What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4759717 about?

The tribunal order states: Hub Realty Limited Patras Chaudhary and Xiuling Ju must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4759717?

Compensation: Incorrect notice perio…: $110.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Lost Wages: $1,437.52 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Moving Truck: $333.22 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Travel: $320.91 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4759717?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4759717?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10251421-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4759717 about?

The tribunal order states: Hub Realty Limited Patras Chaudhary and Xiuling Ju must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4759717?

Compensation: Incorrect notice perio…: $110.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Lost Wages: $1,437.52 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Moving Truck: $333.22 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Travel: $320.91 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4759717?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4759717?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10251421-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

18A Vause Street, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4759717 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4759717 — net $5,222.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Travel	$320.91	Travel
Compensation: Lost wages	$1,437.52	Lost wages
Compensation: Moving truck	$333.22	Moving truck
Compensation: Incorrect notice period	$110.00	Incorrect notice period
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages	$3,000.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$5,222.09
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,222.09

Order

Hub Realty Limited Patras Chaudhary and Xiuling Ju must pay [The tenant/s] $5,222.09 immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was attended by [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] for the applicant, and by Ms Wu for Hub Realty Limited Patras Chaudhary. Xiuling Ju did not attend. Background
The application was filed by the tenant on 22 December 2023 with Hub Realty Limited, Patras Chaudhary as the respondent.
Ms Ju then applied to be joined to the application, and the applicant tenant consented.
On 12 April 2024 the Tenancy Tribunal Registry staff emailed Ms Ju the following: “Kia Ora Thank you for your email. I want to confirm that your evidence has been added to the file. Please note that it is mandatory for you to call the Tribunal at the time of the hearing. The phone number you need to call is [redacted]. The hearing is scheduled for the 22 nd of April at 9.30 NZ Time. If you have any further question or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.”
An interpreter for Ms Ju attended the hearing at the appointed time, and stayed for the whole hearing. Ms Ju did not call the Tribunal at the appointed time. After the hearing had concluded an email sent by Ms Ju at 8.20 am on the morning of the hearing, was discovered advising the Tribunal that she would not be phoning to join the hearing. The claims
The tenant has two claims: The first is that the termination notice period they were given was incorrect. The second is that the termination notice itself, was unlawful.
Following a three-year, four-month tenancy which included a singular rent increase, the landlord served a notice on 4 January 2023 to increase the rent from $770.00 per week, to $850.00 per week in March 2023. The tenant responded by pointing out that the median market rent at the time of $690.00 per week meant that the proposed increase in their view, was unfair. They advised the landlord they wished to negotiate the rent increase.
They heard nothing in response to this request, but three months later were issued with a termination notice by the landlord.
The tenant claims the 63-day notice period was incorrectly calculated by the landlord.
The termination was delivered before 5.00 pm on Friday 21 April 2023. The termination date given, was Friday 12 July 2023.
A notice delivered by email before 5.00 pm on any given day, is deemed served on that day, see Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (“the RTA) section 136. However the calculation of any period contained in the notice period begins the day after service, see RTA section 136A.
The tenant is correct that they were given 62 days, not 63 days notice. The tenant is claiming $110.00, the equivalent of one day’s rent in compensation. The claim is proved, and this amount is ordered.
The tenant claims the landlord sought to terminate their tenancy, ultimately because they wished to increase the rent without having to negotiate with the tenants. To achieve this end, the tenant says the landlord used a 63-day notice contained in the RTA, allowing termination of a tenancy if an owner or a member of the owner’s family wishes to use the premises as their principal place of residence for a minimum of 90 days, within 90 days of the end of the tenancy. Unlawful notice
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (“the RTA”).
On 21 April 2023, the landlord gave the tenants a 63-day notice terminating their tenancy stating the following: “The reason for terminating the tenancy agreement is that the owner of the premises requires the premises within 90 days after the termination date (as above) as the principal place of residence (for at least 90 days) for the owner or a member of the owner’s family.”
The RTA, section 51 states: 51Termination by notice (1)A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 63 days’ notice if— (a)the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family;
To be successful with their claim, the tenant must convince me that at the time of giving the notice, the owner or a member of the owner’s family did not intend to use the premises as their principal place of residence for at least 90 days, within 90 days after the termination date.
The standard of proof required is the civil standard, “on the balance of probabilities”.
In support of their claim the tenant produced a letter that the owner of the property, Ms Ju had written and sent to Tenancy Services setting out her position. The tenant pointed to the following extracts: a. “... we landed Auckland airport of NZ at 12th July 2023”, and “... we actually left NZ on 30th September of 2023”.
The tenant submitted that extract “a” shows that the premises were only occupied by the owner or a member or their family for a maximum of 80 days. b.I have tried to looking for a good agent at the beganning day of September of 2023 to taking care of the house after we left NZ. I tried contacted [Property Management 1] at 5th of September 2023 and [Property Management 2] and some other agent. [Property Management 1] had taken some house photoes first and I asked them to give a suggestion rent price.and they tried to had the advertisement but we had no agrrement of contract beacause the suggestion rent price was not good as we thinked.So we choose [Property Management 2] to be our new agent at last and we reached the agreement in 20th September 2023.
The tenant submitted that extract “b” shows that after the owner left the premises, the property was vacant until it was rented out again. The tenant says it also shows that the owners were strongly motivated by the amount of rent they could receive from the property. c. We had bought panintings from [Hardware store] and did a lot of reparing works during the living days in the house.We lived on very easy air-bed. We bought them from internet shopping in China.We used very simple cooking pots and pans.becasuse we had konwn we would not stayed at NZ so long this time.
The tenant submitted that extract “c” shows that the tenant never had an intention to stay in New Zealand very long.
The tenant produced a screenshot of an advertisement for the same property for rent. The advertisement states “this property is available for rent from the 25 August ... ”.
The tenant submitted that this advertisement showed the owner had already left the property long before the 90-day minimum residency requirement had expired.
The tenant submitted that the focus on increasing rent as set out in extract “b” above is consistent with the termination notice being given soon after the tenant resisted the rent increase.
The tenant also produced an email from Ms Ju the owner, to a [Property Management 1] representative which appears to be dated 31 October 2023 stating: “Dear [Property Representative], Thank you for the messages you have told me.But I am sorry I don’t want to rent the house if rent price is below 900 at the moment.”
The tenant also stated that the landlord had previously threatened to terminate the tenancy when attempting to convince the tenants to re-sign for a fixed-term tenancy rather than let the tenancy roll over on to a periodic tenancy. Despite this itself possibly being an unlawful termination, the tenants say they relented and signed for another fixed-term.
The tenant also produced a Property Management Authority that the owner signed with [Property Management 2] on 20 September 2023 for [Property Management 2] to rent the property. This was 70 days after the owner had arrived in the country.
The tenant submitted that the documents they produced support their theory that the owner was intent on increasing the rent, and never had an intention to reside in the premises for at least 90 days, within 90 days of the tenants’ tenancy ending.
Ms Wu for the landlord addressed the tenant’s application about the notice service period, and then explained that after the tenancy was terminated on 23 June 2023, their property management agreement with the owner was cancelled and they only had a small number of further communications with the owner. Ms Wu declined to respond to the tenant’s submissions on the unlawful termination and left the hearing when a short adjournment was taken mid- morning.
On the balance of probabilities I am easily convinced by the tenants’ argument that the termination notice was unlawful, and the landlord therefore has committed an unlawful act. Key points I consider in reaching this decision include the following: a. By the owner’s own admission they never intended to stay long in New Zealand. b. The owner’s visit to New Zealand was planned in advance, and there was no suggestion of changes of plan due to unforeseen circumstances. c. Documentary evidence showing preparations to re-tenant the property, began well within 90 days of the owner arriving in New Zealand. d. The ample documentary evidence which supports the tenant’s theory that their tenancy was terminated so the rent could be increased without argument.
Despite the landlord/property manager attending the hearing, and provision being made for the owner to attend the hearing, the tenant’s version of events went mostly unchallenged. General damages and exemplary damages
The tenant is seeking reimbursement for moving costs, compensation for lost wages (they needed to take annual leave in order to move house) and exemplary damages of $4,000.00.
No submissions on these amounts were made by the respondent.
The moving costs and compensation for lost wages are awarded as general damages.
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.
I am persuaded by the tenants’ argument that the tenancy was terminated at least partly, in order to easily increase the rent on the property without entering into negotiation with the tenants.
The tenants submitted that for almost four years this was the most stable housing situation they had lived in: they planted and maintained a garden at the property, they formed good relationships with their neighbours, they knew the names of their neighbours’ pets, and one of the four tenants got a teaching job at a local school based on the school’s proximity to their address. The household was a loving home for the four tenants, two of whom had lived together for ten years since leaving school. Since having their tenancy terminated, the group no longer lives together.
I take into account the fact that the landlord is a professional property management company, associated to a nationwide network with significant resources at their disposal: It is safe to presume they are familiar with New Zealand’s tenancy law, and the termination provisions of the RTA.
I also note that unlawful terminations of this sort serve to undermine and disincentivise a stable property-rental culture developing in New Zealand.
I consider $2,000.00 an appropriate starting point for exemplary damages in this case, and when I take account of the above factors, I arrive at an amount of $3,000.00 as an appropriate quantum for exemplary damages for this case.
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4759717 — net $5,222.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Travel	$320.91	Travel
Compensation: Lost wages	$1,437.52	Lost wages
Compensation: Moving truck	$333.22	Moving truck
Compensation: Incorrect notice period	$110.00	Incorrect notice period
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages	$3,000.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$5,222.09
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$5,222.09

Order

Hub Realty Limited Patras Chaudhary and Xiuling Ju must pay [The tenant/s] $5,222.09 immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was attended by [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] for the applicant, and by Ms Wu for Hub Realty Limited Patras Chaudhary. Xiuling Ju did not attend. Background
The application was filed by the tenant on 22 December 2023 with Hub Realty Limited, Patras Chaudhary as the respondent.
Ms Ju then applied to be joined to the application, and the applicant tenant consented.
On 12 April 2024 the Tenancy Tribunal Registry staff emailed Ms Ju the following: “Kia Ora Thank you for your email. I want to confirm that your evidence has been added to the file. Please note that it is mandatory for you to call the Tribunal at the time of the hearing. The phone number you need to call is [redacted]. The hearing is scheduled for the 22 nd of April at 9.30 NZ Time. If you have any further question or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.”
An interpreter for Ms Ju attended the hearing at the appointed time, and stayed for the whole hearing. Ms Ju did not call the Tribunal at the appointed time. After the hearing had concluded an email sent by Ms Ju at 8.20 am on the morning of the hearing, was discovered advising the Tribunal that she would not be phoning to join the hearing. The claims
The tenant has two claims: The first is that the termination notice period they were given was incorrect. The second is that the termination notice itself, was unlawful.
Following a three-year, four-month tenancy which included a singular rent increase, the landlord served a notice on 4 January 2023 to increase the rent from $770.00 per week, to $850.00 per week in March 2023. The tenant responded by pointing out that the median market rent at the time of $690.00 per week meant that the proposed increase in their view, was unfair. They advised the landlord they wished to negotiate the rent increase.
They heard nothing in response to this request, but three months later were issued with a termination notice by the landlord.
The tenant claims the 63-day notice period was incorrectly calculated by the landlord.
The termination was delivered before 5.00 pm on Friday 21 April 2023. The termination date given, was Friday 12 July 2023.
A notice delivered by email before 5.00 pm on any given day, is deemed served on that day, see Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (“the RTA) section 136. However the calculation of any period contained in the notice period begins the day after service, see RTA section 136A.
The tenant is correct that they were given 62 days, not 63 days notice. The tenant is claiming $110.00, the equivalent of one day’s rent in compensation. The claim is proved, and this amount is ordered.
The tenant claims the landlord sought to terminate their tenancy, ultimately because they wished to increase the rent without having to negotiate with the tenants. To achieve this end, the tenant says the landlord used a 63-day notice contained in the RTA, allowing termination of a tenancy if an owner or a member of the owner’s family wishes to use the premises as their principal place of residence for a minimum of 90 days, within 90 days of the end of the tenancy. Unlawful notice
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (“the RTA”).
On 21 April 2023, the landlord gave the tenants a 63-day notice terminating their tenancy stating the following: “The reason for terminating the tenancy agreement is that the owner of the premises requires the premises within 90 days after the termination date (as above) as the principal place of residence (for at least 90 days) for the owner or a member of the owner’s family.”
The RTA, section 51 states: 51Termination by notice (1)A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 63 days’ notice if— (a)the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family;
To be successful with their claim, the tenant must convince me that at the time of giving the notice, the owner or a member of the owner’s family did not intend to use the premises as their principal place of residence for at least 90 days, within 90 days after the termination date.
The standard of proof required is the civil standard, “on the balance of probabilities”.
In support of their claim the tenant produced a letter that the owner of the property, Ms Ju had written and sent to Tenancy Services setting out her position. The tenant pointed to the following extracts: a. “... we landed Auckland airport of NZ at 12th July 2023”, and “... we actually left NZ on 30th September of 2023”.
The tenant submitted that extract “a” shows that the premises were only occupied by the owner or a member or their family for a maximum of 80 days. b.I have tried to looking for a good agent at the beganning day of September of 2023 to taking care of the house after we left NZ. I tried contacted [Property Management 1] at 5th of September 2023 and [Property Management 2] and some other agent. [Property Management 1] had taken some house photoes first and I asked them to give a suggestion rent price.and they tried to had the advertisement but we had no agrrement of contract beacause the suggestion rent price was not good as we thinked.So we choose [Property Management 2] to be our new agent at last and we reached the agreement in 20th September 2023.
The tenant submitted that extract “b” shows that after the owner left the premises, the property was vacant until it was rented out again. The tenant says it also shows that the owners were strongly motivated by the amount of rent they could receive from the property. c. We had bought panintings from [Hardware store] and did a lot of reparing works during the living days in the house.We lived on very easy air-bed. We bought them from internet shopping in China.We used very simple cooking pots and pans.becasuse we had konwn we would not stayed at NZ so long this time.
The tenant submitted that extract “c” shows that the tenant never had an intention to stay in New Zealand very long.
The tenant produced a screenshot of an advertisement for the same property for rent. The advertisement states “this property is available for rent from the 25 August ... ”.
The tenant submitted that this advertisement showed the owner had already left the property long before the 90-day minimum residency requirement had expired.
The tenant submitted that the focus on increasing rent as set out in extract “b” above is consistent with the termination notice being given soon after the tenant resisted the rent increase.
The tenant also produced an email from Ms Ju the owner, to a [Property Management 1] representative which appears to be dated 31 October 2023 stating: “Dear [Property Representative], Thank you for the messages you have told me.But I am sorry I don’t want to rent the house if rent price is below 900 at the moment.”
The tenant also stated that the landlord had previously threatened to terminate the tenancy when attempting to convince the tenants to re-sign for a fixed-term tenancy rather than let the tenancy roll over on to a periodic tenancy. Despite this itself possibly being an unlawful termination, the tenants say they relented and signed for another fixed-term.
The tenant also produced a Property Management Authority that the owner signed with [Property Management 2] on 20 September 2023 for [Property Management 2] to rent the property. This was 70 days after the owner had arrived in the country.
The tenant submitted that the documents they produced support their theory that the owner was intent on increasing the rent, and never had an intention to reside in the premises for at least 90 days, within 90 days of the tenants’ tenancy ending.
Ms Wu for the landlord addressed the tenant’s application about the notice service period, and then explained that after the tenancy was terminated on 23 June 2023, their property management agreement with the owner was cancelled and they only had a small number of further communications with the owner. Ms Wu declined to respond to the tenant’s submissions on the unlawful termination and left the hearing when a short adjournment was taken mid- morning.
On the balance of probabilities I am easily convinced by the tenants’ argument that the termination notice was unlawful, and the landlord therefore has committed an unlawful act. Key points I consider in reaching this decision include the following: a. By the owner’s own admission they never intended to stay long in New Zealand. b. The owner’s visit to New Zealand was planned in advance, and there was no suggestion of changes of plan due to unforeseen circumstances. c. Documentary evidence showing preparations to re-tenant the property, began well within 90 days of the owner arriving in New Zealand. d. The ample documentary evidence which supports the tenant’s theory that their tenancy was terminated so the rent could be increased without argument.
Despite the landlord/property manager attending the hearing, and provision being made for the owner to attend the hearing, the tenant’s version of events went mostly unchallenged. General damages and exemplary damages
The tenant is seeking reimbursement for moving costs, compensation for lost wages (they needed to take annual leave in order to move house) and exemplary damages of $4,000.00.
No submissions on these amounts were made by the respondent.
The moving costs and compensation for lost wages are awarded as general damages.
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.
I am persuaded by the tenants’ argument that the tenancy was terminated at least partly, in order to easily increase the rent on the property without entering into negotiation with the tenants.
The tenants submitted that for almost four years this was the most stable housing situation they had lived in: they planted and maintained a garden at the property, they formed good relationships with their neighbours, they knew the names of their neighbours’ pets, and one of the four tenants got a teaching job at a local school based on the school’s proximity to their address. The household was a loving home for the four tenants, two of whom had lived together for ten years since leaving school. Since having their tenancy terminated, the group no longer lives together.
I take into account the fact that the landlord is a professional property management company, associated to a nationwide network with significant resources at their disposal: It is safe to presume they are familiar with New Zealand’s tenancy law, and the termination provisions of the RTA.
I also note that unlawful terminations of this sort serve to undermine and disincentivise a stable property-rental culture developing in New Zealand.
I consider $2,000.00 an appropriate starting point for exemplary damages in this case, and when I take account of the above factors, I arrive at an amount of $3,000.00 as an appropriate quantum for exemplary damages for this case.
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4759717 — Exemplary damages at 18A Vause Street, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4759717 — Exemplary damages at 18A Vause Street, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051

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