What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5361403 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 5361403?

Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361403?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361403?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13494234-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5361403 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 5361403?

Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361403?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361403?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13494234-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15 Montclair Rise, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5361403 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361403 — net $1,828.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Notice to vacate	$1,800.00	Notice to vacate
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,828.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,828.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name and identifying details.
Golden Spring Group Limited As Agent For Jianfeng Li must pay [The tenant/s] $1,828.00 immediately.

The claims in respect of the spa pool pump and heater are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was assisted by the court appointed Mandarin interpreter. The owner was represented by a property manager.
The tenancy started on 4 April 2024 and ended on 17 September 2025. The tenant resided at the address with his partner and his two sons.
The tenant has applied for compensation in respect of a spa pool pump and heater which he says was removed without his consent. The tenant also claims that the notice to terminate was false and misleading.
There has been communication between the parties by email. Both have provided documentary evidence and submissions.
I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Legal considerations
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Missing spa pool pump and heater
The tenant claims that he handed the keys back on 17 September 2025. He advised the landlord he would collect his spa pool on 19 September 2025.
The tenant says that when he turned up on 19 September to collect the spa pool the pump and heater had been removed from the spa pool.
The tenant said that he sent a text message to the landlord who said she would discuss with the owner. The landlord says she discussed with the owner who stated that no one had collected the spa pool on 19 September and therefore she thought that no one was coming to collect it.
The property manager asked the owner whether the demolition contractors would have taken the spa pool equipment.
The spa pool was approximately 6 years old. The tenant purchased the spa pool for on or about 2021/2022 for $5500.00.
During the hearing the tenant provided quotes in respect of the pump and heater replacement. Analysis
The tenant’s claim for compensation is declined. While it is acknowledged that the spa pool pump and heater were removed at the end of the tenancy, compensation under the Residential Tenancies Act requires proof of actual loss suffered by the tenant as a result of the alleged breach.
The tenant has not provided any evidence demonstrating that he incurred a quantifiable loss, such as proof of payment, repair costs actually incurred, or any diminution in value.
The provisions of quotations alone, which merely indicate the potential cost of replacement, does not establish that a loss was sustained.
In the absence of evidence of actual loss there is no proper basis upon which an award of compensation can be made.
Accordingly, the claims in respect of the spa pool pump and heater are dismissed. Notice to terminate
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the landlord’s notice to vacate dated 25 August 2025 was false and misleading.
The notice served by the landlord relied on the statutory provision allowing the landlord to provide only 42 days on the basis that the owner or a member of the owner’s family required the premises as their place of residence.
The tenant claims that contractors had erected a fence around the property when he attended on 19 September to collect his spa pool. He further states that the process of demolishing the premises had started. The tenant provided photographic evidence during the hearing of the demolition.
The tenant states that the landlord wanted to move back in but says the house was demolished instead. The landlord responded by stating that the owner originally intended on moving back in but then decided not to due to the condition of the property.
The notice to vacate clearly states that the owner requires the premises “within 90 days as the principle place of residence for the owner or a member of the owners family”.
The notice to vacate was emailed to the tenant on 25 August 2025. The property manager was unaware of the demolition until she was advised by the tenant.
Under section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord can only give a 42-day notice to terminate a tenancy if the owner or a member of the owner’s family intends to move into the premises as their principal place of residence. If the real reason for the notice is to demolish the premises, the correct grounds would require a 90-day notice (not 42 days).
Serving a 42-day notice on false or misleading grounds is considered an unlawful act under section 60AA of the RTA, which prohibits landlords from terminating a tenancy without proper grounds or by misleading the tenant about the true reason for termination.
If the landlord misleads the tenant by claiming the owner will move in, but instead demolishes the premises, this is a breach of the Act. Even if the landlord’s circumstances change, these should be communicated to the tenant well in advance.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The landlord would have known well in advance of the demolition plans which, in turn should have been communicated to the tenant. The notice to vacate should have been amended to reflect this. The fact that the premises were demolished immediately after termination suggests that reasons provided in the notice to vacate changed very early on or did not exist at all. The reasons for termination should be transparent allowing a tenant security of tenure.
Accordingly, I find the tenant’s claim established and award exemplary damages. I award an amount of $1,800.00 which is close to one third of the maximum penalty for this breach.
Because [The applicant/s] has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant applied for a name suppression order. The tenant is entitled to name suppression as the application is partly successful.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5361403 — net $1,828.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Notice to vacate	$1,800.00	Notice to vacate
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,828.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,828.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name and identifying details.
Golden Spring Group Limited As Agent For Jianfeng Li must pay [The tenant/s] $1,828.00 immediately.

