What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5233216 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 5233216?

Compensation: $8,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5233216?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5233216?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12413170-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5233216 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 5233216?

Compensation: $8,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5233216?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5233216?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12413170-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5233216 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5233216 — net $8,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for loss of car	$8,000.00	Compensation for loss of car
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$8,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Tina Lyden must pay [the tenant/s] $8,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The tenant is to uplift the remainder of his belongings from the landlord by no later than 5pm on the 20 September 2025. If the tenant has not uplifted his personal belongings from the landlord by that time the landlord may dispose of those goods as it sees fit.

Reasons

This hearing was held in two parts, after the first hearing on 23 June 2025 I completed an adjournment order, which should be read in conjunction with this order. The second hearing was held today [the tenant] attended supported by his daughter [the tenant/s support person], Mr and Mrs Lyden attended for the landlord.
This case is about whether the landlord is liable to the tenant for compensation after the landlord had the tenant’s car towed from the premises.
[The tenant/s] boarding house tenancy began in January 2020. His tenancy ended in February 2025.
[The tenant/s] owns a [vehicle]. It is a prized possession. He brought the car off his nephew in or around 2017 for $5,000.00. He says that since purchasing the vehicle he has spent a lot of time and money on the vehicle.
[The tenant/s] always parked his vehicle on the premises in a parking bay.
At some stage during the tenancy, the water pump in the car broke, and this meant that [the tenant/s] could not drive the car until it was repaired.
[The tenant/s] says that although the car was not currently warranted, he had obtained an exemption from NZTA in respect of the registration of the car, and he was being given time to complete the repairs he needed to get a warrant of fitness before he was required to register the car.
In 2023 – 2024 [the tenant/s] suffered a family bereavement. As a result of the loss of his family member he often spent time away from his tenancy, in another town, with his whanau.
During this time, he continued to pay his rent, and tells me he would come and go from the boarding house.
On or about the 18 November 2024, after [the tenant/s] returned from visiting whanau, he discovered that his car had been towed.
It is not disputed that the landlord organised and authorised the vehicle to be towed from the property. The landlord says it did this after the local Council had visited and told the landlord that they needed to remove the car to get a current certificate of compliance for the premises.
The landlord says that they had previously and repeatedly asked [the tenant/s] to move his vehicle and as they did not know where [the tenant/s] was, and they needed to ensure compliance with Council before they went on a planned overseas trip, they organised through a staff member to have the car towed.
At today’s hearing the landlord confirmed that they have now tracked down who towed the car, it was a business called [towing company], and that the car was sold on or about the 18 November 2024; the proceeds of $400 have been paid to the landlords. Was the landlord allowed to tow and dispose of [the tenant/s]’ car?
The short answer to this is no.
Under s33 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 1 a landlord must not seize or dispose of the tenant’s goods.
The towing of the car and disposal by the tow company is a seizure and disposal of the tenant’s goods, because by towing the car the landlord took possession or ‘seized’ the car, and they allowed the tow company to dispose of the car. The landlord also accepted that they had received the proceeds of sale.
The landlord was not allowed to tow the tenant’s car without his consent. I also note that the landlord did not produce any documents to show that they had asked the tenant to remove his car before this date, nor any documents from Council that supported their position that they needed to move the car in order to comply with Council requirements. Even if that was the case, [the tenant/s] should have been given an opportunity to move his car, or if seizure was urgent and necessary (and there is no evidence to suggest that it was) then the car could have been towed but not disposed of.
I am satisfied that the landlord seized of and disposed of the tenant’s car on or about the 18 November 2024 and breached s 33 RTA.

What is the remedy?

The tenant seeks the cost of the car as compensation which he claims is $10,000.00
Compensation restores a party to the position that they were in before a breach occurred.
[The tenant/s] had an unwarranted [vehicle] before the breach, now he does not have that car.
[The tenant/s] says that he has spent over $6000 on his car and gave me an invoice from [tyre shop] and [mechanics] that sets out some of the repairs that [the tenant/s] had done on the car from when he first owned it in 2017 to 2024. [The tenant/s] says he also had work done at another workshop that has since closed. [The tenant/s] says that his car was 75% repaired and only needed a few items repaired before it was road worthy again.
[The tenant/s] gave evidence that these cars hold their value. His daughter tells me that she put his registration details into the numerous websites which value cars and the results came back as indicating a value of between $6960 to $28,445.00, she produced these results in evidence.
The landlords say that this car would not have been worth this much and that it was sold for $400 and that is the indication of its value.
Having considered all of the evidence I think it is likely that the value of [the tenant/s] car was somewhere between $7-10,000.00. I say this because: 1 Section 33 applies to Boarding House Tenancies. See s66A RTA. a. The lowest amount in the estimates given was $7.000. b. [The tenant/s] car did not have a current warrant of fitness, so I consider that it was likely that it was nearer to the lower end of the estimates. c. The landlord was not able to provide any written documents or witness testimony about how the car was sold, to whom and why the price achieved was only for that amount. I therefore prefer the tenant’s valuation evidence.
I award [the tenant/s] the sum of $8000 as compensation for the loss of his car. Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenant’s boarding house tenancy?
The landlord terminated the tenancy in February 2025. At that time [the tenant/s] was in rent arears.
Section 66U RTA sets out how landlords may terminate boarding house tenancies. If a tenant is in rent arrears, then the landlord can give the tenant notice to terminate, if the tenant does not pay the rent arrears within a certain time then the tenancy will terminate. If a tenant abandons the tenancy, then the landlord may give the tenant 24 hours’ notice that they intend to enter his room to check to see if the tenant has abandoned the tenancy and must make reasonable efforts to contact any contact person in the tenancy agreement.
It is not disputed that the tenant was in rent arrears at the time that the landlord took back possession of the room in February 2025. However, the landlord accepted at the hearing that they had not given any written notice and had not been able to reach [the tenant/s] as he had not provided them with any contact details.
There are no cell phone numbers in [the tenant/s]’ tenancy agreement but there is an email address. The landlord could have tried to contact him by email.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not correctly terminate [the tenant/s] tenancy, because it did not follow the correct procedural requirements set out in the RTA by giving him notice or trying to contact him by email. I am therefore satisfied that when they took possession of the property in February that they terminated when they were not entitled to. However, to be a breach of s60AA RTA I would need to find that when the landlord terminated, they did so knowing that they were not entitled.
I find that at the time that the landlord terminated the tenancy that they believed that as the tenant was in rent arrears for 3 weeks and as they had not seen the tenant at the property, that they were able to terminate the tenancy. I am not satisfied that they knew that they were not able to terminate and therefore there is no breach of s60AA. The tenant’s other goods.
The tenant has not been to uplift his couch and other belongings despite me making orders for him to do at the end of the last hearing. He says this is because he has no car and no way to get his goods.
The tenant will have another 5 days to pick up his goods, if he does not pick them up by the end of that time, then the landlord can dispose of them. Filing fee and name suppression.
As the tenant has been partly successful in his claim, I award him the filing fee, and grant him name suppression as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5233216 — net $8,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for loss of car	$8,000.00	Compensation for loss of car
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,027.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$8,027.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Tina Lyden must pay [the tenant/s] $8,027.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The tenant is to uplift the remainder of his belongings from the landlord by no later than 5pm on the 20 September 2025. If the tenant has not uplifted his personal belongings from the landlord by that time the landlord may dispose of those goods as it sees fit.

Reasons

This hearing was held in two parts, after the first hearing on 23 June 2025 I completed an adjournment order, which should be read in conjunction with this order. The second hearing was held today [the tenant] attended supported by his daughter [the tenant/s support person], Mr and Mrs Lyden attended for the landlord.
This case is about whether the landlord is liable to the tenant for compensation after the landlord had the tenant’s car towed from the premises.
[The tenant/s] boarding house tenancy began in January 2020. His tenancy ended in February 2025.
[The tenant/s] owns a [vehicle]. It is a prized possession. He brought the car off his nephew in or around 2017 for $5,000.00. He says that since purchasing the vehicle he has spent a lot of time and money on the vehicle.
[The tenant/s] always parked his vehicle on the premises in a parking bay.
At some stage during the tenancy, the water pump in the car broke, and this meant that [the tenant/s] could not drive the car until it was repaired.
[The tenant/s] says that although the car was not currently warranted, he had obtained an exemption from NZTA in respect of the registration of the car, and he was being given time to complete the repairs he needed to get a warrant of fitness before he was required to register the car.
In 2023 – 2024 [the tenant/s] suffered a family bereavement. As a result of the loss of his family member he often spent time away from his tenancy, in another town, with his whanau.
During this time, he continued to pay his rent, and tells me he would come and go from the boarding house.
On or about the 18 November 2024, after [the tenant/s] returned from visiting whanau, he discovered that his car had been towed.
It is not disputed that the landlord organised and authorised the vehicle to be towed from the property. The landlord says it did this after the local Council had visited and told the landlord that they needed to remove the car to get a current certificate of compliance for the premises.
The landlord says that they had previously and repeatedly asked [the tenant/s] to move his vehicle and as they did not know where [the tenant/s] was, and they needed to ensure compliance with Council before they went on a planned overseas trip, they organised through a staff member to have the car towed.
At today’s hearing the landlord confirmed that they have now tracked down who towed the car, it was a business called [towing company], and that the car was sold on or about the 18 November 2024; the proceeds of $400 have been paid to the landlords. Was the landlord allowed to tow and dispose of [the tenant/s]’ car?
The short answer to this is no.
Under s33 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 1 a landlord must not seize or dispose of the tenant’s goods.
The towing of the car and disposal by the tow company is a seizure and disposal of the tenant’s goods, because by towing the car the landlord took possession or ‘seized’ the car, and they allowed the tow company to dispose of the car. The landlord also accepted that they had received the proceeds of sale.
The landlord was not allowed to tow the tenant’s car without his consent. I also note that the landlord did not produce any documents to show that they had asked the tenant to remove his car before this date, nor any documents from Council that supported their position that they needed to move the car in order to comply with Council requirements. Even if that was the case, [the tenant/s] should have been given an opportunity to move his car, or if seizure was urgent and necessary (and there is no evidence to suggest that it was) then the car could have been towed but not disposed of.
I am satisfied that the landlord seized of and disposed of the tenant’s car on or about the 18 November 2024 and breached s 33 RTA.

What is the remedy?

The tenant seeks the cost of the car as compensation which he claims is $10,000.00
Compensation restores a party to the position that they were in before a breach occurred.
[The tenant/s] had an unwarranted [vehicle] before the breach, now he does not have that car.
[The tenant/s] says that he has spent over $6000 on his car and gave me an invoice from [tyre shop] and [mechanics] that sets out some of the repairs that [the tenant/s] had done on the car from when he first owned it in 2017 to 2024. [The tenant/s] says he also had work done at another workshop that has since closed. [The tenant/s] says that his car was 75% repaired and only needed a few items repaired before it was road worthy again.
[The tenant/s] gave evidence that these cars hold their value. His daughter tells me that she put his registration details into the numerous websites which value cars and the results came back as indicating a value of between $6960 to $28,445.00, she produced these results in evidence.
The landlords say that this car would not have been worth this much and that it was sold for $400 and that is the indication of its value.
Having considered all of the evidence I think it is likely that the value of [the tenant/s] car was somewhere between $7-10,000.00. I say this because: 1 Section 33 applies to Boarding House Tenancies. See s66A RTA. a. The lowest amount in the estimates given was $7.000. b. [The tenant/s] car did not have a current warrant of fitness, so I consider that it was likely that it was nearer to the lower end of the estimates. c. The landlord was not able to provide any written documents or witness testimony about how the car was sold, to whom and why the price achieved was only for that amount. I therefore prefer the tenant’s valuation evidence.
I award [the tenant/s] the sum of $8000 as compensation for the loss of his car. Did the landlord unlawfully terminate the tenant’s boarding house tenancy?
The landlord terminated the tenancy in February 2025. At that time [the tenant/s] was in rent arears.
Section 66U RTA sets out how landlords may terminate boarding house tenancies. If a tenant is in rent arrears, then the landlord can give the tenant notice to terminate, if the tenant does not pay the rent arrears within a certain time then the tenancy will terminate. If a tenant abandons the tenancy, then the landlord may give the tenant 24 hours’ notice that they intend to enter his room to check to see if the tenant has abandoned the tenancy and must make reasonable efforts to contact any contact person in the tenancy agreement.
It is not disputed that the tenant was in rent arrears at the time that the landlord took back possession of the room in February 2025. However, the landlord accepted at the hearing that they had not given any written notice and had not been able to reach [the tenant/s] as he had not provided them with any contact details.
There are no cell phone numbers in [the tenant/s]’ tenancy agreement but there is an email address. The landlord could have tried to contact him by email.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not correctly terminate [the tenant/s] tenancy, because it did not follow the correct procedural requirements set out in the RTA by giving him notice or trying to contact him by email. I am therefore satisfied that when they took possession of the property in February that they terminated when they were not entitled to. However, to be a breach of s60AA RTA I would need to find that when the landlord terminated, they did so knowing that they were not entitled.
I find that at the time that the landlord terminated the tenancy that they believed that as the tenant was in rent arrears for 3 weeks and as they had not seen the tenant at the property, that they were able to terminate the tenancy. I am not satisfied that they knew that they were not able to terminate and therefore there is no breach of s60AA. The tenant’s other goods.
The tenant has not been to uplift his couch and other belongings despite me making orders for him to do at the end of the last hearing. He says this is because he has no car and no way to get his goods.
The tenant will have another 5 days to pick up his goods, if he does not pick them up by the end of that time, then the landlord can dispose of them. Filing fee and name suppression.
As the tenant has been partly successful in his claim, I award him the filing fee, and grant him name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5233216 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5233216 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the remedy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the remedy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions