What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4900612 about?

The tribunal order states: Lee Zhen must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4900612?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4900612?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4900612?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10909110-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4900612 about?

The tribunal order states: Lee Zhen must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4900612?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4900612?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4900612?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10909110-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13 St Samantha Lane, Queenstown, Queenstown 9300 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4900612 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4900612 — net $2,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$2,000.00	lent one third of the maximum to be appropriate. The landlord is ordered to pay $2,000.00 to the tenants.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,020.44

The tenants attended the hearing on 3 October 2024.

This matter had previously been called before the Tribunal. The hearing was adjourned on that occasion to allow the Notice of Hearing to be served on the landlord.

The landlord has been served at his email address. The landlord did not attend the hearing.

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under s. 60AA of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

Under S. 60AA RTA, 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 RTA.

The property manager for the landlord served a notice to terminate the tenancy on the tenants. The notice was dated 7 September 2023 and gave the tenants 90 days’ notice to terminate as the landlord wished to sell the premises.

Section 51(2)(a) RTA allows a landlord to serve notice terminating a tenancy where they wish to put the premises on the market for sale. The landlord must give 90 days’ notice. The landlord must put the premises on the market within 90 days of the termination date.

The tenant evidence was that they did leave the premises as required by the notice. Subsequent investigations by the tenants have disclosed; • The premises are on an Airbnb site for rent. • When the tenants visited the premises in December 2023, the cleaner said that the premises were being let on Airbnb. • The tenants were friends with a neighbour who lived next to the premises. The neighbour told them that they had only seen short term visitors since the tenants left the premises. No permanent residents have moved in. • The tenants have been unable to uncover any real estate agency with the premises for sale, including the business operated by the previous property manager. • No “for sale” sign has been placed on the property. • The premises have not been placed on the market within 90 days of the termination date.

I am persuaded on the undisputed evidence of the tenants that the landlord has not placed the premises on the market for sale within 90 days of the termination date and has accordingly 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) RTA.

I have no evidence of the landlord’s intention. However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the evidence is clear. The landlord was required to place the premises on the market and has not done so. That can only be an intentional act.

The tenants have been seriously inconvenienced by the need to move out and find alternative accommodation in a very difficult property market. I consider that to be an aggravating feature. Having considered the facts set out above, I consider an award to the tenants of an amount approximately equivalent one third of the maximum to be appropriate. The landlord is ordered to pay $2,000.00 to the tenants.

As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.

The tenants have applied for name suppression. The tenants have been wholly successful, and suppression of the tenants’ names is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4900612 — net $2,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages	$2,000.00	lent one third of the maximum to be appropriate. The landlord is ordered to pay $2,000.00 to the tenants.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,020.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,020.44

Order

Lee Zhen must pay [The tenant/s] $2,020.44 immediately.

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing on 3 October 2024.
This matter had previously been called before the Tribunal. The hearing was adjourned on that occasion to allow the Notice of Hearing to be served on the landlord.
The landlord has been served at his email address. The landlord did not attend the hearing.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under s. 60AA of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Under S. 60AA RTA, 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 RTA.
The property manager for the landlord served a notice to terminate the tenancy on the tenants. The notice was dated 7 September 2023 and gave the tenants 90 days’ notice to terminate as the landlord wished to sell the premises.
Section 51(2)(a) RTA allows a landlord to serve notice terminating a tenancy where they wish to put the premises on the market for sale. The landlord must give 90 days’ notice. The landlord must put the premises on the market within 90 days of the termination date.
The tenant evidence was that they did leave the premises as required by the notice. Subsequent investigations by the tenants have disclosed; • The premises are on an Airbnb site for rent. • When the tenants visited the premises in December 2023, the cleaner said that the premises were being let on Airbnb. • The tenants were friends with a neighbour who lived next to the premises. The neighbour told them that they had only seen short term visitors since the tenants left the premises. No permanent residents have moved in. • The tenants have been unable to uncover any real estate agency with the premises for sale, including the business operated by the previous property manager. • No “for sale” sign has been placed on the property. • The premises have not been placed on the market within 90 days of the termination date.
I am persuaded on the undisputed evidence of the tenants that the landlord has not placed the premises on the market for sale within 90 days of the termination date and has accordingly 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) RTA.
I have no evidence of the landlord’s intention. However, the Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the evidence is clear. The landlord was required to place the premises on the market and has not done so. That can only be an intentional act.
The tenants have been seriously inconvenienced by the need to move out and find alternative accommodation in a very difficult property market. I consider that to be an aggravating feature. Having considered the facts set out above, I consider an award to the tenants of an amount approximately equivalent one third of the maximum to be appropriate. The landlord is ordered to pay $2,000.00 to the tenants.
As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants have applied for name suppression. The tenants have been wholly successful, and suppression of the tenants’ names is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4900612 — Exemplary damages at 13 St Samantha Lane, Queenstown, Queenstown 9300

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4900612 — Exemplary damages at 13 St Samantha Lane, Queenstown, Queenstown 9300

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