What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5422515?

The tribunal order states: Huijing Hou must pay Wei Cai, Yanhong Liu and Qinyu Cai $538.71 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5422515?

Compensation: 22 November 2024- 04 D…: $510.71 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422515?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422515?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13504755-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5422515?

The tribunal order states: Huijing Hou must pay Wei Cai, Yanhong Liu and Qinyu Cai $538.71 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5422515?

Compensation: 22 November 2024- 04 D…: $510.71 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422515?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422515?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13504755-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Chesham Street, Rototuna North, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5422515 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5422515 — net $538.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: 22 November 2024- 04 December 2024	$510.71	22 November 2024- 04 December 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$538.71
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$538.71

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5422515 — net $538.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: 22 November 2024- 04 December 2024	$510.71	22 November 2024- 04 December 2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$538.71
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$538.71

Order

Huijing Hou must pay Wei Cai, Yanhong Liu and Qinyu Cai $538.71 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant appeared in person. The landlord The Tribunal was assisted by Mandarin interpreters.
On 08 January 2026, the tenant filed a claim alleging that the landlord. i. Had failed to provide vacant possession, ii. Had unlawfully entered the property. iii. Had interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace comfort and privacy amounting to harassment.
On 31 March 2026, the landlord filed a claim that the tenant. i. Had caused damage by turning off the HRV system, ii. Had made alterations without consent, iii. Imposed unreasonable viewing conditions amounting to a refusal of consent. Background
The onus of proving these claims rests with the party making them. The standard required is the balance of probabilities. In this case, each party must establish that it is more likely than not that the other has breached the terms of the agreement or the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act)
In reaching my decision I have considered all evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it.
The property has four bedrooms, two living rooms, kitchen, laundry, bathroom, toilet, and garage. Prior to the tenancy the landlord resided at the property. The landlord planned to leave the country but wished to retain some rooms in the property for storage. On 23 November 2023, the landlord and tenant entered into a periodic tenancy agreement. The master bedroom, one bedroom, one of the living rooms, and the garage were not included in the tenancy and continued to be used by the landlord as storage. Failure to provide vacant possession.
The tenant states that shortly after entering the agreement, the landlord advised they would not be moving out until 4 December 2023 and would continue to live with the tenants. The tenant questioned this, noting that the landlord had family members nearby they could stay with, but the landlord replied that those homes were too noisy because of children. The tenant states they felt they had no choice but to accommodate the landlord. The landlord used one of the bedrooms and shared the facilities.
The tenant described the arrangement as awkward and said the landlord had a key and came and went freely. The tenant is claiming a share of the rent for the 13 days the landlord continued to reside at the property after the agreement commenced.
The landlord stated that they knew one of the tenants prior to entering the agreement. The landlord said the tenant never objected to their staying on. The landlord explained that they spent most days with family members and had only slept in the room for five nights, rarely using the facilities. The landlord later accepted they had spent the nights at the property but maintained they spent their days with family. Law
Section 37 of the Act states: 37 Vacant possessions (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. (2) In this section premises does not include facilities.
Under section 37 of the Act the tenant must be able to take exclusive occupation of the premises on the date they are entitled to move in, as set out in the tenancy agreement. The premises must be free from other occupants, the landlord, and the landlord’s belongings (except for any chattels included in the tenancy). Analysis and decision
There is no evidence that the agreement was varied allowing the landlord to remain at the property past the commencement date. Although the tenant did not object at the material time, the landlord has breached the terms of the agreement.
Failure to provide vacant possession is not a breach for which exemplary damages can be claimed. However, I accept the tenant’s claim that this breach resulted in a loss of amenity, specifically the loss of not receiving what was agreed under the tenancy.
The tenant is claiming compensation in the form of a 50% rent reduction for 13 days, arguing that they did not have full and exclusive possession of the property during this period, even though they paid the full rent. The calculation is: (13 × 550 ÷ 7) × 50% = $510.71.
This is reasonable, and accordingly, I award the tenant compensation of $510.71. Unlawfully entered property.
The tenant stated that on 19 January 2024, the landlord arrived unannounced and asked to stay for three days. The tenant felt morally pressured and for cultural reasons could not refuse.
When the landlord left on 21 January 2024, the tenant told them they would not be welcome again.
However, the tenant stated that after 21 January 2024, the landlord returned and entered the property using their key without permission, although the tenant could not recall the date.
The tenant stated that on 09 September 2025, the landlord called requesting to visit on 10 September 2025 to collect possessions. The tenant said it was not convenient. The tenant claimed the landlord became angry and yelled, so they agreed to a visit on 14 September 2025. The landlord and their family then arrived unannounced and packed belongings. The tenant stated the landlord later admitted yelling in an email.
The tenant believed that on 15 September 2025, maintenance contractors attended the property, and the tenant let them in.
The tenant stated that on 16 and 17 September 2025, the landlord was at the property packing possessions without permission.
The tenant stated that on 18 September 2025, contractors and the landlord were at the property without permission.
The tenant stated that on 19 September 2025, the letting agent, an inspector, and contractors attended the property.
The tenant agreed the landlord could visit between 14 to 19 September 2025 from 10am–5pm but said that on one occasion the landlord arrived before 10am and on another entered without knocking.
The tenant stated the landlord used their own key instead of knocking. While permission had been given for visits, the tenant believed using the key made the entry unlawful.
On 02 October 2025, the tenant received notice from the landlord that contractors would visit to service the heat pump. The tenant agreed to contractor access but not the landlord due to what they viewed as prior disturbances. The tenant stated that on 03 October 2025, the landlord arrived with contractors and entered through an unlocked door without knocking. Landlord’s reply
The landlord accepted they had returned to New Zealand to visit an unwell relative. They stated it was important to offer prayer for three days in location considered home. They stated that they asked if they could stay in one of the rooms used for storage and the tenant agreed. They accepted the tenant had asked them not to return after 21 January 2024, and they complied. They said they may have returned once more to collect possessions but could not recall the date.
The landlord denied yelling at the tenant on 09 September 2025 but accepted they were frustrated. They stated the tenant had agreed to allow access from 14 to 19 September 2025 to remove belongings and had completed this task in less time.
The landlord stated that contractors actually visited on 18 September 2025, and that it had been agreed with the tenant that contractors could attend while the landlord was present.
The landlord stated they had communicated with the tenant via conversation and WeChat messages regarding access.
The landlord stated they had informed the tenant that contractors would be visiting between 14 to 19 September 2025, and that their own attendance alongside contractors was with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord stated they had given notice on 01 October 2025 for the contractor visit on 03 October 2025.
The landlord claimed the situation was a “set up” and made a personal remark about the tenant’s mental state. Interference amounting to harassment.
The parties could not agree terms to extend the fixed term tenancy.
On 30 September 2025, the landlord proposed nine viewing dates throughout November 2025 to show the property to prospective tenants. The tenant felt that this was excessive and instead proposed allowing viewings four weeks before the end of the tenancy, limited to one hour in the afternoon on either Saturday or Sunday, and only once per week.
On 04 October 2025, the parties agreed to four weekend viewing dates 02 November 2025, 09 November 2025, 15 November 2025, and 22 November 2025.
The tenant has provided an email from the landlord dated 6 November 2025. In the email, the landlord complained that none of the prospective tenants who viewed the property on 02 November 2025 were interested in renting it. The landlord blamed the tenant for this and included a proverb, which the tenant interpreted as a curse. The tenant has produced the email.
The tenant submitted that the landlord was attempting to mislead the Tribunal making false allegations, the landlord had attempted to use their parents health as justification for entering the property , the tenant had paid all rent on time , the had been no damages caused by the tenant, the tenant’s actions had been reasonable , they had tried to maintain a reasonable relationship with the landlord, the tenant had abided by the law , and the landlord’s counterclaim was made up and false.
The landlord submitted that they had acted in good faith, the tenant’s allegations were false and malicious, the landlord had been reasonable, and they denied each of the tenant’s claims. Law 48 Landlords right of entry (1) The landlord shall not enter the premises during the currency of the tenancy agreement, except— (a) with the consent of the tenant freely given at, or immediately before, the time of entry; or (b) in any of the circumstances described in subsections (2) to (3). (2) The landlord may enter the premises— (a) in any case of emergency; or (b) for the purpose of inspecting the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening on a day specified in a notice given to the tenant not less than 48 hours nor more than 14 days before the intended entry, and not more frequently than once in any period of 4 weeks: or (ba) for the purpose of testing for the presence of contaminants or taking samples for such testing (except where the testing or sample taking is part of a prescribed decontamination process) at any time between 8 o’ clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it (including stating the contaminants to be tested for) at least 48 hours but not more than 14 days before the intended entry; or (c) for the purpose of determining whether or not— (i) the tenant has, within the period allowed by the landlord, completed satisfactorily any work required by the landlord to be done by the tenant to remedy any breach by the tenant of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement or of this Act; or (ii) the tenant has, within the agreed period, completed satisfactorily any work agreed to be done by the tenant, — at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening on any day (after the expiry of the period allowed for the work) specified in a notice given to the tenant not less than 48 hours nor more than 14 days before the intended entry: or (ca) for the purpose of complying, or preparing to comply, with any requirements in respect of smoke alarms imposed, or prospectively imposed, on landlords by regulations made under section 138A, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry; or (cb) for the purpose of complying, or preparing to comply, with the healthy homes standards (including any prospective requirements of those standards), at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o ’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry; or (cc) without limiting paragraph (d), for the purpose of carrying out decontamination work to the premises, and attending to such other matters required if decontaminating in accordance with a prescribed process (including any testing or sample taking as part of that prescribed process), at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry; or (d) for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of, the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry; or (da) for the purpose of providing services agreed to under the tenancy agreement, but only if the entry complies with any conditions specified in the tenancy agreement; or (e) pursuant to an order of the Tribunal. (2A) Subsection (2B) applies if— (a) there is rent that is at least 14 days in arrear; and (b) the landlord has reasonable cause to believe that the tenant has abandoned the premises. (2B) The landlord may enter the premises for the purpose of confirming whether the tenant has abandoned the premises at any time specified in a notice given to the tenant not less than 24 hours before the intended entry. (3) With the prior consent of the tenant, the landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises— (a) to prospective tenants; or (b) to prospective purchasers; or (c) to a registered valuer engaged in the preparation of a report on the premises; or (d) to a real estate agent engaged in appraising, evaluating, or selling or otherwise disposing of the premises; or (e) to an expert engaged in appraising or evaluating the premises; or (f) to a person who is authorised to inspect the premises under any enactment. (3A) For the purposes of subsection (3), the tenant— (a) may not withhold his or her consent unreasonably; and (b) may make the consent subject to any reasonable conditions. (3B) If premises are entered for the purpose of testing for the presence of contaminants or taking samples for such testing (including as part of any decontamination process), the landlord must, within 7 days of receiving the results of the testing, notify the tenant, in writing, of the results of the testing and provide the tenant with a copy (if any) of the results. (4) The following are each hereby declared to be unlawful acts: (a) entry upon the premises by the landlord other than as permitted by or under any of subsections (1) to (3): (b) failure by the tenant, without reasonable excuse, to allow the landlord to enter upon the premises in any circumstances in which the landlord is entitled to enter under subsections (2) to (3): (c) failure by the landlord to notify, or to provide results to, the tenant as required under subsection (3B). (4A) A landlord who fails to notify, or to provide results to, the tenant as required under subsection (3B) commits an infringement offence and is liable to a fine or an infringement fee specified in Schedule 1B. (5) Notwithstanding anything in subsections (2) to (4), the landlord shall not use force or the threat of force to enter or attempt to enter the premises while the tenant, or any other person with the permission of the tenant, is in the premises. (6) Every landlord who breaches subsection (5) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $3,000. (7) In this section premises does not include land or facilities. (8) Nothing in this section shall apply in respect of any tenancy granted by the Armed Forces to any person subject to the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971.
Under section 38(2) of the Act, a landlord must not cause or permit and interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
In the case of Smith v Floris, Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated: “Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents.”
Whether interference has occurred will depend on the proven facts and an objective assessment of whether the act in question exceeds what a tenant could reasonably be expected to endure under the circumstances.
Under section 39(3) an interference that also amounts to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00 may be awarded.
Harassment is not defined in the Act. In the case of MacDonald v Dodds, CIV- 2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010, the Court considered harassment to mean "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person”.
The term “freely given” is not defined in the Act. In my view, and consistent with the purpose of section 48, consent should be voluntary, informed, and given without any threats or coercion from the landlord.
Even if a landlord has not unlawfully entered the property under section 48 and was lawfully exercising a right, their conduct may still amount to an interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment under section 38(2). Analysis and decision
Regarding the claims that the landlord unlawfully entered the property between 19 January 2024 and 21 January 2024, between 14 and 19 September 2025, and on 3 October 2025.
The tenant agreed the landlord could visit between 14 and 19 September 2025, and on 03 October 2025. The landlord entering without knocking on one occasion when they had permission to enter does not necessarily make the agreed entry unlawful.
Between 19 January 2024 and 21 January 2024, although the tenant was unhappy about the arrangements, they did consent to the landlord’s entry. There is not enough evidence to show that the tenant was threatened or coerced. In my view feeling morally pressured is insufficient.
In relation to the alleged curse, there is a direct conflict in the evidence. The tenant claims the proverb was intended as a curse, while the landlord states it was meant as a blessing. I cannot prefer the evidence of one over another. There is no independent or expert evidence to support either interpretation. There is also a direct conflict about whether the landlord yelled at the tenant during a phone conversation. The landlord denies yelling but admits being frustrated by what they saw as the tenant’s lack of cooperation. I cannot prefer the evidence of one over the other. The email does not serve as an admission by the landlord.
While the landlord’s presence at the property between 19 January 2024 and 21 January 2024, 14 September 2025, and 19 September 2025, and on 3 October 2025 may have been inconvenient, there is no evidence that the landlord acted in a way that unreasonably interfered with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy amounting to harassment.
The claims relating to unlawful entry and interference claim are dismissed. Landlord’s claims
The landlord claims that the tenant turned off a ventilation system, which caused mould damage. The landlord states that on 26 July 2025, the tenant informed them about discovering mould on the ceiling. According to the landlord, the tenant admitted to turning off the system to save money. The landlord also states that a contractor who serviced the heat pump in October confirmed the unit had been turned off and that damage had occurred. The only photographic evidence is one image sent by the tenant to the landlord, showing a small patch of surface mould on the ceiling. The landlord is claiming $300.00 to remove the mould.
The tenant denies turning off the system to save money, stating instead that they did so because the filter needed changing, and that they had informed the landlord. The tenant also points out that there was nothing in the agreement requiring the system to remain on. The tenant says the photograph they took shows only a small area of surface mould, and that it was taken from a distance, and doubted it shown damage. The tenant denied that the contractors service report confirmed damage had occurred. Law
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act. Analysis and decision
The issue in this claim is whether any damage has actually occurred. The photographic evidence is unclear and was not taken by the landlord specifically to support this claim. I accept the tenant’s explanation regarding the contractor’s service report. While the report confirms that the system was turned off, it also notes that the filter was changed. The handwriting in the report is barely legible and does not confirm any damage. I am not satisfied that mould damage has occurred, so the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Alterations without consent
The landlord stated that a small outbuilding had been set up as a stir fry cooking area. During the tenancy, the landlord claims the tenant converted this area into a workshop without seeking consent. However, the landlord also stated that the outbuilding was returned as a stir fry kitchen and that no damage had occurred.
The tenant denied making any alterations or causing any damage, stating that the area was only used to store tools and essentially remained a stir fry kitchen. Law
Under section 42 of the Act, tenants need the landlord’s permission to make changes or add fixtures to the property. At the end of the tenancy, tenants can remove any fixtures they have added, as long as this does not cause irreparable damage. If they do remove fixtures, they must repair any damage caused or pay for the repairs. Any fixtures left behind become the landlord’s property unless there is an agreement to the contrary. If the tenant does not repair damage from removing a fixture, the landlord can claim for the cost of repairs. There is no penalty for making alterations without consent, but the tenant may still be responsible for any resulting damage. Analysis and decision
The tenant denies making any alterations. Even if consent was not obtained, there is no evidence of any damage. The claim is dismissed. Unreasonable viewing conditions amounting to refusal.
The landlord stated that following the first viewing on 02 November 2025, the tenants had refused to allow viewings of their bedrooms and declined to open the curtain in the lounge. The landlord further stated that at the subsequent viewings the tenant’s had allowed the curtain in the lounge to be open but had continued refuse access to their bedrooms.
The landlord stated that despite several prospective tenants viewing the property, only a few made an offer. The landlord stated that ultimately the property was rented to a tenant without references, which the landlord considered less than ideal.
The tenant stated that they had wished to protect their privacy, and that the landlord had accepted the condition.
The tenant also stated the prospective tenants were given access to the other bedrooms occupied by the landlord.
The tenant denied that the condition would have had a material impact as all of the bedrooms were shown in the online advertisement.
The tenant stated that during one viewing, a prospective tenant had opened one of their bedroom doors and looked inside the wardrobe.
The landlord denied that they had accepted the condition. Law
A landlord can enter the premises at a reasonable time to show it to prospective tenants, but only with the tenant’s prior consent. Under section 48(3A), the tenant cannot unreasonably withhold consent and can set reasonable conditions.
Under section 48(4)(b) a tenant commits an unlawful act if, without reasonable excuse, the fail to allow the landlord to enter the premises in any circumstances where the landlord is entitled to enter under subsections (2) to (3).
While section 48(4)(b) does not expressly state that imposing objectively unreasonable conditions is an unlawful act, such conditions, may amount to unreasonably withholding consent if they effectively prevent the landlord from exercising their right to enter the premises and show prospective tenants. Analysis and decision
Objectively assessed the tenant restricting viewings of their bedrooms for privacy reasons was not a reasonable condition. However, while unreasonable, I do not consider that it amounted to a refusal of consent. The landlord had a reasonable amount of time on each date, the time of the day was reasonable, and the landlord had access to all other rooms. The bedrooms in question could be viewed online, and there is no evidence of any delay between the end of the tenancy on 02 December 2025 and a replacement tenant moving in. The landlord cannot show any actual loss. The claim is dismissed. Costs
The tenant has been partly successful, and I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Neither party has been sufficiently successful and no orders for suppression are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422515 — Tenancy dispute at 33 Chesham Street, Rototuna North, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422515 — Tenancy dispute at 33 Chesham Street, Rototuna North, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions