What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340823 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5340823?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340823?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340823?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12697582-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5340823 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5340823?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340823?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340823?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12697582-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 11, 23 Tudor Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5340823 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams on video.

The tenant attended the hearing in person.

Ampie Vos attended for the landlord.

The tenant seeks an order for exemplary damages, claiming that the landlord has breached their obligations under s 47 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

If the landlord puts the premises on the market for sale, s 47 requires the landlord to as soon as practicable give tenants written notice of that fact to the tenants.

Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1800.00 pursuant to s 47(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.

The tenancy began on 22 January 2024 and was for fixed term ending on 20 October 2024. The tenant was unhappy at the premises and sought to be released from the fixed term tenancy on about 16 May 2024. On 24 May 2024, the landlord responded that it would not release the tenant from the fixed term tenancy but that it would attempt to sell the premises in which case the tenancy could end earlier.

On about 13 June 2024, the tenant found an advertisement online indicating that the landlord had advertised the premises for sale from 6 March 2024.

The tenant left the premises in mid-June and applied to the Tribunal for a reduction in the term of the fixed term. On 1 August 2024, the Tribunal (among other things) dismissed the tenant’s claim for a reduction and stated in respect to s 47: 1 If the tenant wants to pursue a breach of section 47 she would need to file an application on that, but it is not a matter before me...

The tenant appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the District Court, which dismissed her appeal on 14 August 2025. 2 On 4 September 2025, after she had received the District Court’s decision, the tenant filed this application.

The landlord accepts the premises was mentioned in an advertisement as being for sale from March 2024, but says the unit was included by accident with three other units that it was selling. In any event, the alleged unlawful act complained of ceased on 24 May 2024 when the landlord advised it would attempt to sell the premises in response to the tenant’s request to be released from the fixed term early.

The Tribunal cannot consider an application for exemplary damages unless it is filed within 12 months of the commission of the unlawful act (unless the unlawful act relates to bonds). Section 109 of the RTA provides: 109 Unlawful acts (1) Any of the following persons (A) may apply to the Tribunal for an order requiring any other person (B) to pay to A an amount in the nature of exemplary damages on the ground that B has committed an unlawful act: (a) a landlord: (b) a tenant: (c) the chief executive acting as the person responsible for the general administration of this Act or in the place of a landlord or a tenant under section 124A. (2) A landlord or a tenant may not apply under subsection (1) later than— (a) 12 months after the termination of the tenancy in the case of— (i) an unlawful act to which section 19(2) refers; or (ii) a failure to keep records in respect of bonds that is an unlawful act to which section 30(2) refers; or (b) 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act in the case of any other unlawful act.

The tenants application to the Tribunal was not filed until more than 12 months after the alleged unlawful act was committed. 1 Serebryannikova v La Casa Property Management Limited [2024] NZTT 4908453, 4944693 at para 45. 2 Serebryannikova v La Casa Property Management [2025] NZDC 17814.

It follows, the application was not made within the required timeframe and the application is invalid.

Therefore, I cannot hear the matter and the application is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams on video.
The tenant attended the hearing in person.
Ampie Vos attended for the landlord.
The tenant seeks an order for exemplary damages, claiming that the landlord has breached their obligations under s 47 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
If the landlord puts the premises on the market for sale, s 47 requires the landlord to as soon as practicable give tenants written notice of that fact to the tenants.
Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1800.00 pursuant to s 47(3) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
The tenancy began on 22 January 2024 and was for fixed term ending on 20 October 2024. The tenant was unhappy at the premises and sought to be released from the fixed term tenancy on about 16 May 2024. On 24 May 2024, the landlord responded that it would not release the tenant from the fixed term tenancy but that it would attempt to sell the premises in which case the tenancy could end earlier.
On about 13 June 2024, the tenant found an advertisement online indicating that the landlord had advertised the premises for sale from 6 March 2024.
The tenant left the premises in mid-June and applied to the Tribunal for a reduction in the term of the fixed term. On 1 August 2024, the Tribunal (among other things) dismissed the tenant’s claim for a reduction and stated in respect to s 47: 1 If the tenant wants to pursue a breach of section 47 she would need to file an application on that, but it is not a matter before me...
The tenant appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the District Court, which dismissed her appeal on 14 August 2025. 2 On 4 September 2025, after she had received the District Court’s decision, the tenant filed this application.
The landlord accepts the premises was mentioned in an advertisement as being for sale from March 2024, but says the unit was included by accident with three other units that it was selling. In any event, the alleged unlawful act complained of ceased on 24 May 2024 when the landlord advised it would attempt to sell the premises in response to the tenant’s request to be released from the fixed term early.
The Tribunal cannot consider an application for exemplary damages unless it is filed within 12 months of the commission of the unlawful act (unless the unlawful act relates to bonds). Section 109 of the RTA provides: 109 Unlawful acts (1) Any of the following persons (A) may apply to the Tribunal for an order requiring any other person (B) to pay to A an amount in the nature of exemplary damages on the ground that B has committed an unlawful act: (a) a landlord: (b) a tenant: (c) the chief executive acting as the person responsible for the general administration of this Act or in the place of a landlord or a tenant under section 124A. (2) A landlord or a tenant may not apply under subsection (1) later than— (a) 12 months after the termination of the tenancy in the case of— (i) an unlawful act to which section 19(2) refers; or (ii) a failure to keep records in respect of bonds that is an unlawful act to which section 30(2) refers; or (b) 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act in the case of any other unlawful act.
The tenants application to the Tribunal was not filed until more than 12 months after the alleged unlawful act was committed. 1 Serebryannikova v La Casa Property Management Limited [2024] NZTT 4908453, 4944693 at para 45. 2 Serebryannikova v La Casa Property Management [2025] NZDC 17814.
It follows, the application was not made within the required timeframe and the application is invalid.
Therefore, I cannot hear the matter and the application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340823 — Exemplary damages at Unit 11, 23 Tudor Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340823 — Exemplary damages at Unit 11, 23 Tudor Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions