What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5348739 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,407.71 (BN-00009537) to

How much money was awarded in case 5348739?

Compensation: Storage Costs: $358.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,865.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5348739?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5348739?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14011550-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5348739 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,407.71 (BN-00009537) to

How much money was awarded in case 5348739?

Compensation: Storage Costs: $358.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,100.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $3,865.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5348739?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5348739?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14011550-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

100 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5348739 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5348739 — net $1,407.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 April 2025	$3,865.71		Rent arrears to 20 April 2025
Compensation: Storage costs		$358.00	Storage costs
Exemplary damages		$2,100.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$3,865.71	$2,458.00
Net award	$1,407.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,407.71

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,407.71 (BN-00009537) to Greenmount Property Management Limited as agent for Hua Hu immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,152.29 (BN-00009537) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately based on the calculations set out in the table below:

Reasons

This matter was heard on 24 February 2026 by Adjudicator Walker.
The Tribunal made orders as follows:
The rent owing by the tenant was not in dispute. The issue for determination was whether the landlord had breached their obligations under section 60AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing that they are not entitled to do so.
In this case the landlord gave notice under section 51(2)(a) of the RTA which provides as follows: “A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 42 days’ notice if: (a) 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 Tribunal found that there was no evidence that the owner or a family member lived at the premises within 90 days of 20 April 2025 and that the demolition of the property was proof that the premises was not required for at least 90 days after the termination date as provided in the RTA after considering the following evidence: a. The tenant’s evidence that she went back to the property four weeks after moving out and no one was living there; b. The tenant’s evidence that she went back to the property again eight weeks after moving out (on 28 June 2025) and by that date the property had been demolished (photos were produced to the Tribunal); c. A statement from the property manager that the owner had informed them that a family member wanted to move in (but not detail or evidence was provided to the Tribunal to support this); and d. A power bill dated 30 May 2025 submitted as evidence of someone living at the property after the tenancy terminated (but this was for a different address and not the tenancy address and the Tribunal noted that it was not proof that the owner or a member of the owner’s family lived there).
The Tribunal awarded exemplary damages ($2,100) and compensation for the tenant’s storage costs on the basis that she received less notice than she was entitled to ($358).
The Bond was released in accordance with the Tribunal order. Application for rehearing
On 26 February 2026 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the basis that the property had not in fact been demolished as early as claimed by the tenant but on 12 September 2026, and that additional evidence had become available as follows: a. A photo of the property date stamped 5 September 2025 (not demolished); b. Email correspondence with Genesis Energy dated 21 August 2025 regarding permanent disconnection; c. A signed statement from Besim Saldiray, the director of the construction company that demolished the property, dated 26 February 2026 confirming that the demolition works commenced in early September 2025; and d. A signed statement from Jason Li dated 26 February 2026 stating that he was responsible for arranging the demolition at the property and that the demolition works commenced on 12 September 2025.
On 11 May 2026 the Tribunal granted a rehearing on the following basis: Hearing today
The landlord attended the hearing represented by Sammy Yu. There was no appearance by the tenant.
As the rehearing was only granted on the tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages I have ordered rent arrears as determined in the previous order.
As the tenant did not appear I have had to decide whether to dismiss the tenant’s claim or whether I can consider the tenant’s claim based on the totality of evidence now available.
I consider that, as this matter has ready been heard and determined in the tenant’s favour, and it is the landlord that has sought a rehearing based on new evidence, it is in the interest of justice for me to proceed by reviewing all of the evidence and making a determination accordingly 1 .
It appears from the evidence that the property was demolished on 12 September 2025, exactly 90 days from the last day of the tenancy (19 April 2025 although the tenant in fact moved out on 20 April 2025 and rent arrears have been ordered up to that date).
I am satisfied that the property was not demolished until 12 June 2025 and so could potentially have been required for the owner’s family for a period of 90 days following the end of the tenant’s tenancy. 1 Noting that section 85 RTA provides that the Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes and is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights, legal forms, or technicalities
The owner provided virtually no evidence of this however. The only evidence produced at the hearing was an updated statement from Jason Li, dated 22 May 2026, which now includes the words “I was the owner’s relative is living there”.
Ms Yu advised that Mr Li personally know the owner and his family but this information was not included in the statement and he does not say who was living there.
Ms Yu also said that she went to the property to do a water meter reading after the tenant’s tenancy and someone appeared to be living there, but she could not confirm who.
There was no statement from the owner and no statement from any member of the owner’s family confirming that they were living at the property. During the hearing the Registrar made a telephone call to the owner so that they would have an opportunity to give evidence on this issue, but the call went unanswered.
Having considered all of the evidence I am not satisfied that the property was required for a period of 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.
I note in addition that the plans for demolition were well underway prior to 12 September 2025 (noting in particular the correspondence with Genesis Energy on 21 August 2025 regarding permanent disconnection and the fact that the demolition took place to make way for a large multi-storey development). I find it to be unlikely, on the balance of probabilities, that the property was able to be tenanted for the entire 90 days (regardless of who was living there).
I see no reason to depart from the award of compensation and exemplary damages made by the Tribunal on 24 February 2026, which I consider appropriate in all the circumstances, and have made orders in favour of the tenant accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5348739 — net $1,407.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 April 2025	$3,865.71		Rent arrears to 20 April 2025
Compensation: Storage costs		$358.00	Storage costs
Exemplary damages		$2,100.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$3,865.71	$2,458.00
Net award	$1,407.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,407.71

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,407.71 (BN-00009537) to Greenmount Property Management Limited as agent for Hua Hu immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,152.29 (BN-00009537) to [The tenant/s] tenant/s] immediately based on the calculations set out in the table below:

Reasons

This matter was heard on 24 February 2026 by Adjudicator Walker.
The Tribunal made orders as follows:
The rent owing by the tenant was not in dispute. The issue for determination was whether the landlord had breached their obligations under section 60AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing that they are not entitled to do so.
In this case the landlord gave notice under section 51(2)(a) of the RTA which provides as follows: “A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 42 days’ notice if: (a) 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 Tribunal found that there was no evidence that the owner or a family member lived at the premises within 90 days of 20 April 2025 and that the demolition of the property was proof that the premises was not required for at least 90 days after the termination date as provided in the RTA after considering the following evidence: a. The tenant’s evidence that she went back to the property four weeks after moving out and no one was living there; b. The tenant’s evidence that she went back to the property again eight weeks after moving out (on 28 June 2025) and by that date the property had been demolished (photos were produced to the Tribunal); c. A statement from the property manager that the owner had informed them that a family member wanted to move in (but not detail or evidence was provided to the Tribunal to support this); and d. A power bill dated 30 May 2025 submitted as evidence of someone living at the property after the tenancy terminated (but this was for a different address and not the tenancy address and the Tribunal noted that it was not proof that the owner or a member of the owner’s family lived there).
The Tribunal awarded exemplary damages ($2,100) and compensation for the tenant’s storage costs on the basis that she received less notice than she was entitled to ($358).
The Bond was released in accordance with the Tribunal order. Application for rehearing
On 26 February 2026 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the basis that the property had not in fact been demolished as early as claimed by the tenant but on 12 September 2026, and that additional evidence had become available as follows: a. A photo of the property date stamped 5 September 2025 (not demolished); b. Email correspondence with Genesis Energy dated 21 August 2025 regarding permanent disconnection; c. A signed statement from Besim Saldiray, the director of the construction company that demolished the property, dated 26 February 2026 confirming that the demolition works commenced in early September 2025; and d. A signed statement from Jason Li dated 26 February 2026 stating that he was responsible for arranging the demolition at the property and that the demolition works commenced on 12 September 2025.
On 11 May 2026 the Tribunal granted a rehearing on the following basis: Hearing today
The landlord attended the hearing represented by Sammy Yu. There was no appearance by the tenant.
As the rehearing was only granted on the tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages I have ordered rent arrears as determined in the previous order.
As the tenant did not appear I have had to decide whether to dismiss the tenant’s claim or whether I can consider the tenant’s claim based on the totality of evidence now available.
I consider that, as this matter has ready been heard and determined in the tenant’s favour, and it is the landlord that has sought a rehearing based on new evidence, it is in the interest of justice for me to proceed by reviewing all of the evidence and making a determination accordingly 1 .
It appears from the evidence that the property was demolished on 12 September 2025, exactly 90 days from the last day of the tenancy (19 April 2025 although the tenant in fact moved out on 20 April 2025 and rent arrears have been ordered up to that date).
I am satisfied that the property was not demolished until 12 June 2025 and so could potentially have been required for the owner’s family for a period of 90 days following the end of the tenant’s tenancy. 1 Noting that section 85 RTA provides that the Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes and is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights, legal forms, or technicalities
The owner provided virtually no evidence of this however. The only evidence produced at the hearing was an updated statement from Jason Li, dated 22 May 2026, which now includes the words “I was the owner’s relative is living there”.
Ms Yu advised that Mr Li personally know the owner and his family but this information was not included in the statement and he does not say who was living there.
Ms Yu also said that she went to the property to do a water meter reading after the tenant’s tenancy and someone appeared to be living there, but she could not confirm who.
There was no statement from the owner and no statement from any member of the owner’s family confirming that they were living at the property. During the hearing the Registrar made a telephone call to the owner so that they would have an opportunity to give evidence on this issue, but the call went unanswered.
Having considered all of the evidence I am not satisfied that the property was required for a period of 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.
I note in addition that the plans for demolition were well underway prior to 12 September 2025 (noting in particular the correspondence with Genesis Energy on 21 August 2025 regarding permanent disconnection and the fact that the demolition took place to make way for a large multi-storey development). I find it to be unlikely, on the balance of probabilities, that the property was able to be tenanted for the entire 90 days (regardless of who was living there).
I see no reason to depart from the award of compensation and exemplary damages made by the Tribunal on 24 February 2026, which I consider appropriate in all the circumstances, and have made orders in favour of the tenant accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5348739 — Rent arrears at 100 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5348739 — Rent arrears at 100 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.