What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5192073?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5192073?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5192073?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5192073?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12014719-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5192073?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5192073?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5192073?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5192073?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12014719-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

47 Garden Heights Avenue, Glenview, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5192073 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Neal appeared for Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals with the landlord’s daughter who is a beneficiary of the trust that owned the premises.
The tenancy began on 5 May 2018 and a notice was issued by the landlord dated 2 September 2024, terminating the tenancy.
The notice of 2 September 2024 gave the tenant 90 days’ notice that the tenancy would be terminated under Section 51 of the RTA. The notice read, The premises are to be put on the market by the owner within 90 days after the termination date for the purposes of sale or other disposition.
The end date of the tenancy was given as 1 December 2024.The tenant did not vacate the premises on this date.
The Landlord applied to the Tenancy Tribunal, and it was determined that the tenancy had been terminated and an immediate possession order was made with exemplary damages being awarded to the Landlord.
The premises were sold, and various dates were put forward by the parties as to the actual date of sale.
The tenants claim is that the premises were not put on the market within 90 days after the termination date and this is a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1896.
The tenant claimed that there was no public marketing of the premises and queried settlement date information. He provided a photograph of a sold sign on the fence at the premises dated 1 April 2025.
The landlord highlighted that the premises were listed and sold by Monarch Real Estate Limited a member of the Harcourts Group. This is different to the company that he works for which is Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals. Its role is to manage rental accommodation not sales.
The tenant touched on a retaliatory notice claim, this claim did not form part of the tenants application and was not discussed at the hearing. It is not addressed in this order.
The tenant withdrew the claim for compensation for moving costs and sought exemplary damages for the landlord knowingly terminating a tenancy without grounds.
The Tenancy Tribunal standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. This means that the party proving the claim must establish with their evidence that their claim is more likely than not.
The burden of proving a claim rest with the party who makes the claim. The law.
Termination of tenancies by giving 90 days notice has recently changed under the RTA. The version of the RTA that applied on the date that the notice to terminate was issued, stated, under section 51(2)(a), A periodic tenancy can be terminated by notice if (2) A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if— (a) the premises are to be put on the market by the owner within 90 days after the termination date for the purposes of sale or other disposition;
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 claimed that the premises were never put on the market providing photographs of the premises with no ‘for sale’ signs dated 3 ,18, and 7 March. The sold sign appeared in photo dated 1 April 2025 .
The tenant provided a definition of what ‘put on the market’ was held to mean via an AI search. ‘....it signifies that the property is publicly listed and available for potential buyers to view and make offers. This usually involves advertising property through various channels to reach a wider audience of prospective buyers.’
A similar reach result was provided defining when real estate was considered ‘sold’ ‘ When the sale and purchase agreement is signed by all parties, any conditions are met, and the settlement process is complete by including the transfer of funds and property ownership.’ ‘A property is generally not considered sold if the funds have not been paid’
The tenant provided information from various property and real-estate online searches which recorded the sale date of the premises, • Property Value on 11 March 2025, • Rate my agent on 31 Mach 2025 •Realestate.co.nz on 31 March 2025. •Facebook agent R Kumar on 1 April 2025
The tenant believed that there was a link between the date of his application to the Tribunal dated 10 March 2025 and the sale of the premises. He said that that once the landlord received notice of his application the premises were sold.
The landlord disputed this saying that he had not received notice of the application or the contents of the claim due to the tenant recording the wrong contact email for the Tribunal to use. A copy of the email correcting the error and details being changed was provided, dated 19 May 2025.
The property manager said that he could not provide information about the sale of the premise when the tenant initially asked about it as it was not the company he worked for that sold property.
At the hearing the landlord provided evidence from Monarch Real Estate Limited a member of the Harcourts Group which included, •a copy of the Property Appraisal dated 22 March 2024 •the notice to terminate the tenancy dated 2 September 2024 •the Agency Agreement for listing the premises with Monarch Real Estate Limited trading as Harcourts Hamilton dated 2 September 2024 •The extension of exclusive listing agreement dated 20 January 2025 •The signed sale and purchase agreement dated 11 March 2025 • Change owner search from Relab, a real estate website, that stated the property settled on 1 May 2025
The issues a to be determined are a) Were the premises put on the market within 90 days of the termination date? b) Did the landlord give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so?
The date the tenancy was terminated was 1 December 2024, 90 days from this date is 1 March 2025.
There is no dispute that the premises were sold, and I find that the date of the final settlement is immaterial to this claim because it is the putting on the market that is required by the section 51(2)(a) ,not the date of sale.
The tenant argued that because it was not publicly listed and that he believed the purchasers were called by the agent, that this meant the premises could not be classed as being ‘put on the market’.
In my view put on the market means to make the premises available for purchase and the Tribunal often looks to material steps taken by parties to support claims that they have done so.
Having the premises appraised, signing an exclusive listing agreement and an extension I find a clear material steps that the owner had placed the premises on the market. Importantly the first exclusive listing was dated the same day that the 90 day notice to vacate was given to the tenant.
I do not find that the landlord has failed to comply with this section because it was not publicly listed. How marketing and sales campaigns are run, or the process of how real estate agents engage a buyer are not within the ambit of this section.
The evidence that the premises had sold supports that it had been first listed for sale. The listing dates are within 90 days of the after the termination date.
I do not agree with the tenants definition that this is void because it was not publicly marketed. Section 51(2)(a) does not make public marketing a requirement.
I find that the landlord has complied with the grounds required when the issuing of the 90 day notice to terminate.
The second issue is, did the landlord know they were not entitled to give a notice to terminate the tenancy? The tenant claimed that some documents had dates changed but had no evidence to support this.
I have found that the landlord did have grounds to terminate and was entitled to. The owner had instructed that he wanted to sell the premises and engaged the real estate agent, and the property was sold.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the premises were not put on the market within 90 days after the termination date. I find that there was no breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1896.The application is dismissed.
No filing fee is reimbursed, or name suppression is awarded because the tenant was unsuccessful with their application.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Neal appeared for Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals with the landlord’s daughter who is a beneficiary of the trust that owned the premises.
The tenancy began on 5 May 2018 and a notice was issued by the landlord dated 2 September 2024, terminating the tenancy.
The notice of 2 September 2024 gave the tenant 90 days’ notice that the tenancy would be terminated under Section 51 of the RTA. The notice read, The premises are to be put on the market by the owner within 90 days after the termination date for the purposes of sale or other disposition.
The end date of the tenancy was given as 1 December 2024.The tenant did not vacate the premises on this date.
The Landlord applied to the Tenancy Tribunal, and it was determined that the tenancy had been terminated and an immediate possession order was made with exemplary damages being awarded to the Landlord.
The premises were sold, and various dates were put forward by the parties as to the actual date of sale.
The tenants claim is that the premises were not put on the market within 90 days after the termination date and this is a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1896.
The tenant claimed that there was no public marketing of the premises and queried settlement date information. He provided a photograph of a sold sign on the fence at the premises dated 1 April 2025.
The landlord highlighted that the premises were listed and sold by Monarch Real Estate Limited a member of the Harcourts Group. This is different to the company that he works for which is Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals. Its role is to manage rental accommodation not sales.
The tenant touched on a retaliatory notice claim, this claim did not form part of the tenants application and was not discussed at the hearing. It is not addressed in this order.
The tenant withdrew the claim for compensation for moving costs and sought exemplary damages for the landlord knowingly terminating a tenancy without grounds.
The Tenancy Tribunal standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. This means that the party proving the claim must establish with their evidence that their claim is more likely than not.
The burden of proving a claim rest with the party who makes the claim. The law.
Termination of tenancies by giving 90 days notice has recently changed under the RTA. The version of the RTA that applied on the date that the notice to terminate was issued, stated, under section 51(2)(a), A periodic tenancy can be terminated by notice if (2) A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if— (a) the premises are to be put on the market by the owner within 90 days after the termination date for the purposes of sale or other disposition;
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 claimed that the premises were never put on the market providing photographs of the premises with no ‘for sale’ signs dated 3 ,18, and 7 March. The sold sign appeared in photo dated 1 April 2025 .
The tenant provided a definition of what ‘put on the market’ was held to mean via an AI search. ‘....it signifies that the property is publicly listed and available for potential buyers to view and make offers. This usually involves advertising property through various channels to reach a wider audience of prospective buyers.’
A similar reach result was provided defining when real estate was considered ‘sold’ ‘ When the sale and purchase agreement is signed by all parties, any conditions are met, and the settlement process is complete by including the transfer of funds and property ownership.’ ‘A property is generally not considered sold if the funds have not been paid’
The tenant provided information from various property and real-estate online searches which recorded the sale date of the premises, • Property Value on 11 March 2025, • Rate my agent on 31 Mach 2025 •Realestate.co.nz on 31 March 2025. •Facebook agent R Kumar on 1 April 2025
The tenant believed that there was a link between the date of his application to the Tribunal dated 10 March 2025 and the sale of the premises. He said that that once the landlord received notice of his application the premises were sold.
The landlord disputed this saying that he had not received notice of the application or the contents of the claim due to the tenant recording the wrong contact email for the Tribunal to use. A copy of the email correcting the error and details being changed was provided, dated 19 May 2025.
The property manager said that he could not provide information about the sale of the premise when the tenant initially asked about it as it was not the company he worked for that sold property.
At the hearing the landlord provided evidence from Monarch Real Estate Limited a member of the Harcourts Group which included, •a copy of the Property Appraisal dated 22 March 2024 •the notice to terminate the tenancy dated 2 September 2024 •the Agency Agreement for listing the premises with Monarch Real Estate Limited trading as Harcourts Hamilton dated 2 September 2024 •The extension of exclusive listing agreement dated 20 January 2025 •The signed sale and purchase agreement dated 11 March 2025 • Change owner search from Relab, a real estate website, that stated the property settled on 1 May 2025
The issues a to be determined are a) Were the premises put on the market within 90 days of the termination date? b) Did the landlord give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so?
The date the tenancy was terminated was 1 December 2024, 90 days from this date is 1 March 2025.
There is no dispute that the premises were sold, and I find that the date of the final settlement is immaterial to this claim because it is the putting on the market that is required by the section 51(2)(a) ,not the date of sale.
The tenant argued that because it was not publicly listed and that he believed the purchasers were called by the agent, that this meant the premises could not be classed as being ‘put on the market’.
In my view put on the market means to make the premises available for purchase and the Tribunal often looks to material steps taken by parties to support claims that they have done so.
Having the premises appraised, signing an exclusive listing agreement and an extension I find a clear material steps that the owner had placed the premises on the market. Importantly the first exclusive listing was dated the same day that the 90 day notice to vacate was given to the tenant.
I do not find that the landlord has failed to comply with this section because it was not publicly listed. How marketing and sales campaigns are run, or the process of how real estate agents engage a buyer are not within the ambit of this section.
The evidence that the premises had sold supports that it had been first listed for sale. The listing dates are within 90 days of the after the termination date.
I do not agree with the tenants definition that this is void because it was not publicly marketed. Section 51(2)(a) does not make public marketing a requirement.
I find that the landlord has complied with the grounds required when the issuing of the 90 day notice to terminate.
The second issue is, did the landlord know they were not entitled to give a notice to terminate the tenancy? The tenant claimed that some documents had dates changed but had no evidence to support this.
I have found that the landlord did have grounds to terminate and was entitled to. The owner had instructed that he wanted to sell the premises and engaged the real estate agent, and the property was sold.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the premises were not put on the market within 90 days after the termination date. I find that there was no breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1896.The application is dismissed.
No filing fee is reimbursed, or name suppression is awarded because the tenant was unsuccessful with their application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5192073 — Exemplary damages at 47 Garden Heights Avenue, Glenview, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5192073 — Exemplary damages at 47 Garden Heights Avenue, Glenview, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions