What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5483910?

The tribunal order states: AARON Zhou must pay Katy Lu $1,800.00 immediately, being rent arrears.

How much money was awarded in case 5483910?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5483910?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5483910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13564840-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5483910?

The tribunal order states: AARON Zhou must pay Katy Lu $1,800.00 immediately, being rent arrears.

How much money was awarded in case 5483910?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5483910?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5483910?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13564840-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10A Countryside Way, Fairview Heights, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5483910 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5483910 — net $1,050.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,800.00		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: Failed to lodge the bond with the		$500.00	Failed to lodge the bond with the
Bond Centre		$250.00	Bond Centre
Total award	$1,800.00	$750.00
Net award	$1,050.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,050.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5483910 — net $1,050.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,800.00		Rent arrears
Exemplary damages: Failed to lodge the bond with the		$500.00	Failed to lodge the bond with the
Bond Centre		$250.00	Bond Centre
Total award	$1,800.00	$750.00
Net award	$1,050.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,050.00

Order

AARON Zhou must pay Katy Lu $1,800.00 immediately, being rent arrears.
Katy Lu must pay AARON Zhou $750.00 immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on 07 May 2026 by way of video conference.
Mr Zhou, the tenant, appeared on his own behalf. Ms Lu, the landlord, also appeared on her own behalf.
At the commencement of the hearing, I note that an interpreter had not been requested after the matter was brought forward. Both parties confirmed they were able to proceed in English, although Ms Lu indicated she would try her best communicating in English. I was satisfied the parties understood the proceedings sufficiently for the matter to continue fairly.
The principal issue between the parties is whether the tenancy was a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy. A secondary issue concerns Ms Lu’s failure to lodge the bond within the time required and to ensure the residential tenancy agreement was signed under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).
Mr Zhou also disputed Ms Lu’s assertion that he had signed a paper tenancy agreement. However, in my view, the critical issue is not whether a written agreement was signed, as there was no evidence to suggest it was, but whether the evidence objectively establishes that the parties entered into a fixed-term tenancy. Background
The parties first communicated through social media regarding the tenancy. Ms Lu’s advertisement stated that the tenancy was for a one-year fixed term. The parties subsequently exchanged messages regarding viewing the property, tenancy commencement dates, and occupation arrangements.
Mr Zhou took possession of the premises in April 2025. The commencement date changed several times during discussions between the parties. Initially the commencement date was proposed for May 2025, then amended to 17 April 2025, then 16 April 2025, and ultimately settled on 15 April 2025.
In November 2025, Mr Zhou advised Ms Lu that he had purchased a house and wished to leave the tenancy early. The parties thereafter discussed replacement tenants and the conditions under which a replacement tenant could take over the tenancy.
Mr Zhou vacated the premises on 21 December 2025. The Parties’ Submissions and Evidence Ms Lu’s submissions
Ms Lu submitted that the tenancy was clearly and consistently presented to Mr Zhou as a one-year fixed-term tenancy.
Ms Lu relied first on the original rental advertisement, which expressly stated that the tenancy was for a one-year fixed term. She submitted that before arranging the viewing, she informed Mr Zhou through online messages that the property was being offered only on that basis.
Ms Lu referred to the parties’ exchanges prior to occupation. She submitted that: a. Mr Zhou indicated he intended to stay for “more than one year if suitable”; b. she understood this as acceptance of the minimum one-year requirement; and c. she would not have proceeded with the tenancy had Mr Zhou requested a periodic tenancy.
Ms Lu stated during the hearing that if Mr Zhou had told her he wanted only a periodic tenancy, she would not have rented the property to him because she specifically wanted the stability of a one-year arrangement.
Ms Lu relied on the draft tenancy agreement exchanged between the parties. Although unsigned, the agreement specified: a. a commencement date in April 2025; b. an expiry date in April 2026; and c. fixed-term tenancy wording.
Ms Lu also relied on the parties’ discussions regarding commencement dates. The evidence showed that: a. the original commencement date was discussed as May 2025; b. this was later changed to 17 April 2025; c. then to 16 April 2025; and d. ultimately confirmed as 15 April 2025.
Ms Lu submitted these exchanges demonstrated the parties were negotiating and implementing the terms of a fixed-term arrangement rather than negotiating whether the tenancy itself would be periodic or fixed-term.
Ms Lu further relied heavily on the parties’ communications after Mr Zhou advised her in November 2025 that he had purchased a house and wished to move out.
Ms Lu submitted that Mr Zhou: a. asked whether he could end the tenancy early; b. sought clarification regarding the requirements for replacement tenants; c. provided prospective replacement tenants to Ms Lu; d. arranged viewings because he was still residing at the property; and e. discussed prospective tenants taking over the tenancy.
Ms Lu submitted this conduct was entirely inconsistent with a periodic tenancy. She argued that if the tenancy had truly been periodic, there would have been no need for: a. discussions about ending the tenancy early; b. finding replacement tenants; or c. replacement tenants taking over the existing arrangement.
Ms Lu also relied on communications where she informed Mr Zhou that any replacement tenant would need to satisfy the “same requirements”, including a one-year fixed term.
In relation to the bond issue, Ms Lu accepted she did not lodge the bond promptly. She explained that she believed both parties’ signatures were required before lodgement could occur under the previous system. She stated she lodged the bond once she became aware the updated Bond Hub system allowed unilateral lodgement by the landlord.
In relation to the unsigned residential tenancy agreement, Ms Lu did not advance any further submissions because there was no evidence before me that the agreement had been signed. Mr Zhou’s submissions
Mr Zhou submitted that the tenancy was a periodic tenancy rather than a fixed- term tenancy.
Mr Zhou relied primarily on the absence of a signed written tenancy agreement. He submitted that although Ms Lu had provided a draft tenancy agreement containing a fixed-term period, he never agreed to those terms and never signed the agreement. During the hearing, Mr Zhou disputed Ms Lu’s evidence that he had signed a paper copy of the tenancy agreement. He submitted that Ms Lu had given inconsistent explanations regarding: a. whether he signed the agreement; b. whether the signature was in English or Chinese; and c. whether the alleged signed copy had later been lost.
Mr Zhou submitted that these inconsistencies undermined Ms Lu’s evidence regarding the existence of a fixed-term tenancy.
Mr Zhou relied on the parties’ initial online communications before he viewed the property. He referred specifically to his message stating that he would stay “for more than one year if suitable”. Mr Zhou submitted this statement did not amount to agreement to a mandatory one-year fixed term. He stated during the hearing that his intention was only that: a. if his personal circumstances permitted; and b. if the property proved suitable, he might remain long term.
Mr Zhou submitted that he never expressly agreed to commit to a one-year tenancy. He stated that after viewing the property and before moving in, he understood the tenancy would instead operate as a periodic tenancy.
Mr Zhou also submitted that his payment of the deposit and bond did not amount to acceptance of a fixed-term tenancy. He stated he paid the monies simply to secure the tenancy and move into the premises. He submitted that payment of the deposit and bond was equally consistent with a periodic tenancy.
Mr Zhou further submitted that if Ms Lu genuinely considered the tenancy to be fixed-term, she had ample opportunity to ensure a written agreement was signed, particularly because the parties lived in close proximity and communicated frequently.
In relation to the events occurring in November 2025, Mr Zhou accepted that after purchasing a house he sought replacement tenants for the property. However, he submitted this did not establish the tenancy was fixed-term. He stated he was merely attempting to assist Ms Lu and minimise inconvenience because he understood it would be easier for him to show prospective tenants through the property while still living there.
Mr Zhou also referred to communications in which Ms Lu warned him she may retain part of the bond if replacement tenants could not be found. Mr Zhou submitted this placed pressure on him to continue searching for replacement tenants.
In relation to the bond issue, Mr Zhou submitted that Ms Lu failed to lodge the bond for approximately eight months after receiving it. He relied on the bond payment records and the eventual bond lodgement confirmation issued in December 2025.
In relation to the unsigned residential tenancy agreement, Mr Zhou submitted that the parties never signed the agreement. Analysis and conclusion
Having considered all of the evidence and submissions, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenancy was a fixed-term tenancy.
I accept there is no signed written tenancy agreement before the Tribunal. I also accept there were inconsistencies in Ms Lu’s evidence regarding whether a paper copy was signed. However, the absence of a signed written agreement is not determinative.
Under the Act, a tenancy agreement may still exist and be enforceable despite the absence of a signed written document. See section 13C of the Act. The issue is whether the objective evidence demonstrates agreement between the parties as to the nature of the tenancy.
In my view, the contemporaneous communications leading up to occupation strongly favour Ms Lu’s position.
The rental advertisement expressly referred to a one-year fixed-term tenancy. There is no dispute about that evidence.
Significantly, Mr Zhou did not respond by rejecting the fixed-term requirement. Instead, he stated he intended to stay “for more than one year if suitable”.
Objectively interpreted in context, that statement is more consistent with acceptance of a minimum one-year arrangement, together with the possibility of remaining longer if the tenancy proved satisfactory. I do not accept Mr Zhou’s submission that the statement conveyed refusal to commit to a fixed term.
I place considerable weight on the absence of any contemporaneous message from Mr Zhou expressly stating: a. that he required a periodic tenancy; or b. that he rejected the fixed-term condition.
I also consider the parties’ conduct after occupation to be highly significant.
In November 2025, when Mr Zhou purchased a house and wished to leave the premises, the communications between the parties consistently proceeded on the basis that: a. Mr Zhou was seeking to leave before expiry of the tenancy; b. replacement tenants would need to “take over” the arrangement; and c. any replacement tenant would be expected to enter into the same one-year arrangement.
Mr Zhou actively participated in finding replacement tenants, arranged viewings, and discussed the requirements those tenants would need to satisfy. In my view, such conduct is much more consistent with a tenant attempting to exit a fixed-term tenancy early than with a tenant ending a periodic tenancy by notice.
If the tenancy had truly been periodic, there would ordinarily have been little reason for extensive discussions about replacement tenants or taking over the tenancy.
I also accept Ms Lu’s evidence that she specifically sought a one-year arrangement and would not have rented the property on a periodic basis.
Viewing the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the parties objectively entered into a fixed-term tenancy commencing on 15 April 2025 and intended to expire on 15 April 2026.
Mr Zhou is therefore responsible for $1,800 in rent arrears. Failure to ensure the tenancy agreement is signed
AARON Zhou claims the landlord has not ensured the tenancy agreement is in writing and/or did not sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy to the tenant.
A landlord must ensure the tenancy agreement is in writing, signed and a copy provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. See section 13 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have found that the parties objectively entered into a fixed-term tenancy, I accept that Ms Lu failed to comply with her obligations under section 13 of the Act.
The evidence before me establishes that: a. draft tenancy agreements were exchanged between the parties; b. the proposed agreement identified a fixed-term period from April 2025 to April 2026; c. however, no completed written tenancy agreement signed by both parties was produced to the Tribunal.
Ms Lu submitted that she believed Mr Zhou had signed a paper copy of the agreement, although she was unable to produce that document. Mr Zhou denied ever signing a written tenancy agreement.
On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied there was a signed tenancy agreement complying with section 13 of the Act.
The obligation to ensure the tenancy agreement is properly documented rests with the landlord. The purpose of section 13 is to ensure clarity and certainty regarding the parties’ rights and obligations and to minimise disputes of the kind that have arisen in this proceeding.
I am therefore satisfied that Ms Lu committed an unlawful act by failing to provide and retain a compliant written tenancy agreement.
I accept, however, that the breach appears to have arisen more from informality and misunderstanding than deliberate disregard of the Act. I also take into account that: a. the parties nevertheless had a clear tenancy relationship; b. the essential terms of the tenancy were discussed in writing through messages; and c. and there is no evidence Ms Lu attempted to deprive Mr Zhou of information about the tenancy terms.
Nevertheless, landlords are expected to understand and comply with the statutory requirement to provide proper written tenancy agreements. This obligation is fundamental under the Act.
I find Ms Lu committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Taking into account the relatively limited prejudice arising from the breach, but recognising the public interest in encouraging compliance with the Act, I award exemplary damages of $250 against Ms Lu for this unlawful act. Failure to lodge bond with the bond centre
AARON Zhou claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Ms Lu accepted that she did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the prescribed timeframe. I find Ms Lu committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Exemplary damage
Ms Lu received the bond on or about 10 April 2025 and lodged it with the Bond Centre on or about 17 December 2025.
Ms Lu retained the bond for approximately eight months before lodging it with the Bond Centre.
In my view, this is a serious breach of section 19 of the Act. It is also necessary to deter other landlord from keeping the bond for their own benefit.
Accordingly, I award $500 exemplary damage. Name suppression
Both parties sought name suppression.
The Tribunal’s proceedings are generally conducted on the basis of open justice. Suppression orders are only granted where there are proper grounds to justify departure from that principle.
I am not satisfied that either party has established sufficient grounds for name suppression in this matter.
The dispute concerns an ordinary residential tenancy dispute involving: a. the nature of the tenancy; b. bond lodgement obligations; c. provide compliant residential tenancy agreement obligations and d. compensation arising from early termination of a tenancy.
While I accept both parties found the dispute stressful and emotionally upsetting, that is unfortunately common in tenancy disputes and does not of itself justify suppression.
I am not satisfied that publication of the parties’ names would: a. cause extreme hardship; b. create unusual prejudice disproportionate to the ordinary consequences of litigation; or c. otherwise justify limiting the principle of open justice.
Accordingly, both applications for name suppression are declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5483910 — Rent arrears at 10A Countryside Way, Fairview Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5483910 — Rent arrears at 10A Countryside Way, Fairview Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions