What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5191892 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5191892?

The Tenants’ Name And Identifying De…: $5,022.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191892?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191892?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12165525-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5191892 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5191892?

The Tenants’ Name And Identifying De…: $5,022.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191892?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191892?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12165525-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5191892 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5191892. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
the tenants’ name and identifying details. 2. Real Estate Shop as agent for Prem Lal, Prem Lal is to pay [The applicant/	$5,022.00		the tenants’ name and identifying details. 2. Real Estate Shop as agent for Prem Lal, Prem Lal is to pay [The applicant

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details.
Real Estate Shop as agent for Prem Lal, Prem Lal is to pay [The applicant/s] $5,022.00 (being $4,995.00 for compensation and $27.00 for filing fee reimbursement) immediately.
By way of declaration, the tenancy agreement between [The applicant/s] and Real Estate Shop as agent for Prem Lal in respect of the property at [Tenancy address suppressed] is cancelled.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord had legal representation.
The tenants have filed a claim for compensation for a failure to have vacant possession at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord made a cross application seeking to have the tenancy agreement rescinded. They also sought for the agency agreement with the property management company to be cancelled and disputed the tenants’ claim for compensation. Background
On 26 February 2025 the tenants signed a tenancy agreement in respect of the tenancy address. The landlord was listed as Real Estate Shop on behalf of Prem Lal.
The tenancy agreement stated that the tenancy would commence on 9 March 2025.
On 9 March 2025 the tenants went to the property with their belongings to move in and there were already other tenants living there. As a result, they were unable to access the property and the police were called to assist.
It transpired that the owners had signed a different tenancy agreement with other tenants, who were now occupying the property. Initial comments and jurisdiction
It was apparent that the relationship between the owner and the property manager had broken down.
As a result, many of the voluminous submissions and supporting evidence focused on the contractual relationship (and the background to that contractual relationship) between the property manager and owner – who are both named as landlords in this order.
At times, the property manager was giving evidence although based on the factual circumstances as they saw it, that could rightfully be construed as in support of the tenants’ claims. The landlord’s submissions were at times, wholly focused on the actions of the property manager.
This is the incorrect forum for that dispute to occur.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine in accordance with the RTA any dispute that exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant. 1
Accordingly, this order will only focus on the relevant submissions to the issues that the Tribunal can determine. I confirm that everything of relevance has been read and considered even if not directly referenced.
During the hearing, counsel for the owner disputed several procedural decisions I made, including being unable to cross examine the tenant(s). As advised to counsel during the hearing, the Tribunal operates a degree of informality compared to a court and strict rules of evidence do not always apply. 2 I do note however, for completeness, that the tenant(s) had not given “evidence in chief”, 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 77(1). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, ss 85, 97. or provided an affidavit and so even if the hearing had been in a jurisdiction where the strict rules of evidence did apply, there is generally no ability to cross examine a witness in such circumstances. 3 The law
Section 36 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes.
Section 37 of the RTA further states that a tenant shall have vacant possession of the premises on the date on which, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, the tenant is entitled to enter occupation of the premises.
It is clear from the evidence that the tenants were not able to have vacant possession of the property at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord advanced several reasons for this, however, most reasons related to whether there was a valid agency agreement between the owner and property manager or whether the property manager had properly acted with instructions.
The landlord submitted that the tenants should have contacted the owner directly to ensure that they agreed to them moving into the property and that there was no privity between the parties.
The tenants had signed an agreement that stated the landlord was the property manager on behalf of the owner. There was no reason for them to doubt or question any authority that the property manager had. It would be nonsensical to expect tenants to question, or cross check what was being said by a property manager, or to expect tenants to undertake a certificate of title search of the property, determine the owner, obtain contact details, and make direct contact with the owner to ensure accuracy of the tenancy agreement.
Accordingly, it is fair and reasonable for the tenant’s to be compensated for their reasonable losses caused by the lack of vacant possession.
The tenants have provided bank transfer statements showing several payments for emergency moving costs, temporary rent and storage costs totalling $4,995.00. Although I don’t have invoices for each item, I am satisfied that in the circumstances this represents a fair assessment of the losses, and these amounts are proved.
Time has now passed, and the tenants have made long-term alternative living arrangements. 3 See Evidence Act 2006, s84.
For the avoidance of doubt, the tenancy agreement is cancelled due to the breach of vacant possession by the landlord. Agency
The amount ordered is against both the property manager and the owner, collectively described in this order as the landlord.
Although I appreciate that the property manager was in a difficult situation with the owner, and that the tenants also did not want the claim to be against the property manager, who had endeavoured to assist them in a difficult situation, the Tribunal is unable to separate the property manager from owner with respect to the compensation award.
The RTA expressly stipulates that an agent, or property manager, is the “landlord” for all obligations which are owed under the RTA. A property manager (as agent) must therefore meet the obligations which are imposed by the RTA on a landlord, as if it was a landlord. Where liability is imposed on a property manager (as agent), the property manager may be entitled to seek compensation from the owner under general agency law or by way of contract, but that is an issue between the property manager and the owner and not something that can be resolved in the tenancy jurisdiction. 4
What this means is that it is no excuse for a property manager to blame the owner when obligations under the RTA have been breached.
The effect of this order is that both the property manager and owner as named landlords are liable for the amount specified, on a joint and several basis.
That means the tenants are entitled to seek the ordered amount against both named landlords. As between the parties themselves, any issues over who pays what will need to be resolved elsewhere. 5
The claim to cancel the agency agreement is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Other matters
It has been suggested that the tenants did not receive vacant possession for reasons of discrimination. Although, I did not have to consider this formally as there was no relevant application, the landlords should be aware that s12 of the RTA directs that it is an unlawful act for landlords to discriminate against any person in respect of the grant of a tenancy agreement in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993. The Human Rights Act 1994 includes prohibited 4 Abdulla Moussa Ragab Hamouda v Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited [2024] NZDC 16642. 5 Ibid, at [38]. grounds of discrimination as marital status, religious beliefs, race, family status and ethical beliefs (amongst others).
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must also reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 24 July 2025

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5191892. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
the tenants’ name and identifying details. 2. Real Estate Shop as agent for Prem Lal, Prem Lal is to pay [The applicant/	$5,022.00		the tenants’ name and identifying details. 2. Real Estate Shop as agent for Prem Lal, Prem Lal is to pay [The applicant

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ name and identifying details.
Real Estate Shop as agent for Prem Lal, Prem Lal is to pay [The applicant/s] $5,022.00 (being $4,995.00 for compensation and $27.00 for filing fee reimbursement) immediately.
By way of declaration, the tenancy agreement between [The applicant/s] and Real Estate Shop as agent for Prem Lal in respect of the property at [Tenancy address suppressed] is cancelled.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord had legal representation.
The tenants have filed a claim for compensation for a failure to have vacant possession at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord made a cross application seeking to have the tenancy agreement rescinded. They also sought for the agency agreement with the property management company to be cancelled and disputed the tenants’ claim for compensation. Background
On 26 February 2025 the tenants signed a tenancy agreement in respect of the tenancy address. The landlord was listed as Real Estate Shop on behalf of Prem Lal.
The tenancy agreement stated that the tenancy would commence on 9 March 2025.
On 9 March 2025 the tenants went to the property with their belongings to move in and there were already other tenants living there. As a result, they were unable to access the property and the police were called to assist.
It transpired that the owners had signed a different tenancy agreement with other tenants, who were now occupying the property. Initial comments and jurisdiction
It was apparent that the relationship between the owner and the property manager had broken down.
As a result, many of the voluminous submissions and supporting evidence focused on the contractual relationship (and the background to that contractual relationship) between the property manager and owner – who are both named as landlords in this order.
At times, the property manager was giving evidence although based on the factual circumstances as they saw it, that could rightfully be construed as in support of the tenants’ claims. The landlord’s submissions were at times, wholly focused on the actions of the property manager.
This is the incorrect forum for that dispute to occur.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine in accordance with the RTA any dispute that exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant. 1
Accordingly, this order will only focus on the relevant submissions to the issues that the Tribunal can determine. I confirm that everything of relevance has been read and considered even if not directly referenced.
During the hearing, counsel for the owner disputed several procedural decisions I made, including being unable to cross examine the tenant(s). As advised to counsel during the hearing, the Tribunal operates a degree of informality compared to a court and strict rules of evidence do not always apply. 2 I do note however, for completeness, that the tenant(s) had not given “evidence in chief”, 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 77(1). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, ss 85, 97. or provided an affidavit and so even if the hearing had been in a jurisdiction where the strict rules of evidence did apply, there is generally no ability to cross examine a witness in such circumstances. 3 The law
Section 36 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes.
Section 37 of the RTA further states that a tenant shall have vacant possession of the premises on the date on which, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, the tenant is entitled to enter occupation of the premises.
It is clear from the evidence that the tenants were not able to have vacant possession of the property at the commencement of the tenancy.
The landlord advanced several reasons for this, however, most reasons related to whether there was a valid agency agreement between the owner and property manager or whether the property manager had properly acted with instructions.
The landlord submitted that the tenants should have contacted the owner directly to ensure that they agreed to them moving into the property and that there was no privity between the parties.
The tenants had signed an agreement that stated the landlord was the property manager on behalf of the owner. There was no reason for them to doubt or question any authority that the property manager had. It would be nonsensical to expect tenants to question, or cross check what was being said by a property manager, or to expect tenants to undertake a certificate of title search of the property, determine the owner, obtain contact details, and make direct contact with the owner to ensure accuracy of the tenancy agreement.
Accordingly, it is fair and reasonable for the tenant’s to be compensated for their reasonable losses caused by the lack of vacant possession.
The tenants have provided bank transfer statements showing several payments for emergency moving costs, temporary rent and storage costs totalling $4,995.00. Although I don’t have invoices for each item, I am satisfied that in the circumstances this represents a fair assessment of the losses, and these amounts are proved.
Time has now passed, and the tenants have made long-term alternative living arrangements. 3 See Evidence Act 2006, s84.
For the avoidance of doubt, the tenancy agreement is cancelled due to the breach of vacant possession by the landlord. Agency
The amount ordered is against both the property manager and the owner, collectively described in this order as the landlord.
Although I appreciate that the property manager was in a difficult situation with the owner, and that the tenants also did not want the claim to be against the property manager, who had endeavoured to assist them in a difficult situation, the Tribunal is unable to separate the property manager from owner with respect to the compensation award.
The RTA expressly stipulates that an agent, or property manager, is the “landlord” for all obligations which are owed under the RTA. A property manager (as agent) must therefore meet the obligations which are imposed by the RTA on a landlord, as if it was a landlord. Where liability is imposed on a property manager (as agent), the property manager may be entitled to seek compensation from the owner under general agency law or by way of contract, but that is an issue between the property manager and the owner and not something that can be resolved in the tenancy jurisdiction. 4
What this means is that it is no excuse for a property manager to blame the owner when obligations under the RTA have been breached.
The effect of this order is that both the property manager and owner as named landlords are liable for the amount specified, on a joint and several basis.
That means the tenants are entitled to seek the ordered amount against both named landlords. As between the parties themselves, any issues over who pays what will need to be resolved elsewhere. 5
The claim to cancel the agency agreement is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Other matters
It has been suggested that the tenants did not receive vacant possession for reasons of discrimination. Although, I did not have to consider this formally as there was no relevant application, the landlords should be aware that s12 of the RTA directs that it is an unlawful act for landlords to discriminate against any person in respect of the grant of a tenancy agreement in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993. The Human Rights Act 1994 includes prohibited 4 Abdulla Moussa Ragab Hamouda v Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited [2024] NZDC 16642. 5 Ibid, at [38]. grounds of discrimination as marital status, religious beliefs, race, family status and ethical beliefs (amongst others).
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must also reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 24 July 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191892 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191892 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions