What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4804435 about?

The tribunal order states: Sunshine Property Group Limited Luke Zhang must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4804435?

Compensation: Rent Refund: $92.86 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4804435?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4804435?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10828662-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4804435 about?

The tribunal order states: Sunshine Property Group Limited Luke Zhang must pay [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4804435?

Compensation: Rent Refund: $92.86 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4804435?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4804435?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10828662-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20 St Catherine Crescent, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4804435 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4804435 — net $1,113.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent refund	$92.86	Rent refund
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,113.30
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,113.30

Order

Sunshine Property Group Limited Luke Zhang must pay [The tenant/s] $1,113.30 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenancy began on 19 May 2021.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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 any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this case the landlord served the tenant with a 63 day notice to terminate the tenancy with effect on 30 January 2024 under section 51(1)(a) RTA on the grounds that the landlord required 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.

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy unlawfully?

The tenant vacated the premises on 31 January 2024, being one day after the termination date.
On 9 February 2024 the tenant discovered that the premises were advertised for rent in TradeMe. The rent sought in the advertisement was $70.00 higher than the tenant had been paying.
The tenant sent the advertisement to the landlord who made enquiries with the owner. At the hearing the landlord said he was shocked to learn that the owner’s family member had not moved into the property. The landlord had not posted the advertisement and asked the owner to remove it from TradeMe.
When asked about this the owner told the landlord that the tenant had taken too long to move out and the family member had found somewhere else to live. Further the family member did not want to live in the premises due to its condition.
In relation to the reason given that the tenant took too long to move out, I accept that the tenant moved out one day after the date due for the tenancy to terminate. One day cannot be considered as too long.
I also do not accept the reason given that the family member did not want to live there due to the condition of the premises. The owner would have been aware of the age and condition of the premises as the tenancy was managed by a property management company likely to provide the landlord with periodic inspection reports. Also, if the family member considered that the condition of the premises prevented the occupation then why did the advertisement propose a higher rent.
In considering the evidence submitted I am satisfied that the landlord terminated the tenancy unlawfully. The landlord has not complied with section 51(1)(a), in that a family member has not taken up occupation of the premises as their principal place of residence within 90 days of the termination date. There is a breach of section 60AA because the landlord gave notice knowing they were not entitled to do so. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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.
Before moving out the tenant had not been able to secure a new tenancy. She asked for an extension of the termination date, but the tenant was advised on 28 January 2024 that the owner would not agree to this.
The landlord was aware that the tenant could not find alternate accommodation. On the day before the tenancy ended the tenant advised the landlord that she would need to either stay in her car or in a tent somewhere.
At the hearing the tenant confirmed that she did need to stay in her car for a couple of nights before she was able to secure a new tenancy. She had to put her belongings in storage. She was fortunate to get a month’s free storage and only needed to pay $40.00.
While the landlord asked for the advertisement to be removed this does not take away the intention of the owner to relet the premises just over a week after the tenancy was terminated. The owner was insistent that the tenant needed to vacate the premises knowing that she had not found a new tenancy.
The owner could have shown the family member through the premises before the tenancy ended if the intention was truly for a family member to move in and the condition of the premises was likely to be an issue. This would have prevented the need for the tenancy to end.
It is in the public interest that tenants can remain in a periodic tenancy unless there is a valid reason for a tenancy to be terminated.
The effect on the tenant has been that she needed to live in her car before having the cost and inconvenience of moving to a new tenancy.
I consider that an award of $1,000.00 for exemplary damages is reasonable. Compensation
The tenant claimed compensation for the landlord charging rent up to 1 February 2024. Her evidence is that she vacated the premises on 31 January 2024 but when the Property Manager attended that day, she was still doing some cleaning. The tenant said that the cleaning was completed that day and she had moved out.
The landlord attended on 1 February to collect the keys and confirmed that the tenant had vacated the premises. The tenant was entitled to have until the end of 31 January 2024 to vacate the premises as had earlier been agreed.
The tenant said that there was some rubbish left outside that was collected by a third party on 2 February 2024. It is my view that this is not enough to charge the tenant for rent up until 2 February 2024.
As the tenant moved out on 31 January 2024, I accept her evidence that she should not be liable for rent to 1 February 2024 because that was the day that the landlord attended to collect the keys. I award the tenant one days rent that was overcharged.
The tenant also claimed the cost of storage due to the unlawful termination. I have taken this amount into account when awarding the exemplary damages so no further compensation is awarded.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason I have suppressed the tenant’s name as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4804435 — net $1,113.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Rent refund	$92.86	Rent refund
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,113.30
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,113.30

Order

Sunshine Property Group Limited Luke Zhang must pay [The tenant/s] $1,113.30 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenancy began on 19 May 2021.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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 any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this case the landlord served the tenant with a 63 day notice to terminate the tenancy with effect on 30 January 2024 under section 51(1)(a) RTA on the grounds that the landlord required 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.

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy unlawfully?

The tenant vacated the premises on 31 January 2024, being one day after the termination date.
On 9 February 2024 the tenant discovered that the premises were advertised for rent in TradeMe. The rent sought in the advertisement was $70.00 higher than the tenant had been paying.
The tenant sent the advertisement to the landlord who made enquiries with the owner. At the hearing the landlord said he was shocked to learn that the owner’s family member had not moved into the property. The landlord had not posted the advertisement and asked the owner to remove it from TradeMe.
When asked about this the owner told the landlord that the tenant had taken too long to move out and the family member had found somewhere else to live. Further the family member did not want to live in the premises due to its condition.
In relation to the reason given that the tenant took too long to move out, I accept that the tenant moved out one day after the date due for the tenancy to terminate. One day cannot be considered as too long.
I also do not accept the reason given that the family member did not want to live there due to the condition of the premises. The owner would have been aware of the age and condition of the premises as the tenancy was managed by a property management company likely to provide the landlord with periodic inspection reports. Also, if the family member considered that the condition of the premises prevented the occupation then why did the advertisement propose a higher rent.
In considering the evidence submitted I am satisfied that the landlord terminated the tenancy unlawfully. The landlord has not complied with section 51(1)(a), in that a family member has not taken up occupation of the premises as their principal place of residence within 90 days of the termination date. There is a breach of section 60AA because the landlord gave notice knowing they were not entitled to do so. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
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.
Before moving out the tenant had not been able to secure a new tenancy. She asked for an extension of the termination date, but the tenant was advised on 28 January 2024 that the owner would not agree to this.
The landlord was aware that the tenant could not find alternate accommodation. On the day before the tenancy ended the tenant advised the landlord that she would need to either stay in her car or in a tent somewhere.
At the hearing the tenant confirmed that she did need to stay in her car for a couple of nights before she was able to secure a new tenancy. She had to put her belongings in storage. She was fortunate to get a month’s free storage and only needed to pay $40.00.
While the landlord asked for the advertisement to be removed this does not take away the intention of the owner to relet the premises just over a week after the tenancy was terminated. The owner was insistent that the tenant needed to vacate the premises knowing that she had not found a new tenancy.
The owner could have shown the family member through the premises before the tenancy ended if the intention was truly for a family member to move in and the condition of the premises was likely to be an issue. This would have prevented the need for the tenancy to end.
It is in the public interest that tenants can remain in a periodic tenancy unless there is a valid reason for a tenancy to be terminated.
The effect on the tenant has been that she needed to live in her car before having the cost and inconvenience of moving to a new tenancy.
I consider that an award of $1,000.00 for exemplary damages is reasonable. Compensation
The tenant claimed compensation for the landlord charging rent up to 1 February 2024. Her evidence is that she vacated the premises on 31 January 2024 but when the Property Manager attended that day, she was still doing some cleaning. The tenant said that the cleaning was completed that day and she had moved out.
The landlord attended on 1 February to collect the keys and confirmed that the tenant had vacated the premises. The tenant was entitled to have until the end of 31 January 2024 to vacate the premises as had earlier been agreed.
The tenant said that there was some rubbish left outside that was collected by a third party on 2 February 2024. It is my view that this is not enough to charge the tenant for rent up until 2 February 2024.
As the tenant moved out on 31 January 2024, I accept her evidence that she should not be liable for rent to 1 February 2024 because that was the day that the landlord attended to collect the keys. I award the tenant one days rent that was overcharged.
The tenant also claimed the cost of storage due to the unlawful termination. I have taken this amount into account when awarding the exemplary damages so no further compensation is awarded.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason I have suppressed the tenant’s name as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4804435 — Exemplary damages at 20 St Catherine Crescent, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4804435 — Exemplary damages at 20 St Catherine Crescent, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions