‘They’re trying to drag this out’: Landlords ordered to pay tenants $12,000, offer $5000 instead

Friday, 17 July 2026

Landlords Lingzhi (‘Candy’) Yuan and her husband Leiyang (‘Leo’) Shen, were ordered to pay tenants $30,615 by the Tenancy Tribunal last year

Yuan and Shen appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the District Court, which last month found several faults in the decision and reduced the amount to $11,862

Yuan and Shen offered the former tenants $5000 instead. When the tenants declined the offer, Yuan and Shen took them back to the Tribunal

A family awarded $30,615 for living in dire conditions in an Auckland house have had the sum reduced to $12,000 in a court ruling, but the landlords told them they’d only pay $5000.

The former tenants, whose names were suppressed in the original ruling, were a couple with two young children. They lived at the Auckland property from December 2023 until early last year.

They took their landlords to the Tenancy Tribunal in January last year after enduring dire conditions, including spending 35 weeks with sewage-soaked carpets and being unable to use their toilet for nine weeks after a sewage pipe became blocked and overflowed into the house.

In January last year the Tribunal ruled that the landlords, Lingzhi (‘Candy’) Yuan and her husband Leiyang (‘Leo’) Shen, had to pay the tenants $30,615.

The Tribunal said issues and stress experienced by the family was so bad that it warranted publishing the address (Flat 2, 310 Dairy Flat Highway, Albany Heights) in order to deter the owners from renting it out in future.

The list of faults was long and included toilets that blocked and flooded surrounding areas with raw sewage, a faulty water supply that led to a lack of water, and mouldy conditions.

For nine weeks the toilet was unusable due to plumbing issues so the family had to use a Portaloo provided by the landlords.

The Tribunal also found that the premises was unlawful, as it did not meet the Building Code and did not have required consents.

Yuan and Shen did not agree with the Tribunal’s findings and appealed to the District Court.

Their appeal was heard by Judge David Sharp in April.

Yuan and Shen told the court the Tribunal hearing process had been unfair as they had insufficient time to respond to the tenants’ claims.

They said they spent $16,000 repairing the plumbing system while the Portaloo was on site and the work took longer that expected due to waterlogged conditions.

The Judge, however, upheld the Tribunal’s view and said the award of $3,585, for the sanitation issues was warranted.

On the issue of water supply, the Judge found the issue was not as bad as the Tribunal had ruled, and reduced compensation from $7100 to $1200.

He found no fault with the Tribunal’s award of $1500 in exemplary damages for quiet enjoyment due to unannounced visits to the property, and upheld this.

The $4800 award for breaching the Healthy Homes Standards was also upheld, as was an award of $750 for the lack of a smoke alarm.

The Judge found the Tribunal had erred by finding the building did not meet Building Code requirements. Because the building was constructed in the 1920s it did not need to comply, and he quashed the rent rebate of $12,760 ordered by the Tribunal for this matter.

On June 2 Judge Sharp ordered Yuan and Shen to pay the tenants $11,862. He made no order for costs.

The sum was not paid. Instead Yuan and Shen’s lawyer, Natalie Tabb, sent the family a letter three weeks later telling them that Yuan and Shen disagreed with Judge Sharp’s decision, and they felt they should have been awarded costs of more than $10,000.

Tabb claimed the family owed $5027 in rent arrears, and $830 for rubbish removal and cleaning.

She said Yuan and Shen were prepared to pay them $5000 in full and final settlement.

She gave the family three days to accept the offer, adding that Yuan and Shen may apply for a recall of the judge’s decision or look to appeal it.

The family declined the offer, so Tabb lodged an application with the Tenancy Tribunal seeking $5857 to be deducted from any amount owing to the family, to cover rent arrears and cleaning costs.

Tabb also asked the Tribunal to award Yuan and Shen $5000 in exemplary damages “for the tenants dishonesty in their tenancy application and false statements they made at the tenancy tribunal hearing”.

“It took just over a year for my client’s appeal to be heard in the District Court. My clients were successful as expected. My clients proved that the most significant and egregious tenants statements made to the tenancy tribunal were not correct,” Tabb told Stuff.

She said the new claims being put to the Tribunal had arisen at the end of the family’s tenancy in March 2025.

“My clients have been left significantly out of pocket and have endured unnecessary stress arising from [the tenants] false statements,” she said.

One of the former tenants told Stuff it was “a very weird situation”.

She said the family did not owe any rent arrears and disputed the claims made about the tenancy application and the rubbish and cleaning costs.

She said she would be surprised if the Tribunal accepted an application for another hearing, “and even if it did, I’m not sure what difference it would make in relation to the court decision”.

“We might have to hire a lawyer. We haven’t done anything wrong and they’re trying to drag this out to three years,” the woman said.

She said she and her partner had been surprised at the Tribunal’s award.

“Things we hadn’t raised were considered by the adjudicator. We were fine about it coming down to $12,000. We were quite shocked at the $30,000. $12,000 makes a bit more sense,” she said.

“We just wish they’d pay us and go,” she said.

Shen had been a real estate agent at Ray White (Te Atatu) but resigned in February last year.

Shen and Yuan sold the property, which included several dwellings, for $2.5million last month.