What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4557133 about?

The tribunal order states: must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4557133?

Compensation: $620.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4557133?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4557133?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9718569-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4557133 about?

The tribunal order states: must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4557133?

Compensation: $620.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4557133?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4557133?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9718569-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

30 Orakau Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4557133 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4557133 — net $640.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$620.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$640.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$640.44

Both parties attended the hearing. The parties and Tribunal were also assisted by a mandarin interpreter.

The tenant was looking for a place to live from late April, to allow her study at University of Auckland. The tenant was coming to study from China and needed to secure accommodation before commencement of her studies.

The tenant saw an advertisement on a Chinese social media site to rent a bedroom and facilities in Epsom. When she contacted the person who placed the advertisement Mr Li, he put her in touch with Cindy Gao from Grace Property Management Limited, who was renting out the house on behalf of the owner, who was also in China.

The tenant started conversing with Ms Gao. Ms Gao showed her a video of the premises. Ms Gao told her that a payment of $620- the equivalent of two weeks rent was needed, and she would send her a tenancy contract.

The tenant became concerned after making payment that she had not received the tenancy agreement; she says that the University needed her to have secure accommodation and she needed a signed agreement.

After a few days of not receiving the agreement, the tenant cancelled her tenancy and asked for her money back. Ms Gao refused to give her money back saying that it was deposit to cover ‘move in costs’.

At yesterday’s hearing Ms Gao says that she is not the landlord, that [The tenant/s] rented from Mr Li. This is because Mr Li had rented the premises as a whole and was subletting each room individually. Ms Gao did not have the tenancy agreement with Mr Li at today’s hearing.

I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] was to rent residential premises being her bedroom and the use of shared facilities.

I am satisfied that Grace Property Management were acting as her landlord and that the tenancy contract was intended to be between Grace Property Management as agent for the overseas owner and [The tenant/s]. I do not accept Ms Gao’s submission that Grace Property Management was acting on behalf of Mr Li in letting the property and that Mr Li was the landlord, I say this for the following reasons: a) There was no agreement produced between Grace Property Management Limited and Mr Li. b) Ms Gao negotiated the tenancy agreement with [The tenant/s] and did not at any stage before the money was paid tell [The tenant/s] that she was only the letting agent or acting on behalf of Mr Li. The correspondence is between Ms Gao and [The tenant/s]. c) The money paid from the tenant went to Grace Property Management Limited bank account not to Mr Li’s account. d) [The tenant/s] never agreed to her money being used to ‘pay out’ Mr Li. Is [The tenant/s] entitled to a refund of her money?

Ms Gao claims that the money paid by [The tenant/s] was for ‘move in’ expenses. At today’s hearing she did not elaborate what those were, but she has made a previous submission that these were to cover the cost of advertisement and administration. Despite making this submission no evidence was given on what those costs were, and how they varied for the usual costs incurred by a landlord (not normally paid by tenants) when seeking new tenants.

[The tenant/s] says that she was told by Ms Gao that she would not be receiving the money back because it was a reservation for the room, she says she was told that the payment was for “take down the advertisement and not rent to others.”

Ms Gao was adamant that these costs were not ‘key money’ as that term is defined in the RTA- which includes the payment for a reservation of a room. Key money does not include money paid for bond or rent, and I consider that the money paid by [The tenant/s] was either for bond or rent. As the tenancy did not eventuate then [The tenant/s] is entitled to refund of that money.

[The tenant/s] is entitled to be refunded the full amount of $620.00 paid to Grace Property management Limited.

As [The tenant/s] has been successful in her claim then she is entitled to the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4557133 — net $640.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$620.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$640.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$640.44

Order

must pay immediately as per the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The parties and Tribunal were also assisted by a mandarin interpreter.
The tenant was looking for a place to live from late April, to allow her study at University of Auckland. The tenant was coming to study from China and needed to secure accommodation before commencement of her studies.
The tenant saw an advertisement on a Chinese social media site to rent a bedroom and facilities in Epsom. When she contacted the person who placed the advertisement Mr Li, he put her in touch with Cindy Gao from Grace Property Management Limited, who was renting out the house on behalf of the owner, who was also in China.
The tenant started conversing with Ms Gao. Ms Gao showed her a video of the premises. Ms Gao told her that a payment of $620- the equivalent of two weeks rent was needed, and she would send her a tenancy contract.
The tenant became concerned after making payment that she had not received the tenancy agreement; she says that the University needed her to have secure accommodation and she needed a signed agreement.
After a few days of not receiving the agreement, the tenant cancelled her tenancy and asked for her money back. Ms Gao refused to give her money back saying that it was deposit to cover ‘move in costs’.
At yesterday’s hearing Ms Gao says that she is not the landlord, that [The tenant/s] rented from Mr Li. This is because Mr Li had rented the premises as a whole and was subletting each room individually. Ms Gao did not have the tenancy agreement with Mr Li at today’s hearing.
I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] was to rent residential premises being her bedroom and the use of shared facilities.
I am satisfied that Grace Property Management were acting as her landlord and that the tenancy contract was intended to be between Grace Property Management as agent for the overseas owner and [The tenant/s]. I do not accept Ms Gao’s submission that Grace Property Management was acting on behalf of Mr Li in letting the property and that Mr Li was the landlord, I say this for the following reasons: a) There was no agreement produced between Grace Property Management Limited and Mr Li. b) Ms Gao negotiated the tenancy agreement with [The tenant/s] and did not at any stage before the money was paid tell [The tenant/s] that she was only the letting agent or acting on behalf of Mr Li. The correspondence is between Ms Gao and [The tenant/s]. c) The money paid from the tenant went to Grace Property Management Limited bank account not to Mr Li’s account. d) [The tenant/s] never agreed to her money being used to ‘pay out’ Mr Li. Is [The tenant/s] entitled to a refund of her money?
Ms Gao claims that the money paid by [The tenant/s] was for ‘move in’ expenses. At today’s hearing she did not elaborate what those were, but she has made a previous submission that these were to cover the cost of advertisement and administration. Despite making this submission no evidence was given on what those costs were, and how they varied for the usual costs incurred by a landlord (not normally paid by tenants) when seeking new tenants.
[The tenant/s] says that she was told by Ms Gao that she would not be receiving the money back because it was a reservation for the room, she says she was told that the payment was for “take down the advertisement and not rent to others.”
Ms Gao was adamant that these costs were not ‘key money’ as that term is defined in the RTA- which includes the payment for a reservation of a room. Key money does not include money paid for bond or rent, and I consider that the money paid by [The tenant/s] was either for bond or rent. As the tenancy did not eventuate then [The tenant/s] is entitled to refund of that money.
[The tenant/s] is entitled to be refunded the full amount of $620.00 paid to Grace Property management Limited.
As [The tenant/s] has been successful in her claim then she is entitled to the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4557133 — Tenancy dispute at 30 Orakau Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4557133 — Tenancy dispute at 30 Orakau Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions