What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4849723 about?

The tribunal order states: Angela Liu must pay [The tenant/s] $3,040.44 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4849723?

Property Damage: $3,020.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4849723?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4849723?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10972490-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4849723 about?

The tribunal order states: Angela Liu must pay [The tenant/s] $3,040.44 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4849723?

Property Damage: $3,020.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4849723?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4849723?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10972490-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

29 Swainston Road, Saint Johns, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4849723 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4849723 — net $3,040.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 60AA	$3,020.00	Section 60AA
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,040.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,040.44

Order

Angela Liu must pay [The tenant/s] $3,040.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by David Dai of Global Property Ltd.
The tenancy began on 1 June 2019.
On 21 September 2023 the landlord gave 63 days’ notice to end the tenancy pursuant to section 51(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which provides: “A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 63 days’ notice if 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.”
The Property Management company acting for the owner at the time that the notice was given was Best in the Bays Limited.
The last day of the tenancy was 23 November 2023 and that is the day that the tenants moved out. Best in the Bays Limited ceased to represent the owner at the end of the tenancy.
On 28 November 2023 the owner, Angela Liu, appointed Global Property Ltd as the new property management company for the premises. A Management Agreement signed by Angela Liu on 28 November 2023 was filed with the Tribunal.
On 7 December 2023, two weeks after the tenants moved out, Global Property Ltd on behalf of the owner, advertised the property for rent on TradeMe. The advertisement produced by the tenants seeks weekly rent of $780.00, confirms that the property was listed on 7 December 2023 and states that the tenancy was available for rent on Friday 15 December 2023.
Another advertisement was produced where the weekly rent was $790.00, and the available date was 17 January 2024.
A new tenancy commenced on 19 February 2024.
An email dated 6 May 2024 from David Dai of Global Property Ltd was produced. That email states that, •“the landlord initially intended to use the property for personal purposes after reclaiming it and residing there for a few weeks; •However due to family needs and personal reasons, Mrs Liu eventually changed her plans after the New Year holiday in January 2024; •Therefore, upon a friend’s recommendation, she contacted us, and the property was handed over to the leasing team at Global Property for releasing at the end of January. •The current lease we manage commenced on February 19 th ; •If necessary for the current dispute, as the managing agent for the landlord, we can assist in providing the contract copy and inform our tenants to testify in court if required; •Confirming that the new tenancy commenced 90 days after the expiration of the previous lease.”
It turns out that several statements in the email from Global Property Ltd were not true. Mrs Liu did not change her plans in January. The property was advertised to be tenanted on 7 December 2023. The property was not handed over to Global Property Ltd at the end of January. Mrs Liu signed a Management Agreement with Global Property Ltd on 28 November 2023.
It is true that the new tenancy commenced on 19 February 2024 but that was more likely because a new tenant could not be secured since the advertising began on 7 December 2023. There was no evidence produced that Mrs Liu came to New Zealand or resided at the property.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
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.
The landlord gave notice to end the tenancy with the reason given that the owner or a member of the owner’s family intended to reside at the premises within 90 days after the termination date. On the evidence the owner or a member of the owner’s family had no intention to reside in the premises. The notice was therefore given by the landlord knowing that they are 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.
The tenant had lived in the premises for almost four and a half years, and they liked living there. At the hearing the tenant said that notice of the tenancy ending was stressful and created a financial burden. It was not easy for them to find a rental. They had tried to purchase a home, but the sale fell through. The tenant spent time and money looking at many tenancies. They had to hire a moving truck to relocate, and friends and family took time off work to help them to move. In addition, they had to move the month before Christmas which was difficult.
At the hearing the owner’s representative said that the situation was the result of a misunderstanding. He said that the owner is a 70-year-old and doesn’t live in Auckland. He said that she intended to return to New Zealand at the end of 2023. He said that the premises were advertised in mid-December when the owner confirmed that she would not return to New Zealand.
The representative said that the 90-day requirement had been met. When asked he had no idea of when or if the owner came to New Zealand.
I consider that the evidence provided by the representative is not reliable. In relation to the owner being a 70-year-old I note that the Management Agreement between the owner and Global Property Ltd states that the owner is a doctor who works at Sydney Adventist Hospital. While she may be 70 years old, I don’t accept that she is not aware of the legislation and her responsibilities.
The new tenancy commenced 88 days after the tenancy terminated so the 90 days requirement was not met as claimed by the representative. Also, the 90- day period is the time within which the owner is to reside at the premises not that the premises can be relet after 90 days.
I am satisfied that the landlord gave notice for the tenancy to end when she was not entitled to. No evidence was produced that she had any intention to reside at the premises as her principal place of residence. The unlawful act had a significant impact on the tenant. The legislation provides that a reason must be provided to end a tenancy and those reasons need to be genuine and truthful.
In the circumstances I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $3,020.00 is reasonable. The award is equivalent to four weeks rent.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4849723 — net $3,040.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Section 60AA	$3,020.00	Section 60AA
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,040.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,040.44

Order

Angela Liu must pay [The tenant/s] $3,040.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by David Dai of Global Property Ltd.
The tenancy began on 1 June 2019.
On 21 September 2023 the landlord gave 63 days’ notice to end the tenancy pursuant to section 51(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which provides: “A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 63 days’ notice if 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.”
The Property Management company acting for the owner at the time that the notice was given was Best in the Bays Limited.
The last day of the tenancy was 23 November 2023 and that is the day that the tenants moved out. Best in the Bays Limited ceased to represent the owner at the end of the tenancy.
On 28 November 2023 the owner, Angela Liu, appointed Global Property Ltd as the new property management company for the premises. A Management Agreement signed by Angela Liu on 28 November 2023 was filed with the Tribunal.
On 7 December 2023, two weeks after the tenants moved out, Global Property Ltd on behalf of the owner, advertised the property for rent on TradeMe. The advertisement produced by the tenants seeks weekly rent of $780.00, confirms that the property was listed on 7 December 2023 and states that the tenancy was available for rent on Friday 15 December 2023.
Another advertisement was produced where the weekly rent was $790.00, and the available date was 17 January 2024.
A new tenancy commenced on 19 February 2024.
An email dated 6 May 2024 from David Dai of Global Property Ltd was produced. That email states that, •“the landlord initially intended to use the property for personal purposes after reclaiming it and residing there for a few weeks; •However due to family needs and personal reasons, Mrs Liu eventually changed her plans after the New Year holiday in January 2024; •Therefore, upon a friend’s recommendation, she contacted us, and the property was handed over to the leasing team at Global Property for releasing at the end of January. •The current lease we manage commenced on February 19 th ; •If necessary for the current dispute, as the managing agent for the landlord, we can assist in providing the contract copy and inform our tenants to testify in court if required; •Confirming that the new tenancy commenced 90 days after the expiration of the previous lease.”
It turns out that several statements in the email from Global Property Ltd were not true. Mrs Liu did not change her plans in January. The property was advertised to be tenanted on 7 December 2023. The property was not handed over to Global Property Ltd at the end of January. Mrs Liu signed a Management Agreement with Global Property Ltd on 28 November 2023.
It is true that the new tenancy commenced on 19 February 2024 but that was more likely because a new tenant could not be secured since the advertising began on 7 December 2023. There was no evidence produced that Mrs Liu came to New Zealand or resided at the property.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
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.
The landlord gave notice to end the tenancy with the reason given that the owner or a member of the owner’s family intended to reside at the premises within 90 days after the termination date. On the evidence the owner or a member of the owner’s family had no intention to reside in the premises. The notice was therefore given by the landlord knowing that they are 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.
The tenant had lived in the premises for almost four and a half years, and they liked living there. At the hearing the tenant said that notice of the tenancy ending was stressful and created a financial burden. It was not easy for them to find a rental. They had tried to purchase a home, but the sale fell through. The tenant spent time and money looking at many tenancies. They had to hire a moving truck to relocate, and friends and family took time off work to help them to move. In addition, they had to move the month before Christmas which was difficult.
At the hearing the owner’s representative said that the situation was the result of a misunderstanding. He said that the owner is a 70-year-old and doesn’t live in Auckland. He said that she intended to return to New Zealand at the end of 2023. He said that the premises were advertised in mid-December when the owner confirmed that she would not return to New Zealand.
The representative said that the 90-day requirement had been met. When asked he had no idea of when or if the owner came to New Zealand.
I consider that the evidence provided by the representative is not reliable. In relation to the owner being a 70-year-old I note that the Management Agreement between the owner and Global Property Ltd states that the owner is a doctor who works at Sydney Adventist Hospital. While she may be 70 years old, I don’t accept that she is not aware of the legislation and her responsibilities.
The new tenancy commenced 88 days after the tenancy terminated so the 90 days requirement was not met as claimed by the representative. Also, the 90- day period is the time within which the owner is to reside at the premises not that the premises can be relet after 90 days.
I am satisfied that the landlord gave notice for the tenancy to end when she was not entitled to. No evidence was produced that she had any intention to reside at the premises as her principal place of residence. The unlawful act had a significant impact on the tenant. The legislation provides that a reason must be provided to end a tenancy and those reasons need to be genuine and truthful.
In the circumstances I consider that an award of exemplary damages of $3,020.00 is reasonable. The award is equivalent to four weeks rent.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4849723 — Exemplary damages at 29 Swainston Road, Saint Johns, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4849723 — Exemplary damages at 29 Swainston Road, Saint Johns, Auckland 1072

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