The claims in respect of the spa pool pump and heater are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was assisted by the court appointed Mandarin interpreter. The owner was represented by a property manager.
The tenancy started on 4 April 2024 and ended on 17 September 2025. The tenant resided at the address with his partner and his two sons.
The tenant has applied for compensation in respect of a spa pool pump and heater which he says was removed without his consent. The tenant also claims that the notice to terminate was false and misleading.
There has been communication between the parties by email. Both have provided documentary evidence and submissions.
I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Legal considerations
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Missing spa pool pump and heater
The tenant claims that he handed the keys back on 17 September 2025. He advised the landlord he would collect his spa pool on 19 September 2025.
The tenant says that when he turned up on 19 September to collect the spa pool the pump and heater had been removed from the spa pool.
The tenant said that he sent a text message to the landlord who said she would discuss with the owner. The landlord says she discussed with the owner who stated that no one had collected the spa pool on 19 September and therefore she thought that no one was coming to collect it.
The property manager asked the owner whether the demolition contractors would have taken the spa pool equipment.
The spa pool was approximately 6 years old. The tenant purchased the spa pool for on or about 2021/2022 for $5500.00.
During the hearing the tenant provided quotes in respect of the pump and heater replacement. Analysis
The tenant’s claim for compensation is declined. While it is acknowledged that the spa pool pump and heater were removed at the end of the tenancy, compensation under the Residential Tenancies Act requires proof of actual loss suffered by the tenant as a result of the alleged breach.
The tenant has not provided any evidence demonstrating that he incurred a quantifiable loss, such as proof of payment, repair costs actually incurred, or any diminution in value.
The provisions of quotations alone, which merely indicate the potential cost of replacement, does not establish that a loss was sustained.
In the absence of evidence of actual loss there is no proper basis upon which an award of compensation can be made.
Accordingly, the claims in respect of the spa pool pump and heater are dismissed. Notice to terminate
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the landlord’s notice to vacate dated 25 August 2025 was false and misleading.
The notice served by the landlord relied on the statutory provision allowing the landlord to provide only 42 days on the basis that the owner or a member of the owner’s family required the premises as their place of residence.
The tenant claims that contractors had erected a fence around the property when he attended on 19 September to collect his spa pool. He further states that the process of demolishing the premises had started. The tenant provided photographic evidence during the hearing of the demolition.
The tenant states that the landlord wanted to move back in but says the house was demolished instead. The landlord responded by stating that the owner originally intended on moving back in but then decided not to due to the condition of the property.
The notice to vacate clearly states that the owner requires the premises “within 90 days as the principle place of residence for the owner or a member of the owners family”.
The notice to vacate was emailed to the tenant on 25 August 2025. The property manager was unaware of the demolition until she was advised by the tenant.
Under section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord can only give a 42-day notice to terminate a tenancy if the owner or a member of the owner’s family intends to move into the premises as their principal place of residence. If the real reason for the notice is to demolish the premises, the correct grounds would require a 90-day notice (not 42 days).
Serving a 42-day notice on false or misleading grounds is considered an unlawful act under section 60AA of the RTA, which prohibits landlords from terminating a tenancy without proper grounds or by misleading the tenant about the true reason for termination.
If the landlord misleads the tenant by claiming the owner will move in, but instead demolishes the premises, this is a breach of the Act. Even if the landlord’s circumstances change, these should be communicated to the tenant well in advance.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The landlord would have known well in advance of the demolition plans which, in turn should have been communicated to the tenant. The notice to vacate should have been amended to reflect this. The fact that the premises were demolished immediately after termination suggests that reasons provided in the notice to vacate changed very early on or did not exist at all. The reasons for termination should be transparent allowing a tenant security of tenure.
Accordingly, I find the tenant’s claim established and award exemplary damages. I award an amount of $1,800.00 which is close to one third of the maximum penalty for this breach.
Because [The applicant/s] has partly succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant applied for a name suppression order. The tenant is entitled to name suppression as the application is partly successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361403 — Exemplary damages at 15 Montclair Rise, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5361403 — Exemplary damages at 15 Montclair Rise, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

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