Photo: AFP
The Disputes Tribunal has ruled that a Chinese family embroiled in a disagreement over accommodation during a short-term stay in New Zealand should be refunded a portion of money it paid in advance as rent.
The husband and wife were visiting New Zealand for their 7-year-old son's study tour last year but a dispute over accommodation soured the trip.
After finding an Airbnb listing on Auckland's North Shore, Chloe Liu contacted the host ahead of the family's planned visit to New Zealand in mid-July.
The host, whom RNZ decided not to name, then facilitated a booking made through social media platform WeChat, according to details outlined in the tribunal's decision.
The unsigned accommodation agreement between the two referred to compliance with Airbnb rules, the ruling said.
The booking was for about seven weeks from mid-July to the end of August, the ruling said.
Prior to the commencement of the stay, the family paid the host around $7300 to cover the bond and a portion of the rent, with a second installment of rent to be paid on or about 15 August 2024, the ruling said.
However, the relationship between the two parties deteriorated and the host sent Liu a message on 24 July asking the family to leave, the ruling said.
The family vacated the premises under "stressful circumstances", the ruling said.
The host refused to return the bond or reimburse the excess rent paid over and above the 10 days the family had stayed, the ruling said.
The host claimed she was not obliged to return any money due to Airbnb's "no refund" policy, the ruling said.
"Effectively the respondent is saying she can receive a payment of $7309.1 from the [applicant] for accommodation from 15 July through to at least 15 August 2024, and then after only 10 days ask the applicant to leave but keep the applicant's bond and the excess rent paid over and above 10 days," the ruling said.
"That is an unacceptable submission."
The ruling noted that the host failed to present Airbnb's rental rules to the tribunal, but even if a rule did rule out refunds, such would be "harsh and unconscionable" in this case, the ruling said.
The host told RNZ last year the dispute caused her immense distress after Chinese media published details of the disagreement.
"The respondent's personal distress, whether justified or not, is not a reason for her refusing to reimburse the applicant what she was entitled to, and a more professional judgment as an accommodation provider was required by the respondent," the ruling said.
"If the respondent had simply refunded the applicant what she was entitled to, there would likely be no claim before the tribunal today or ongoing dispute between them."
The Disputes Tribunal ordered the host to return the bond and the additional rent the family had paid over and above the 10 days it had stayed, calculated at $5709.71.
The family returned to China after their son's short-term study tour last year.
