What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4819437 about?

The tribunal order states: lena zhang must pay [The tenant/s] $3,070.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4819437?

Compensation: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4819437?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4819437?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10732800-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4819437 about?

The tribunal order states: lena zhang must pay [The tenant/s] $3,070.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4819437?

Compensation: $450.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4819437?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4819437?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10732800-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4819437 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4819437 — net $3,070.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for wrongful termination	$450.00	Compensation for wrongful termination
Refund of bond held by landlord	$2,600.00	Refund of bond held by landlord
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,070.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,070.44

Order

lena zhang must pay [The tenant/s] $3,070.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 15 August 2024.
The tenant’s summary of her claim was set out in my order dated 4 June 2024. I repeat this below for ease of reference: The tenant says she lived at the tenancy address from 3 March 2022 to about 19 February 2024. The tenant says she had to leave the property after the landlord purported to give her a termination notice from the new owner, requiring her to leave in 28 days. The tenant then spent the next 10 days from 19 February 2024 travelling between the tenancy address and emergency housing. I understood this was to look after the property and her dog who was not permitted to stay at the emergency housing. Having not been able to contact the landlord, eventually the tenant locked up the house and left her keys inside. The tenant questions the authenticity of the termination notice. She says she has never met the alleged new owner, [redacted]. She says the termination notice was invalid because it did not give the correct period of notice and was not given for a valid reason. The tenant says the landlord has rented out the property again since she left. The tenant says she spent almost 3 months in emergency housing with her children. The tenant claims a refund of the bond of $3,250.00 and $5,000.00 in compensation for mental distress. The tenant says she had to leave behind a washing machine and fridge-freezer which had been purchased for her by WINZ. She claims exemplary damages for the wrongful termination notice and says the rent has been overpaid.
I note that the 4 June 2024 order requested various documents providing further information about the tenancy terms, the rent payments made, and information about the bond.
At the hearing on 15 August 2024, I was provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement. This records a weekly rent of $650.00 and a bond of $2,600.00 for a fixed term tenancy from 15 May 2022 to 15 May 2023.
I was also provided with a letter from MSD confirming that the tenant’s rent was redirected from 12 May 2022 until 22 April 2024. MSD confirmed that they assisted the tenant in June 2023 to purchase beds ($1,331.74), a washing machine ($720.00), and a fridge freezer ($785.00) while living at the premises. The landlord provided a further copy of the tenancy agreement, a 90-day notice and some text messages. Bond Refund
The landlord confirmed that the bond of $2,600.00 was transferred from the previous tenant, Nigel, who is a relative of the tenant. It was not lodged with the Bond Centre as required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). The landlord said the bond is held in her father’s bank account but under her name.
Section 22B(2) of the Act provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. The tenancy ended in February 2024, but the landlord has not filed a counterclaim. The bond is therefore refunded to the tenant. Rent Refund
I cannot determine on the available evidence whether the tenant has overpaid the rent. A text message was provided in which the landlord states that the tenant owed her rent. When asked at the hearing if she had kept a rent summary (a requirement under the Act) the landlord said she only had bank statements.
Without a rent summary or details of all the rent payments made, the Tribunal is unable to determine whether the rent has been under- or over-paid. The redirection dates from WINZ are insufficient on their own to enable a calculation to be made. Termination Notice
The landlord notified the tenant on 2 August 2023 that she was intending to sell the property. Her intention was to sell the property occupied, “...so the next owner will be assuming your lease”. Later in the email the landlord recorded: I intended to find someone who will let you stay however I won’t be able to predict anything on their option. I understand this is a stressful process for you, therefore you can take this as a notice of [sic] vacate the property, I hope you can find a home when 90 days come up. If you don’t want to move out after 90 days from this notice, and the house hasn’t been sold to anyone, you could continue to stay. I will ask the new owner to give you [an] extra 28 days for you to find a new home.
This notice would have expired on or about 31 October 2023, terminating the tenancy, but the tenant did not vacate. On 21 February 2024 the landlord emailed the tenant asking her to see an email below from the new owner. The message from the new owner was dated 19 January 2023 (the wrong year) and purported to terminate the periodic tenancy on 19 February 2024 at 10am (i.e., on 28 days’ notice).
At the hearing, the landlord said she had already given 90 days’ notice of termination, and so did not need to give another notice. Further, she said the 28-day notice was from the new owner, not from her.
According to the transmission information, the email was sent by the landlord on 21 February 2024 at 9.55am and included a message from the new owner. It does not appear to be forwarding a separate email. I note the tenant said she left on about 19 February 2024, but in the application form she wrote 21 February 2024 as the date the tenancy ended. It may be that the tenant left almost immediately on receipt of the second notice.
The landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice that the premises were to be put on the market for sale by the owner within 90 days of the termination date (section 51 of the Act). The evidence does not show that the landlord had no genuine intention to market the property, and a sales agent was involved. The landlord’s email of 2 August 2023 gave the required notice and appears to comply with section 51(3) of the Act, apart from not having a signature.
The Act provides that, if the landlord permits the tenant to remain in the premises for more than 90 days after the tenancy has terminated, a new periodic tenancy is deemed to have been granted (section 60(2)). This means the landlord is then required to serve a further termination notice giving 63- or 90-days’ notice as appropriate.
The 90-day period following termination on 31 October 2023 would have expired on about 29 January 2024. The email from the landlord giving 28-days’ notice purports to be sent on 19 January 2024 but the transmission data states 21 February 2024 at 9.55am. I consider a new periodic tenancy is deemed to have been granted. It was not possible to evict the tenant on 28 days’ notice. The way the tenancy ended caused the tenant inconvenience and distress, although the precise circumstances are difficult to ascertain. I award $450.00 to the tenant for the physical and mental inconvenience of having to move into emergency accommodation at short notice.
The tenant said she was unable to take the chattels paid for by WINZ with her to emergency housing. She had use of a family member’s truck to move belongings. The tenant implied that she did not have use of the truck for very long.
It is unclear when the landlord disposed of her interest in the premises to the new owner, and whether the landlord or the owner tried to contact the tenant after she had left, so she could organise the collection of her goods. The landlord and the owner were not entitled to dispose of any of the tenant’s goods except as provided for by sections 62 to 62C of the Act. The tenant may wish to seek confirmation of the status of her belongings. If they can be recovered she may have suffered no loss and if not, the Tribunal can be requested to look at the matter again. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant has been partly successful. I exercise my discretion to award the filing fee.
The tenant requested suppression. The tenant has arguably been “wholly or substantially” successful, and I have a discretion to grant suppression (section 95A of the Act). I do not consider there to be any meaningful public interest in the tenant’s conduct and any such interest is outweighed by her privacy interest. I grant suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4819437 — net $3,070.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for wrongful termination	$450.00	Compensation for wrongful termination
Refund of bond held by landlord	$2,600.00	Refund of bond held by landlord
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,070.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,070.44

Order

lena zhang must pay [The tenant/s] $3,070.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 15 August 2024.
The tenant’s summary of her claim was set out in my order dated 4 June 2024. I repeat this below for ease of reference: The tenant says she lived at the tenancy address from 3 March 2022 to about 19 February 2024. The tenant says she had to leave the property after the landlord purported to give her a termination notice from the new owner, requiring her to leave in 28 days. The tenant then spent the next 10 days from 19 February 2024 travelling between the tenancy address and emergency housing. I understood this was to look after the property and her dog who was not permitted to stay at the emergency housing. Having not been able to contact the landlord, eventually the tenant locked up the house and left her keys inside. The tenant questions the authenticity of the termination notice. She says she has never met the alleged new owner, [redacted]. She says the termination notice was invalid because it did not give the correct period of notice and was not given for a valid reason. The tenant says the landlord has rented out the property again since she left. The tenant says she spent almost 3 months in emergency housing with her children. The tenant claims a refund of the bond of $3,250.00 and $5,000.00 in compensation for mental distress. The tenant says she had to leave behind a washing machine and fridge-freezer which had been purchased for her by WINZ. She claims exemplary damages for the wrongful termination notice and says the rent has been overpaid.
I note that the 4 June 2024 order requested various documents providing further information about the tenancy terms, the rent payments made, and information about the bond.
At the hearing on 15 August 2024, I was provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement. This records a weekly rent of $650.00 and a bond of $2,600.00 for a fixed term tenancy from 15 May 2022 to 15 May 2023.
I was also provided with a letter from MSD confirming that the tenant’s rent was redirected from 12 May 2022 until 22 April 2024. MSD confirmed that they assisted the tenant in June 2023 to purchase beds ($1,331.74), a washing machine ($720.00), and a fridge freezer ($785.00) while living at the premises. The landlord provided a further copy of the tenancy agreement, a 90-day notice and some text messages. Bond Refund
The landlord confirmed that the bond of $2,600.00 was transferred from the previous tenant, Nigel, who is a relative of the tenant. It was not lodged with the Bond Centre as required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). The landlord said the bond is held in her father’s bank account but under her name.
Section 22B(2) of the Act provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. The tenancy ended in February 2024, but the landlord has not filed a counterclaim. The bond is therefore refunded to the tenant. Rent Refund
I cannot determine on the available evidence whether the tenant has overpaid the rent. A text message was provided in which the landlord states that the tenant owed her rent. When asked at the hearing if she had kept a rent summary (a requirement under the Act) the landlord said she only had bank statements.
Without a rent summary or details of all the rent payments made, the Tribunal is unable to determine whether the rent has been under- or over-paid. The redirection dates from WINZ are insufficient on their own to enable a calculation to be made. Termination Notice
The landlord notified the tenant on 2 August 2023 that she was intending to sell the property. Her intention was to sell the property occupied, “...so the next owner will be assuming your lease”. Later in the email the landlord recorded: I intended to find someone who will let you stay however I won’t be able to predict anything on their option. I understand this is a stressful process for you, therefore you can take this as a notice of [sic] vacate the property, I hope you can find a home when 90 days come up. If you don’t want to move out after 90 days from this notice, and the house hasn’t been sold to anyone, you could continue to stay. I will ask the new owner to give you [an] extra 28 days for you to find a new home.
This notice would have expired on or about 31 October 2023, terminating the tenancy, but the tenant did not vacate. On 21 February 2024 the landlord emailed the tenant asking her to see an email below from the new owner. The message from the new owner was dated 19 January 2023 (the wrong year) and purported to terminate the periodic tenancy on 19 February 2024 at 10am (i.e., on 28 days’ notice).
At the hearing, the landlord said she had already given 90 days’ notice of termination, and so did not need to give another notice. Further, she said the 28-day notice was from the new owner, not from her.
According to the transmission information, the email was sent by the landlord on 21 February 2024 at 9.55am and included a message from the new owner. It does not appear to be forwarding a separate email. I note the tenant said she left on about 19 February 2024, but in the application form she wrote 21 February 2024 as the date the tenancy ended. It may be that the tenant left almost immediately on receipt of the second notice.
The landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice that the premises were to be put on the market for sale by the owner within 90 days of the termination date (section 51 of the Act). The evidence does not show that the landlord had no genuine intention to market the property, and a sales agent was involved. The landlord’s email of 2 August 2023 gave the required notice and appears to comply with section 51(3) of the Act, apart from not having a signature.
The Act provides that, if the landlord permits the tenant to remain in the premises for more than 90 days after the tenancy has terminated, a new periodic tenancy is deemed to have been granted (section 60(2)). This means the landlord is then required to serve a further termination notice giving 63- or 90-days’ notice as appropriate.
The 90-day period following termination on 31 October 2023 would have expired on about 29 January 2024. The email from the landlord giving 28-days’ notice purports to be sent on 19 January 2024 but the transmission data states 21 February 2024 at 9.55am. I consider a new periodic tenancy is deemed to have been granted. It was not possible to evict the tenant on 28 days’ notice. The way the tenancy ended caused the tenant inconvenience and distress, although the precise circumstances are difficult to ascertain. I award $450.00 to the tenant for the physical and mental inconvenience of having to move into emergency accommodation at short notice.
The tenant said she was unable to take the chattels paid for by WINZ with her to emergency housing. She had use of a family member’s truck to move belongings. The tenant implied that she did not have use of the truck for very long.
It is unclear when the landlord disposed of her interest in the premises to the new owner, and whether the landlord or the owner tried to contact the tenant after she had left, so she could organise the collection of her goods. The landlord and the owner were not entitled to dispose of any of the tenant’s goods except as provided for by sections 62 to 62C of the Act. The tenant may wish to seek confirmation of the status of her belongings. If they can be recovered she may have suffered no loss and if not, the Tribunal can be requested to look at the matter again. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant has been partly successful. I exercise my discretion to award the filing fee.
The tenant requested suppression. The tenant has arguably been “wholly or substantially” successful, and I have a discretion to grant suppression (section 95A of the Act). I do not consider there to be any meaningful public interest in the tenant’s conduct and any such interest is outweighed by her privacy interest. I grant suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4819437 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4819437 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions