Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5456736 — Leaks at 7A Steele Street, Meadowbank, Auckland 1072
Published 30 April 2026 · Application 5456736
Landlord favoured
- Leaks
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Kee
Dispute themes
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trade Me advertising | $449.00 | Trade Me advertising | |
| Additional wear and tear | $250.00 | Additional wear and tear |
Claims and awards for application 5456736. Verify on MoJ.
Trade Me advertising
- Amount
- $449.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Trade Me advertising
Additional wear and tear
- Amount
- $250.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Additional wear and tear
Order
- The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Parul Sharma and Anurag Tripathi at 7A Steele Street, Meadowbank, Auckland 1072 is reduced and now ends at the end of 30 May 2026.
- The Tribunal declares that the Ms Sharma’s parents may live at the premises until the end of the tenancy.
- Parul Sharma and Anurag Tripathi must pay Bin (Helen) Zheng and Robert Bruce Costain as trustees for the Yin Chun Family Trust $699.00 by 31 May 2026, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Trade Me advertising$449.00 Additional wear and tear$250.00 Total award$699.00
Reasons
- Both tenants attended the hearing.
- Mark Thornton appeared as the landlords’ representative.
- The tenants’ main application is for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 29 January 2028.
- The landlords consent to the early termination but want to be compensated for the costs to re-tenant the premises including Trade Me advertising fees and two weeks’ rent. They also seek reimbursement of a plumbing invoice. Background
- The tenants have a five-year-old daughter who is due to have surgery soon. Prior to the tenancy, they arranged for Ms Sharma’s parents to travel from India and stay with them for six months to support them during their daughter’s surgery and recovery.
- The tenancy began on 14 February 2026 and was intended to last for about two years.
- The premises is a free-standing house with its own section, three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a detached study/office.
- The tenancy agreement has a term restricting the number of occupants. That term provides:
- Occupancy The premises may be occupied by a maximum of two adults as full-time occupants. Any additional occupants or changes to occupancy require the prior written consent of the landlord.
- The tenants were aware of the term but did not mention their parents’ intended stay to the landlord because they thought that their stay was as guests not as “full-time occupants”. However early in the tenancy, the tenants told the landlord about their parents intended stay at the premises. The landlord responded that the tenants would have to pay $150.00 a week in addition to the $880.00 weekly rent. Legal principles
- Landlord may limit the maximum number of occupants during the tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). If tenants breach such a term, it may be an unlawful act. Section 40(3) of the RTA provides: (3) Where the tenancy agreement specifies a maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant shall ensure that no more than that number ordinarily reside in the premises at any time during the tenancy.
- The Tribunal has the power to reduce a fixed term tenancy under s 66(1) where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c.the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.
- If the Tribunal makes an order reducing the term of a fixed term tenancy, it may order reasonable compensation to the landlord: (2) Where the Tribunal makes an order under subsection (1), the Tribunal may order that the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy.
- The Tribunal also has the power to make orders declaring the parties’ rights and obligations and that a party pay money to another party: 78 Orders of Tribunal (1) [The Tribunal may]...make 1 or more of the following orders: (a) an order in the nature of a declaration, whether as to the status for the purposes of this Act of any premises or of any agreement or purported agreement, or as to the rights or obligations of any party, or otherwise: (b) ... (d) an order that a party pay money to any other party: Discussion
- I am satisfied that there has been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. The tenants genuinely believed that there was not impediment to Ms Sharma’s parents staying with them. They had not anticipated having to pay an additional $150.00 for the premises, for which they were already paying $880.00, a rental weekly already set at market value for a three-bedroom home in Meadowbank. The tenants would suffer severe hardship if the term were not reduced greater than any hardship to the landlord because they cannot afford the additional rent (which would likely excess market rent), and the circumstances have made the tenancy stressful and unpleasant. The additional stress around their daughter and living circumstances is unbearable.
- The landlords are not opposed to the fixed term ending early but seek reasonable compensation. Conclusion
- The tenancy is to end on 30 May 2026.
- I consider that the tenants should pay $449.00 towards the landlords’ advertisement costs. I am not satisfied that it is probable the landlords will be unable to relet the premises for six weeks from today. I decline to order compensation for lost rent.
- There is only about four weeks left to go in the tenancy. Occupancy of that duration for the purpose of supporting their daughter and her family is of short duration and will not unduly damage the premises or prejudice the landlords. Ms Sharma’s parents should not have to live separately from the family. The Tribunal will declare they may live with the tenants. I consider about $20.00 per week is sufficient to cover any additional wear and tear to the premises arising from Ms Sharma’s living in the premises from its beginning to its end. I factor in that Ms Sharma’s parents have been living at the premises only intermittently. I order the tenants to pay the landlords $250.00 for additional wear and tear. Plumbing invoice
- The landlords’ claim for a plumbing invoice is refused. The tenants reported the cistern was running on. It is tenants’ duty to report things needing repair. 1 The plumber who attended could not locate anything needing repair. Apparently, the issue mysteriously disappeared. Despite the unexplained disappearance of the issue, I accept the tenants’ evidence that they only reported what they saw and heard.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s10, s40(1), s40(3), s66(1)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: leaks
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5456736?
The tribunal order states: The term of the fixed-term tenancy of Parul Sharma and Anurag Tripathi at 7A Steele
How much money was awarded in case 5456736?
Additional Wear And Tear: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Trade Me Advertising: $449.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5456736?
The primary dispute was Leaks.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5456736?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13523547-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.