 2025. The 14-day notice does not prove any kind of malice or ill-intent on behalf of the landlord towards the tenant either. The tenancy is managed by a property management company on behalf of the owner. The property manager has a duty to act in the best interests of the owner and take appropriate steps to mitigate the owner’s loss. This involves sending 14-day notices when the tenant is in breach, even if the breach is disputed by the tenant.
The tenant submitted a copy of a complaint they filed with the Police about the alleged incident. The landlord has not been charged in relation to allegedly cutting of the tenant’s water supply.
There are other evidential issues regarding the tenant’s claim. For example, no supporting evidence proving the water was in fact turned off on the morning of 10 October 2025 was submitted. No video evidence of the tenant trying to turn the taps on, but no water coming out was provided. The fact that the tenant contacted the building manager on the morning of 10 October 2025 and advised them that they did not have water at the premises does not prove this was in fact the case. No evidence from the building manager or water company confirming there was no water at the premises on the morning of 10 October 2025 was submitted.
For all of these reasons, I find the tenant has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed. Did the landlord breach the tenant’s quiet enjoyment? The law
Section 38 of the RTA confirms that the tenant “shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord”, and further at subsection 2 that the landlord “shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” The Act further confirms that contravention of subsection 2 in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant, is an unlawful act. 3
In the context of section 38, “quiet” means peaceful, not merely free from noise, and “enjoyment” means the right to full use and benefit of the tenancy property. 4
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the Act. It is defined in section 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.” 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 38(3) and Schedule 1A. 4 Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson (2018).
The tenant claims the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment in the following ways: a. By conducting inspections in a rude manner b. By not providing the tenant with four house keys c. By sending the tenant a 14-day notice about the disputed water bill Inspections
The landlord completed routine inspections on 25 August 2025 and 18 November 2025. The tenant claims that on each occasion, the landlord did not knock or use the bell and simply let themselves in using the key.
On 25 August 2025, the tenant claims they were working from home and the landlord knew this. The tenant claims they heard someone entering the premises and went to the door. The tenant claims the landlord was in the living room at this point however, upon seeing the tenant, the landlord retreated to the front door, removed their shoes and told the tenant they were there to do an inspection.
On 18 November 2025, the tenant claims they were at home with their father who was visiting. The tenant claims the landlord knocked on the door once, but did not wait to be let into the premises and simply used the key to gain access. The tenant claims their father questioned the fact that the landlord had their shoes on, at which point the landlord said something along the lines of, “oh, you want me to take my shoes off? We don’t usually do that.” The landlord then took their shoes off. The tenant claims the landlord’s tone was rude and the landlord interrogated them about their father who was visiting.
The landlord gave evidence that they gave appropriate written notice of inspections on each occasion. The landlord claims their normal practice is to knock three times, wait a little bit and then use the key if there is no answer. Once inside the property, the landlord claims it is their practice to announce themselves and say that they are there to complete the inspection. The landlord claims they followed this practice at both inspections.
The landlord accepts they did not remove their shoes when first entering the premises but says that when they were asked to do so, they did.
The landlord claims the tenant filmed them without their permission during the second inspection and was confrontational, telling the landlord they were not welcome to complete the inspection. The landlord claims the tenant and their family surrounded them and made threats. Analysis
Insufficient evidence was submitted to convince me of the tenant’s version of events, on the balance of probabilities. No camera footage from the lobby outside the front door was submitted, which would have shown whether the landlord knocked on the door and waited before using their key to enter the premises. The tenant submitted camera footage from inside the premises for the inspection that occurred on 18 November 2025 however, the footage begins when the landlord is already inside the premises. It does not show whether the landlord knocked on the door, rang the bell or waited a reasonable amount of time to be let in before using their key. The landlord claims that they did these things, and the tenant has not submitted sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.
The tenant claims that the landlord’s tone in the video from the second inspection on 18 November 2025 is rude however, I do not agree. The video shows the landlord inside the premises by the front door. When the tenant’s father appears, the landlord says “house inspection” in a relatively loud voice. I do not think the fact that the landlord spoke in a loud voice means they were being rude. The tenant’s father is elderly, and the landlord may well have spoken loudly to ensure he heard her. Even if the landlord’s tone was rude, this does not amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. As the Tribunal held in Mcintosh v O’Malley [2022] NZTT 4325097, 4326905: 5 “The Tribunal is a court of law, not a court of manners. It is not unlawful for a landlord to be rude. It is not a breach of a legal duty for the landlord and tenant to dislike each other.”
I find the fact that the landlord did not remove their shoes does not amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment for the same reason. When the landlord was asked to remove their shoes, they did so quickly and without issue on each occasion.
For all of these reasons, the tenant has not proven that the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment when completing inspections on 25 August 2025 and 18 November 2025.
This claim is dismissed. House keys
The tenant claims they were provided with two keys at the beginning of the tenancy. When they asked for two more keys for their children, the tenant claims the landlord refused and gave them unsolicited parenting advice, which the tenant did not appreciate. 5 At [25]. The landlord accepts that they initially refused to give the tenant two additional keys, however, claims they eventually provided the tenant with two more keys on 16 July 2025. The tenant accepts this but claims the initial refusal caused an unnecessary argument. Analysis
Not every disagreement between a landlord and tenant amounts to a breach of quiet enjoyment. For a breach of quiet enjoyment to occur, the landlord’s conduct must be more than trivial or minor. I am not convinced the landlord’s refusal to provide the tenant with two additional keys reaches the level required to constated a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. I also note that the landlord owes obligations to the tenant, not additional occupants of the premises. 14-day notice
The tenant claims the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment by sending them a 14-day notice to pay the first water bill. The tenant claims the landlord knew the water bill was in dispute and they should not have sent the 14-day notice in these circumstances.
I do not find the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by sending a 14-day notice to pay the disputed water bill. The landlord had a duty to mitigate their loss, which required them to send a 14-day notice. It cannot be the case that every time a tenant disputes that they owe rent or should pay a bill for outgoings, the landlord commits a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by sending them a 14-day notice. Whilst the landlord’s actions in this case might have annoyed or frustrated the tenant in the circumstances, it did not reach the level of breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment.
For these reasons, the tenant has not proven this claim, and it is dismissed. Did the landlord breach the tenancy agreement or RTA by failing to complete a property inspection report at the beginning of the tenancy?
The tenancy agreement contains a provision titled “Property Inspection Report.” It has not been completed by the parties. The tenant claims this is a breach of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord claims that at the time the tenant signed the tenancy agreement on 17 June 2025, the premises were still occupied by the former tenant. For this reason, the “Property Inspection Report” was not completed at the time the agreement was signed however, the landlord claims they took photographs of the premises shortly before the tenancy began. Analysis
Section 13A RTA provides a list of things that must be included in a tenancy agreement. A pre-inspection report is not listed as a mandatory item under this section.
The provision titled “Property Inspection Report” in the tenancy agreement states: This report is intended to help avoid disputes. This should be used to record the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy. The landlord and tenant should fill out this form together, and tick the appropriate box if the condition is acceptable or record any damage or defects. [emphasis added]
The use of the word “should”, means that completion of this section of the agreement is not mandatory. Whilst it might be considered best practice, it is not strictly required.
A pre-inspection report is not listed as a mandatory item that must be included in a tenancy agreement under section 13A RTA. The tenancy agreement does not state that the “Property Inspection Report” section must be completed. For these reasons, the landlord did not breach the RTA or tenancy agreement by failing to complete and include a pre-inspection report with the tenancy agreement.
This claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord require the tenant to pay rent more than 2 weeks in advance?

The law

Section 23 RTA deals with rent paid in advance. It relevantly states: 23Rent in advance (1)A landlord shall not require the payment of any rent – (a) more than 2 weeks in advance; or (b) before the expiry of the period for which rent has been paid already. ... Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims the landlord required them to pay 1 weeks rent in advance on 17 June 2025, which is more than 2 weeks before the beginning of the tenancy on 5 July 2025. The tenant claims this is a breach of section 23 RTA. Analysis
Most tenancies required rent to be paid by the tenant 1 – 2 weeks in advance. The purpose of this is to reduce the risk of rent arrears by ensuring the tenant remains in a rent credit of 1 – 2 weeks throughout the tenancy.
Section 23 RTA prohibits a landlord from charging a tenant more than 2 weeks rent in advance. For example, a landlord may not require a tenant to pay 3 or 4 weeks rent in advance. In this case, the landlord only required the tenant to pay one weeks rent in advance. The fact the tenant was asked to pay it upon acceptance of the tenancy on 17 June 2025, does not constitute a breach. This is because the second payment of rent was not required to be paid until the expiry of the period for which the first payment of rent was paid.
For these reasons, I find the landlord did not breach section 23 RTA and this claim is dismissed. Should the Tribunal restrain the landlord from committing unlawful acts under section 109A RTA?
Section 109A RTA states that where the Tribunal makes an order against a person under section 109 on the ground that the person has committed an unlawful act, the Tribunal may, if satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so, make an order restraining the person from committing a further act of the same kind.
The tenant has not proven the landlord has committed any unlawful act. Therefore, I have no ability to make an order under section 109A. Filing fee & name suppression
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim. Therefore, I do not order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord has been wholly successful with their claim. Therefore, I order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties seek name suppression. Because the landlord has been wholly successful with their claim, I must grant their request for name suppression. 6
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful with their application. Therefore, I am not required to grant them name suppression as of right however, I do have a discretion to consider the request under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court that: ...[T]he principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The tenant claims they should be granted name suppression because the proceedings involve serious allegations against the landlord and publication may cause undue hardship to the tenant and their family.
The tenant’s claims have not been proven and therefore, the main reason provided by them as to why name suppression should be granted falls away. I cannot see how publication of the tenant’s name would cause undue hardship to them or their family. These proceedings are not unusual or extraordinary. This decision does not discuss any sensitive information in relation to the tenant. There is no good reason or special circumstances that would require suppression of the tenant’s name in this case.
I have considered the interests of the tenant and weighed these against the public interest. I find the public interest in publication outweighs the tenant’s interest in suppression. For this reason, I decline to grant the tenant name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5363847 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Apartment 505, 6A Nugent Street, Grafton,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5363847 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Apartment 505, 6A Nugent Street, Grafton,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much should the tenant pay the landlord for the first water bill?

Did the landlord require the tenant to pay rent more than 2 weeks in advance?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much should the tenant pay the landlord for the first water bill?

Did the landlord require the tenant to pay rent more than 2 weeks in advance?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions