What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5484570 about?

The tribunal order states: of the same NZTT number dated

How much money was awarded in case 5484570?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,304.53 awarded to landlord; Rent Overpayment/ Insurance Refund: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Electrical: $2,917.50 awarded to landlord; Floor: $3,910.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10,636.17 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $1,234.31 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $47.19 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5484570?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5484570?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14030477-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5484570 about?

The tribunal order states: of the same NZTT number dated

How much money was awarded in case 5484570?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,304.53 awarded to landlord; Rent Overpayment/ Insurance Refund: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Electrical: $2,917.50 awarded to landlord; Floor: $3,910.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10,636.17 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $1,234.31 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $47.19 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5484570?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5484570?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14030477-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

219A Glenfield Road, Birkenhead, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5484570 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5484570 — net $16,327.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$47.19		Water rates
Replace furnishings	$1,234.31		Replace furnishings
Repairs: Main reinstatement less insurance excess	$10,636.17		Repairs: Main reinstatement less insurance excess
Repairs: floor	$3,910.00		Repairs: floor
Repairs: electrical	$2,917.50		Repairs: electrical
Carpet replacement	$1,304.53		Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent overpayment/ insurance refund		$1,500.00	Rent overpayment/ insurance refund
Total award	$20,077.70	$1,500.00
Net award	$16,327.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$16,327.70

Order

of the same NZTT number dated 08 June 2026 (the “original Order”) in that it includes a rent overpayment by the tenant of $1,500.00, and that affects the final amount that the tenant must pay the landlord. The table below replaces the table in the original Order. The

Reasons

given below are to be read in conjunction with the original Order and do not replace any of the original Reasons unless explicitly explained.

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $16,327.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,250.00 (BN-00049939) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent overpayment/ insurance refund $1,500.00 Water rates$47.19 Replace furnishings$1,234.31 Repairs: Main reinstatement less insurance excess$10,636.17 Repairs: floor$3,910.00 Repairs: electrical$2,917.50 Carpet replacement$1,304.53 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$20,077.70$1,500.00 Net award$18,577.70 Bond$2,250.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$16,327.70 Reasons:
Both parties attended the original hearing on 8 June 2026 and the Tribunal issued an Order of that date. The Tribunal and the tenant were assisted by a Mandarin interpreter.
On 12 June 2026, the tenant filed an application for a Rehearing. On 15 June 2026, the Tribunal granted the Rehearing in part. The Tribunal accepted that at the original hearing, the Tribunal had not fully heard information regarding the landlord’s insurance claim. This was partly due to the added complexity of having a Mandarin interpreter. I was satisfied that because of the process of translating, the tenant may not have had the same extent of opportunity to present her case as the landlord had, and this may have led to a miscarriage of justice.
The purpose of allowing a rehearing, was to allow the tenant to respond to information presented by the landlord on the day of the hearing, that the tenant had not fully understood because she is not fluent in English.
In the (re)hearing today, the tenant said her claim was based on the following: a. The landlord received compensation in the original Order, for furniture that was still in the house at the end of the tenancy. The tenant says she didn’t realise this until she translated a Repair Costs Schedule (presented during the hearing) after the last hearing, b. The tenant continued to pay rent after the end of the fixed term tenancy, c. The landlord received an insurance claim for lost rent that covered the same period that the tenant was paying rent, d. The tenant paid for the translation of Wechat messages. Compensation for furniture
The tenant said that the landlord’s Repair Costs Schedule (presented in the course of the last hearing) includes claims for furniture that was still in the house at the end of the tenancy, and therefore the landlord should not receive compensation for them.
The Tribunal made two awards, one for $584.98 and one for $825.67.
These two awards were based on the Repair Costs Schedule presented on the day of the hearing. The Repair Costs Schedule covers losses that were presented in the landlord’s application prior to the hearing.
The first of the claims covered a single slat bedframe, a mattress, a computer desk and a bedside table. The second claim covered a king single mattress, a single bedframe, a computer desk, a clothing rack, a shoe cabinet and a bedside table.
The landlord said all the furniture left in the house was either soiled by fertiliser or soil, or smelt heavily of chemicals or cannabis, and all of it was disposed of.
Having seen the photographs of the premises before and after the tenancy, I have no doubt the furniture the landlord is claiming compensation for, was no longer suitable for the landlord’s rental property.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for furniture is proved with no amendment. Rent overpayment and Insurance rent payout
In my original Order dated 8 June 2026, I inferred at paragraphs 4 and 26 that the tenancy ended on 17 March 2026. This was the end of the one year fixed- term tenancy.
After the subtenants had vacated the premises, the landlord re-entered the premises for the first time on 5 March 2026.
The landlord said that because she knew the tenant did not want to return to the premises, she sought to get written notice from the tenant to end the tenancy.
The tenant said she believed it was obvious the tenancy had ended because the fixed-term had expired, she wasn’t living there, and the premises had been wrecked by the subtenants. Because it was so obvious, she said she ignored the landlord’s request for written confirmation to end the tenancy.
The landlord and tenant had a phone conversation on 6 April 2026 at which the landlord said they agreed the tenancy had ended. But the tenant still did not bother to put this in writing. On 8 April 2026, the landlord sent an email to the tenant saying they had agreed the tenancy had ended on 6 April 2026 and if the tenant disagreed with this, she should put it in writing. The tenant continued to ignore the landlord’s request.
The Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 section 60A sets out that unless otherwise arranged by the parties, a fixed-term tenancy becomes a periodic tenancy at the end of the fixed-term.
I determine that because neither of the parties gave notice to end the tenancy at the end of the fixed-term, the tenancy became a periodic tenancy at that point and this ended by agreement of the parties on 6 April 2026.
The tenant was therefore required to pay rent up until this date.
The tenant said that the landlord received a four-week rent payment of $3,000.00 from her insurance company, for lost rent due to the damage caused by the subtenant. This is covered in a Settlement Offer from the insurer which covers the period of 5 March 2026 until 2 April 2026. This document was provided to the Tribunal.
The tenant said that because she was paying rent for this period, the $3,000.00 should be deducted from the rent she paid.
The landlord said that the $3,000.00 covered the loss of rent due to repairs needed because of the damage caused by the subtenants, and the start date of the repairs is not important.
The landlord first entered the premises on 5 March 2026. She said it took several weeks to complete and negotiate her insurance claim and then to organise workers. I determine this is reasonable.
The letter from the insurers says the repair period is four weeks. Having seen the photographs of the damage, I determine this is a reasonable period to conduct the repairs.
I consider it reasonable for the repairs to have begun on or around 27 March 2026, three weeks after the landlord first entered the premises. The repairs could then have been completed in four weeks. I determine it is reasonable to expect the tenant to cover lost rent for any period in this time that insurance did not cover.
This means I am accepting the tenant’s argument that the landlord should not be paid rent by the tenant at the same time as receiving compensation for rent from the insurer, and I am also accepting the landlord’s argument that the start date for insurance cover for lost rent should be based on an objectively reasonable start date rather than the date they first discovered the damage, as indicated from the insurer. I determine an objectively reasonable start date to be 27 March 2026, following a three-week lead in period during which the landlord could have been making arrangements.
The first two weeks of repairs, 27 March 2026 to 6 April 2026 were therefore covered by insurance. I determine these two weeks rent should be refunded to the tenant. Wechat messages
The tenant said the landlord asked her to pay the translation costs for the Wechat messages between the tenant and the subtenant, and also between the tenant and the landlord. The tenant did this at a cost of $250.00. She believes the landlord should refund her this amount.
The landlord said her insurers were not going to accept the insurance claim for damages caused by the subtenants, unless the landlord and sub- landlord/tenant could prove they were not involved in the unlawful activity at the premises. The landlord asked the tenant to translate the tenant’s messages to show they were not involved in the unlawful activity.
This was a negotiation between the Ms Yan and Ms Yu and did not involve either obligations relating to their tenancy arrangements or any breach of the RTA.
As such these arrangements are not part of their relationship as landlord and tenant and I have no powers to make an Order regarding them.
This claim is not proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5484570 — net $16,327.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$47.19		Water rates
Replace furnishings	$1,234.31		Replace furnishings
Repairs: Main reinstatement less insurance excess	$10,636.17		Repairs: Main reinstatement less insurance excess
Repairs: floor	$3,910.00		Repairs: floor
Repairs: electrical	$2,917.50		Repairs: electrical
Carpet replacement	$1,304.53		Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent overpayment/ insurance refund		$1,500.00	Rent overpayment/ insurance refund
Total award	$20,077.70	$1,500.00
Net award	$16,327.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$16,327.70

Order

Reasons

given below are to be read in conjunction with the original Order and do not replace any of the original Reasons unless explicitly explained.

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay [The tenant/s] landlord/s] $16,327.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,250.00 (BN-00049939) to [The tenant/s] landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent overpayment/ insurance refund $1,500.00 Water rates$47.19 Replace furnishings$1,234.31 Repairs: Main reinstatement less insurance excess$10,636.17 Repairs: floor$3,910.00 Repairs: electrical$2,917.50 Carpet replacement$1,304.53 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$20,077.70$1,500.00 Net award$18,577.70 Bond$2,250.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$16,327.70 Reasons:
Both parties attended the original hearing on 8 June 2026 and the Tribunal issued an Order of that date. The Tribunal and the tenant were assisted by a Mandarin interpreter.
On 12 June 2026, the tenant filed an application for a Rehearing. On 15 June 2026, the Tribunal granted the Rehearing in part. The Tribunal accepted that at the original hearing, the Tribunal had not fully heard information regarding the landlord’s insurance claim. This was partly due to the added complexity of having a Mandarin interpreter. I was satisfied that because of the process of translating, the tenant may not have had the same extent of opportunity to present her case as the landlord had, and this may have led to a miscarriage of justice.
The purpose of allowing a rehearing, was to allow the tenant to respond to information presented by the landlord on the day of the hearing, that the tenant had not fully understood because she is not fluent in English.
In the (re)hearing today, the tenant said her claim was based on the following: a. The landlord received compensation in the original Order, for furniture that was still in the house at the end of the tenancy. The tenant says she didn’t realise this until she translated a Repair Costs Schedule (presented during the hearing) after the last hearing, b. The tenant continued to pay rent after the end of the fixed term tenancy, c. The landlord received an insurance claim for lost rent that covered the same period that the tenant was paying rent, d. The tenant paid for the translation of Wechat messages. Compensation for furniture
The tenant said that the landlord’s Repair Costs Schedule (presented in the course of the last hearing) includes claims for furniture that was still in the house at the end of the tenancy, and therefore the landlord should not receive compensation for them.
The Tribunal made two awards, one for $584.98 and one for $825.67.
These two awards were based on the Repair Costs Schedule presented on the day of the hearing. The Repair Costs Schedule covers losses that were presented in the landlord’s application prior to the hearing.
The first of the claims covered a single slat bedframe, a mattress, a computer desk and a bedside table. The second claim covered a king single mattress, a single bedframe, a computer desk, a clothing rack, a shoe cabinet and a bedside table.
The landlord said all the furniture left in the house was either soiled by fertiliser or soil, or smelt heavily of chemicals or cannabis, and all of it was disposed of.
Having seen the photographs of the premises before and after the tenancy, I have no doubt the furniture the landlord is claiming compensation for, was no longer suitable for the landlord’s rental property.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for furniture is proved with no amendment. Rent overpayment and Insurance rent payout
In my original Order dated 8 June 2026, I inferred at paragraphs 4 and 26 that the tenancy ended on 17 March 2026. This was the end of the one year fixed- term tenancy.
After the subtenants had vacated the premises, the landlord re-entered the premises for the first time on 5 March 2026.
The landlord said that because she knew the tenant did not want to return to the premises, she sought to get written notice from the tenant to end the tenancy.
The tenant said she believed it was obvious the tenancy had ended because the fixed-term had expired, she wasn’t living there, and the premises had been wrecked by the subtenants. Because it was so obvious, she said she ignored the landlord’s request for written confirmation to end the tenancy.
The landlord and tenant had a phone conversation on 6 April 2026 at which the landlord said they agreed the tenancy had ended. But the tenant still did not bother to put this in writing. On 8 April 2026, the landlord sent an email to the tenant saying they had agreed the tenancy had ended on 6 April 2026 and if the tenant disagreed with this, she should put it in writing. The tenant continued to ignore the landlord’s request.
The Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 section 60A sets out that unless otherwise arranged by the parties, a fixed-term tenancy becomes a periodic tenancy at the end of the fixed-term.
I determine that because neither of the parties gave notice to end the tenancy at the end of the fixed-term, the tenancy became a periodic tenancy at that point and this ended by agreement of the parties on 6 April 2026.
The tenant was therefore required to pay rent up until this date.
The tenant said that the landlord received a four-week rent payment of $3,000.00 from her insurance company, for lost rent due to the damage caused by the subtenant. This is covered in a Settlement Offer from the insurer which covers the period of 5 March 2026 until 2 April 2026. This document was provided to the Tribunal.
The tenant said that because she was paying rent for this period, the $3,000.00 should be deducted from the rent she paid.
The landlord said that the $3,000.00 covered the loss of rent due to repairs needed because of the damage caused by the subtenants, and the start date of the repairs is not important.
The landlord first entered the premises on 5 March 2026. She said it took several weeks to complete and negotiate her insurance claim and then to organise workers. I determine this is reasonable.
The letter from the insurers says the repair period is four weeks. Having seen the photographs of the damage, I determine this is a reasonable period to conduct the repairs.
I consider it reasonable for the repairs to have begun on or around 27 March 2026, three weeks after the landlord first entered the premises. The repairs could then have been completed in four weeks. I determine it is reasonable to expect the tenant to cover lost rent for any period in this time that insurance did not cover.
This means I am accepting the tenant’s argument that the landlord should not be paid rent by the tenant at the same time as receiving compensation for rent from the insurer, and I am also accepting the landlord’s argument that the start date for insurance cover for lost rent should be based on an objectively reasonable start date rather than the date they first discovered the damage, as indicated from the insurer. I determine an objectively reasonable start date to be 27 March 2026, following a three-week lead in period during which the landlord could have been making arrangements.
The first two weeks of repairs, 27 March 2026 to 6 April 2026 were therefore covered by insurance. I determine these two weeks rent should be refunded to the tenant. Wechat messages
The tenant said the landlord asked her to pay the translation costs for the Wechat messages between the tenant and the subtenant, and also between the tenant and the landlord. The tenant did this at a cost of $250.00. She believes the landlord should refund her this amount.
The landlord said her insurers were not going to accept the insurance claim for damages caused by the subtenants, unless the landlord and sub- landlord/tenant could prove they were not involved in the unlawful activity at the premises. The landlord asked the tenant to translate the tenant’s messages to show they were not involved in the unlawful activity.
This was a negotiation between the Ms Yan and Ms Yu and did not involve either obligations relating to their tenancy arrangements or any breach of the RTA.
As such these arrangements are not part of their relationship as landlord and tenant and I have no powers to make an Order regarding them.
This claim is not proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5484570 — Property damage at 219A Glenfield Road, Birkenhead, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5484570 — Property damage at 219A Glenfield Road, Birkenhead, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.