What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4921353?

The tribunal order states: The application by the Tenant is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4921353?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4921353?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4921353?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11083378-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4921353?

The tribunal order states: The application by the Tenant is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4921353?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4921353?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4921353?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11083378-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Captain Rings Drive, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4921353 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application by the Tenant is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claimed compensation.
The tenancy began on 27 February 2023 and ended on 5 June 2024. During the tenancy the Landlord was based overseas and was deciding whether to move back to New Zealand.
On 3 April 2024, the Tenant was served with a 90 day notice pursuant to section 51 (1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”). This provides: “A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 63 days’ notice if any of the following conditions are met: (a) Owner's Requirement for the Premises: -The owner of the premises requires the property as their principal place of residence or the residence of a member of their family. - The owner or family member must intend to live in the property for at least 90 days within 90 days after the termination date. Claim for compensation
The Tenant claimed compensation of $5278.00 in total for the costs incurred to move out in a shorter timeframe when the Landlord should have given her 90 days notice as per section 51(2) of the Act. This section provides: The landlord can terminate the tenancy to sell or dispose of the property, but must provide a 90-day notice. This gives tenants more time to adjust, compared to the 63-day notice required for other types of termination. The 90-day notice is meant to ensure that tenants have a reasonable amount of time to arrange alternative housing in the event the landlord intends to sell or transfer ownership of the property.
As a result of the shorter notice, the Tenant had to pay all of her moving costs whereas these expenses would have been less if she had been given the correct notice. The Tenant submitted the Landlord was not transparent with his intention to sell the property. She submitted the property was always being prepared for sale, as it was listed through Ray White and she had a real estate asking to visit the property on 19 March 2024. In her mind, it was planned by the Landlord particularly as the Landlord was relocating from overseas back to New Zealand.
The Tenant requested $1,000 in compensation for stress caused by property viewings, petrol costs, and disruptions. She felt the situation was unfair, especially given the short notice (less than two weeks) and the quick pace of events. Moving with her seven children was overwhelming. Jasmine had trouble sleeping, made numerous calls for help, and faced difficulties managing in a house too small for the family. Jasmine was on the Housing NZ list and receiving assistance from the Salvation Army, but their support did not cover children aged 2 to 12. She was also dealing with WINZ for help. Her family had to move frequently, which disrupted her children’s schooling and led to a sense of disconnection from the education system.
In support of that claim, the following evidence was produced- a) Viewings of prospective properties the Tenant attended; b) Receipt for the movers; c) Sales listing for the property on 19 June 2024; d) Text message from a Real estate agent requesting to view the property
The Landlord submitted initially he was unsure whether to sell the property. If he had planned to sell all along, he would have issued the required 90-day notice while the tenant was still living there, either by finding a new tenant or giving the proper notice. This would have saved him around $10,000 in expenses. The real estates that approached the Tenant was one of many that contacted the Landlord randomly to to sell their property. He did not engage with those real estate agents.
The Tenant vacated on 5 June 2024 and then on 19 June 2024, the Landlord changed his mind due to financial reasons and decided to sell the property instead. He then listed the property on the market. The property was sold in August 2024 but at that time, the Landlord was uncertain whether he would move back due to personal family issues. Eventually the property was sold at a loss, but the sale was necessary for financial reasons.
The Landlord emphasised that he made decisions with the tenant’s wellbeing in mind. He respected all tenants, whether they had one child or ten. The Landlord clarified that if the Tenant had been given the 90-day notice, he would have handled things differently. He never intended to give unfair notice. His goal was to avoid unnecessary stress for the tenant and ensure the situation was handled professionally.
The Landlord also submitted that he should not be liable for a Tenants costs to find a house. The Tenants difficulty in finding a property and the costs incurred to do that should not have been his responsibility.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Tenant has not demonstrated that the Landlord is responsible for covering her moving costs or providing compensation for stress. The Tenant has not presented sufficient evidence to prove that the Landlord intended to sell the property from the outset or intentionally misled her. Additionally, the Tenant may have incurred these moving costs regardless, and there is no clear evidence to show that these costs could have been avoided had she been given the full 90-day notice.
The claim is dismissed.

Order

The application by the Tenant is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claimed compensation.
The tenancy began on 27 February 2023 and ended on 5 June 2024. During the tenancy the Landlord was based overseas and was deciding whether to move back to New Zealand.
On 3 April 2024, the Tenant was served with a 90 day notice pursuant to section 51 (1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”). This provides: “A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 63 days’ notice if any of the following conditions are met: (a) Owner's Requirement for the Premises: -The owner of the premises requires the property as their principal place of residence or the residence of a member of their family. - The owner or family member must intend to live in the property for at least 90 days within 90 days after the termination date. Claim for compensation
The Tenant claimed compensation of $5278.00 in total for the costs incurred to move out in a shorter timeframe when the Landlord should have given her 90 days notice as per section 51(2) of the Act. This section provides: The landlord can terminate the tenancy to sell or dispose of the property, but must provide a 90-day notice. This gives tenants more time to adjust, compared to the 63-day notice required for other types of termination. The 90-day notice is meant to ensure that tenants have a reasonable amount of time to arrange alternative housing in the event the landlord intends to sell or transfer ownership of the property.
As a result of the shorter notice, the Tenant had to pay all of her moving costs whereas these expenses would have been less if she had been given the correct notice. The Tenant submitted the Landlord was not transparent with his intention to sell the property. She submitted the property was always being prepared for sale, as it was listed through Ray White and she had a real estate asking to visit the property on 19 March 2024. In her mind, it was planned by the Landlord particularly as the Landlord was relocating from overseas back to New Zealand.
The Tenant requested $1,000 in compensation for stress caused by property viewings, petrol costs, and disruptions. She felt the situation was unfair, especially given the short notice (less than two weeks) and the quick pace of events. Moving with her seven children was overwhelming. Jasmine had trouble sleeping, made numerous calls for help, and faced difficulties managing in a house too small for the family. Jasmine was on the Housing NZ list and receiving assistance from the Salvation Army, but their support did not cover children aged 2 to 12. She was also dealing with WINZ for help. Her family had to move frequently, which disrupted her children’s schooling and led to a sense of disconnection from the education system.
In support of that claim, the following evidence was produced- a) Viewings of prospective properties the Tenant attended; b) Receipt for the movers; c) Sales listing for the property on 19 June 2024; d) Text message from a Real estate agent requesting to view the property
The Landlord submitted initially he was unsure whether to sell the property. If he had planned to sell all along, he would have issued the required 90-day notice while the tenant was still living there, either by finding a new tenant or giving the proper notice. This would have saved him around $10,000 in expenses. The real estates that approached the Tenant was one of many that contacted the Landlord randomly to to sell their property. He did not engage with those real estate agents.
The Tenant vacated on 5 June 2024 and then on 19 June 2024, the Landlord changed his mind due to financial reasons and decided to sell the property instead. He then listed the property on the market. The property was sold in August 2024 but at that time, the Landlord was uncertain whether he would move back due to personal family issues. Eventually the property was sold at a loss, but the sale was necessary for financial reasons.
The Landlord emphasised that he made decisions with the tenant’s wellbeing in mind. He respected all tenants, whether they had one child or ten. The Landlord clarified that if the Tenant had been given the 90-day notice, he would have handled things differently. He never intended to give unfair notice. His goal was to avoid unnecessary stress for the tenant and ensure the situation was handled professionally.
The Landlord also submitted that he should not be liable for a Tenants costs to find a house. The Tenants difficulty in finding a property and the costs incurred to do that should not have been his responsibility.
In considering the evidence, I find that the Tenant has not demonstrated that the Landlord is responsible for covering her moving costs or providing compensation for stress. The Tenant has not presented sufficient evidence to prove that the Landlord intended to sell the property from the outset or intentionally misled her. Additionally, the Tenant may have incurred these moving costs regardless, and there is no clear evidence to show that these costs could have been avoided had she been given the full 90-day notice.
The claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4921353 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Captain Rings Drive, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4921353 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Captain Rings Drive, Papakura, Papakura 2110

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