Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5444753 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 1 May 2026 · Published 1 May 2026 · Application 5444753
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
T Baker
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
- [The landlord/s] must pay Lishu Zhou $94.29 immediately, being a rent refund of approximately one day.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing, which proceeded via video link and with the assistance of an interpreter.
- The tenant applied for a refund of bond of $3,900, being bond of $2,600 and two-weeks’ rent totalling $1,300. The tenant had paid the $3,900 in advance of a tenancy that she then withdrew from.
- At the hearing, she confirmed that she had received a refund of $2,300, which leaves a balance of $1,600. She agreed that the landlord could keep $150, and so the amount in dispute is in fact $1,450. Background
- The parties agree that before moving from China to New Zealand, the tenant entered into a fixed-term tenancy agreement for the premises at [address suppressed].
- Although the written agreement had not been signed, the terms were agreed. The tenancy was for one year, starting on 14 February 2026. The weekly rent was $650. The tenant paid the landlord the bond of $2600 and two weeks’ rent in advance.
- The tenant came to New Zealand in January 2026. The landlord collected her from the airport. The tenant visited the property and was very unhappy with it. She wanted to withdraw from the agreement. She said that it was darker than it appeared in the photos, the bedrooms were smaller and she developed a rash on her leg from being in the house.
- The landlord’s father explained that she would need to find another tenant to take over the property. They proceeded to advertise. A new tenant was found and there tenancy began on 23 February 2026, but the rent was reduced by $10 per week.
- The landlord then agreed to refund the bond and rent of $3,900, less $1,600 for the following: a. Rent reduction of $10 per week over 52 weeks for the new tenancy: $520. b. Lost rent of $930 from 14 February, when the tenancy was to have commenced. c. $150 for collecting the tenant from the airport.
- The tenant agreed to this, but now seeks reimbursement of $1,450. The law
- Section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that tenancy agreements must be in writing and signed, but section 13C makes it clear that an agreement is not unenforceable simply because it is not in writing.
- There is no dispute that the parties had agreed to a tenancy agreement for 12 months commencing on 14 February 2026 and that the tenant had already paid the bond and two weeks’ rent in advance, which is also a clear indication of her agreement of the terms.
- When a party agrees to a tenancy, they enter into a contract that is enforceable. In this case, the tenant had agreed to rent the premises for 12 months and pay weekly rent of $650. By changing her mind, the tenant was breaching her obligations under a legally binding contract.
- Because the contract was for a fixed term, neither party can terminate the tenancy without cause. The landlord was not obliged to find another tenant. Had they done nothing, the tenant would have been responsible for all rent from the start of the tenancy, and that would have continued unless the Tribunal ordered a reduction of the fixed-term.
- Reductions of fixed-term tenancies are dealt with under section 66 of the Act, which says that the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.
- The tenant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that she developed a rash from the property. She provided no corroborative evidence of a rash or a link to anything at the property. The tenant’s mistake was deciding to rent a property without visiting it first. The tenant’s change of heart would not usually amount to an unforeseen change in circumstances, and so the tenant was fortunate that the landlord was able to find another tenant and release her from her obligations. Decision
- I do not accept the tenant’s argument that if the house had been up to standard, the landlord would not have had to reduce the rent by $10 a week. The reduction is minimal and over a 12-month period comes to less than one week’s rent. A failure to reduce the rent by $10 a week might have left the premises unoccupied for longer, in which case the tenant’s debt would have been greater.
- When the tenant visited the property in January, there were tenants in the premises under a previous lease, and so the landlord could not make the property available any sooner.
- I consider that the landlord has acted promptly to mitigate their loss and therefore the amount they wanted for compensation was significantly reduced.
- The landlord agreed with my calculation that the lost rent should be for 9 days $835.71, and took no issue with that. He accepted an error in calculation. Therefore, I have allowed a further rebate of $94.29. The bond
- At the hearing, the tenant said that she had received no receipt for payment of the bond.
- Her application did not include any allegation concerning this and so I make no ruling.
- Section 19 covers duties on receipt of the bond. The tenant provided no evidence of payment of the bond.
- In any event, the landlord pointed out that that the tenancy agreement contains a receipt for the bond, and said that he acknowledged receipt of the bond in their online communications. The tenant did not dispute this. Conclusion
- The tenant has not had substantial success and so I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee or name suppression for her.
- The landlord has behaved very reasonably in the circumstances, and it is reasonable that there is suppression of his name and the tenancy address.