What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4679110?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4679110?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4679110?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4679110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9974903-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4679110?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4679110?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4679110?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4679110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9974903-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

193 Manuka Road, Bayview, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4679110 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Sarah Young, the tenant, is not feeling well. I approved Ms Sarah Young to instruct her mother, Ms Anne Young, as her representative. I was satisfied that Ms Anne Young had sufficient knowledge of the case and authority to bind Ms Sarah Young to the outcome of this hearing.
Mr Daren James and Ms Anna Gibbons are the property managers. The landlord, Mr Mao Chun Chang attended the hearing as well. Ms Anne Young’s case
Ms Anne Young’s case relies on s 66AA of the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”) in that she alleges her landlord, Mr Chang, terminated the tenancy agreement without grounds.
Specifically, Ms Anne Young submits (in summary): a. The landlord issued a 90-day termination notice on 7 September 2022 without proper grounds. The notice is known as section 51(2)(a) notice where Mr Chang indicated that he was going to put the property on the market for the purposes of sale. b. The termination notice came right after Ms Anne Young's daughter had won a tribunal case against Mr Chang, ordering repairs and compensation. c. Mr Chang said he was selling the property but it did not sell. Months later, a neighbour told Ms Sarah Young the property was rented out to a new tenant instead. d. Ms Anne Young disputes that proper 90-day notice was given before terminating the tenancy. e. Ms. Anne Young believes the landlord terminated out of retaliation for losing the tribunal case. Mr James’ case
The landlord served notice because he needed to sell the property for financial reasons.
There is evidence showing the landlord has been considering selling since July 2022. For instance, Mr Chang informed Ms Sarah Young on 14 July 2022 that he intended to sell the property.
On 8 September 2022, Mr. Chang signed an agency agreement with RayWhite to sell the property.
Therefore, the property was put on the market, and open homes were held. A sale & purchase agreement was later signed, but the sale did not eventuate, showing an intention to sell.
Mr. James is disputing that the 90-day notice was not served properly or was retaliatory.
The compensation and repairs ordered by the previous Tribunal were complied with except for the installation of an outdoor awning. However, the tenant was allowed to install it herself and be compensated up to $3,000, which Ms. Sarah Young did not do.
Mr. James, representing Mr. Chang, did not accept any suggestion that his client did not comply with the section 51 notice service requirement or did not intend to sell the property. Conclusion
I acknowledge that Ms Sarah Young suspected Mr Chang terminated her tenancy because she had won a Tribunal Order against him. Ms Sarah Young felt strongly about this because the Tribunal Order was issued on 5 September 2022, and 2 days later, Mr Chang issued a termination notice under section 51(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act.
When I was preparing the file for the hearing, I also had suspicions, and the timing seemed telling.
However, section 51(2)(a) of the RTA does not require a landlord to sell the house, but it does require that the house is put on the market for sale. Ms Anne Young did not dispute that Mr Chang put the property on the market for sale.
In my view, Mr Chang did not terminate the tenancy without grounds, as he had a lawful reason to terminate the tenancy by issuing a 90-day notice to terminate on 7 September 2022.
Ms Anne Young needed to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. However, she has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that it is more likely than not that Mr Chang issued a 90-day notice to terminate on 7 September 2022 without grounds.
Therefore, Ms Anne Young’s application is dismissed, and I have no jurisdiction to consider compensation.
Lastly, Ms Anne Young queried whether Mr Chang had complied with the Tribunal Order dated 5 September 2022, but she could not offer any evidence to support her claim. If I had the jurisdiction, I would have dismissed this claim as well.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Sarah Young, the tenant, is not feeling well. I approved Ms Sarah Young to instruct her mother, Ms Anne Young, as her representative. I was satisfied that Ms Anne Young had sufficient knowledge of the case and authority to bind Ms Sarah Young to the outcome of this hearing.
Mr Daren James and Ms Anna Gibbons are the property managers. The landlord, Mr Mao Chun Chang attended the hearing as well. Ms Anne Young’s case
Ms Anne Young’s case relies on s 66AA of the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”) in that she alleges her landlord, Mr Chang, terminated the tenancy agreement without grounds.
Specifically, Ms Anne Young submits (in summary): a. The landlord issued a 90-day termination notice on 7 September 2022 without proper grounds. The notice is known as section 51(2)(a) notice where Mr Chang indicated that he was going to put the property on the market for the purposes of sale. b. The termination notice came right after Ms Anne Young's daughter had won a tribunal case against Mr Chang, ordering repairs and compensation. c. Mr Chang said he was selling the property but it did not sell. Months later, a neighbour told Ms Sarah Young the property was rented out to a new tenant instead. d. Ms Anne Young disputes that proper 90-day notice was given before terminating the tenancy. e. Ms. Anne Young believes the landlord terminated out of retaliation for losing the tribunal case. Mr James’ case
The landlord served notice because he needed to sell the property for financial reasons.
There is evidence showing the landlord has been considering selling since July 2022. For instance, Mr Chang informed Ms Sarah Young on 14 July 2022 that he intended to sell the property.
On 8 September 2022, Mr. Chang signed an agency agreement with RayWhite to sell the property.
Therefore, the property was put on the market, and open homes were held. A sale & purchase agreement was later signed, but the sale did not eventuate, showing an intention to sell.
Mr. James is disputing that the 90-day notice was not served properly or was retaliatory.
The compensation and repairs ordered by the previous Tribunal were complied with except for the installation of an outdoor awning. However, the tenant was allowed to install it herself and be compensated up to $3,000, which Ms. Sarah Young did not do.
Mr. James, representing Mr. Chang, did not accept any suggestion that his client did not comply with the section 51 notice service requirement or did not intend to sell the property. Conclusion
I acknowledge that Ms Sarah Young suspected Mr Chang terminated her tenancy because she had won a Tribunal Order against him. Ms Sarah Young felt strongly about this because the Tribunal Order was issued on 5 September 2022, and 2 days later, Mr Chang issued a termination notice under section 51(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act.
When I was preparing the file for the hearing, I also had suspicions, and the timing seemed telling.
However, section 51(2)(a) of the RTA does not require a landlord to sell the house, but it does require that the house is put on the market for sale. Ms Anne Young did not dispute that Mr Chang put the property on the market for sale.
In my view, Mr Chang did not terminate the tenancy without grounds, as he had a lawful reason to terminate the tenancy by issuing a 90-day notice to terminate on 7 September 2022.
Ms Anne Young needed to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. However, she has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that it is more likely than not that Mr Chang issued a 90-day notice to terminate on 7 September 2022 without grounds.
Therefore, Ms Anne Young’s application is dismissed, and I have no jurisdiction to consider compensation.
Lastly, Ms Anne Young queried whether Mr Chang had complied with the Tribunal Order dated 5 September 2022, but she could not offer any evidence to support her claim. If I had the jurisdiction, I would have dismissed this claim as well.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4679110 — Tenancy dispute at 193 Manuka Road, Bayview, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4679110 — Tenancy dispute at 193 Manuka Road, Bayview, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions