What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421284 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is not proven and therefore dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5421284?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421284?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421284?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13633464-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421284 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is not proven and therefore dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5421284?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421284?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421284?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13633464-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

230 Balmoral Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421284 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is not proven and therefore dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Lin, for the landlord attended today’s hearing. The tenant did not attend.
On the 14 April 2026 I part heard this matter and completed an adjournment order.
I have already established that Li Juan also known as Juan Li is the owner of the property. In this decision I will refer to her as Ms Li.
Ms Li is the landlord and is recorded on the tenancy agreement as such.
Mr [redacted] from Barfoot and Thompson acted as Ms Li’s property manager from the beginning of the tenancy until November 2022 when Ms Li took over the management of the tenancy.
Easy Rental Limited never managed this tenancy. Easy Rental Limited are Ms Li’s current property managers for her current tenants at the property. Mr Lin is the current property manager and I have allowed him to act as Ms Li’s representative at these hearings. The claims.
The landlord claims: a. Rent arrears $6600 to the 27 August 2024. b. Compensation for repairs needed after the tenant caused damage to the property of $5750.00 c. The bond to be applied towards any money awarded d. The filing fee. The request for an adjournment.
This morning Mr Lin sought an adjournment of today’s half day hearing on the basis that Ms Li was in China attending to a sick relative.
I declined the adjournment because this matter has been set down for some time and the due date (10 May) for providing further evidence had passed. Ms Li had been given ample time to provide any further evidence in respect of her claims.
Mr Lin then attended the hearing. He confirmed that Ms Li has been in China for a month and is due to fly back tomorrow. She has told him that she now accepts that the rent summary provided to the Tribunal showing rent owed to the 27 August 2024 was incorrect, but that her bank has not provided documents that she has requested showing payments made between October 2023 and April 2024.
I have declined to grant an adjournment today for the following reasons: a. The landlord has been overseas for the past month and has not requested an adjournment until this morning. b. The landlord has not provided any evidence that shows that she was unable to notify the Tribunal that she was out of the country, or her reasons for being out of the country which meant that she was unable to attend today’s hearing. c. The landlord did not seek to have the hearing held remotely whilst she was in China. d. The landlord has been given sufficient time to file any documents that she has in support of her claim. The time for filing further documents 10 May 2026 has passed without any further evidence being filed. e. I consider that I can make a decision on the landlord’s claims on the evidence filed and the submissions made at the last hearing. f. This matter has been in front of the Tribunal since January 2026. When a party brings a claim to the Tribunal, they are expected to be ready for the matter to be heard and to provide the evidence in support of the claim. The Tribunal’s time is at a premium. If a party cannot attend a hearing that has been scheduled, then they should seek an adjournment as early as possible. The time that has been allocated should be used wisely in fairness to all Tribunal users. Therefore, when a matter has been allocated hearing time the applicant should be prepared for the matter to go ahead on that day. The burden of proof and evidence.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

Did the tenant owe rent arrears?

The application form filed by the landlord states that the tenancy began on the 2 August 2021 and ended on the 27 August 2024. Despite the tenancy ending 18 months prior the application was not filed until January 2026.
In the course of the last hearing in April, I became aware of other Tribunal applications that had been made against tenants at the same address, one of which filed in February 2025 made by Easy Rental Limited against a tenant Zhang, (TT5180594) which was for rent arrears and damage.
In the Zhang application (TT5180594) Easy Rental Limited provided a tenancy agreement signed by both parties on the 1 April 2024, which was between Easy Rental Ltd and Mr Zhang, for a tenancy at 230 Balmoral Road, which began on the 2 April 2024, with a weekly rent of $1350.00 and a bond of $5400
Easy Rental Limited also provided in evidence in support of its application in the Zhang matter, a copy of a rent statement showing that tenant Zhang paid his rent monthly and had begun paying on 2 April 2024. Tenant Zhang only got into rent arrears in January 2025.
Easy Rental Limited withdrew the application before it got to hearing, but I understand that they successfully claimed the bond from the bond centre of $5400.
In this application the landlord is seeking rent arrears of $6600.00 against Mr Diwu, the rent ledger is from 2/8/21 and goes to 27 August 2024. It shows that the tenant Diwu paid $4200 per month in rent. The last payment was on 24 June $3150 The relevant part of the landlord’s rent ledger filed in support of the application on the 14 January 2026 is shown here:
What this means is that the landlord has told the Tribunal in two different applications (TT5180594 and this application) that that she received BOTH Mr Zhang’s $5400 per month and Mr Diwu’s $4200.00 per month for the period 1 April to the 24 June 2024. This means for at least three months Ms Li received $9600 per month in rent for this property.
The existence of two tenancy applications for the same address, with different tenants paying rent for the same periods, raises suspicion with the Tribunal and calls into question the veracity of the landlord’s evidence.
Mr Lin nor Ms Li could offer me no explanation at the hearing on the 14 April as to for why the Tribunal had received two applications for rent arrears which covered two different tenancies for the same period.
At today’s hearing Mr Lin said that Ms Li now accepts that she was mistaken and that Mr Diwu’s tenancy ended on the 1 April 2024. But that she believes that the rent was in arrears at that date.
I do not accept that any arrears were owing by Mr Diwu on the 1 April 2024, because the landlord’s own rent statement filed on the 14 January clearly shows that Mr Diwu is up to date with his rent as at that date.
Landlords are expected to keep accurate rent records, 1 and when evidence is submitted to the Tribunal the landlord should ensure that the evidence is accurate. Mr Lin’s submission that the landlord has not been able to complete an accurate rent record because she has not received bank statements, raises serious questions about the accuracy of the rent ledger already provided by Ms Li. When I asked Mr Lin how Ms Li could have completed her rent summary filed on the without bank statements he had no explanation. 1 Section 30(1) RTA.
The landlord has not proven that the tenant owed rent as at the 1 April or the 27 August 2024 and therefore the landlord’s claim for rent arrears fails and is dismissed.

Did the tenant cause damage to the tenancy premises?

The landlord says that the tenant caused damage to the property. In support of the claim for damage the landlord has provided before and after photographs of specific parts of the property and an invoice from Pengfei Construction Limited dated 23 June 2025 for repair of the work at a cost of $5750 including GST.
Mr [redacted], who was the previous property manager has provided the entry report from the 2 August 2021 and a routine inspection report from 3 November 2022.
Having considered the evidence provided the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant damaged the property or that the landlord has suffered the losses claimed. I say this for the following reasons: a. The before and after photographs provided by the landlord are not dated. I do not know when the photographs were taken, by whom and what areas that they show. b. Whilst the inspection report dated 3 November 2022 shows that the tenant was not keeping the property in a reasonably tidy condition, I cannot make any assessment on whether the damage the landlord claims is present or not, because the landlord has not made any statement about where the alleged damage was located in relation to the photographs in the inspection report. c. The company that completed the repairs (Pengfei Construction Limited) was not incorporated until March 2025, this was well after the tenancy ended, and after the Zhang tenancy ended. In other words, another whole tenancy had ended before the company who repaired the alleged damage was even incorporated. d. The invoice date from Pengfei Construction Limited was 23 June 2025, 14 months after the tenancy ended. e. The ingoing inspection report shows a house that is tired, and the paint work and wallpaper appear to be already showing considerable wear. Conclusion.
As the landlord has not succeeded in proving its claims then the application is dismissed, and name suppression is not granted.
The previous property managers name is suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421284 — Rent arrears at 230 Balmoral Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421284 — Rent arrears at 230 Balmoral Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant owe rent arrears?

Did the tenant cause damage to the tenancy premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant owe rent arrears?

Did the tenant cause damage to the tenancy premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions