Tenancy Tribunal Rejects Compensation Claim for Technical Breach
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a claim by tenants seeking compensation for a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants argued that the landlord failed to provide written notice of the property's sale, but the Tribunal found that the tenants did not suffer any actual loss and thus were not entitled to compensation.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is not entitled to compensation if they suffer no actual loss from a technical breach of giving notice of a property's sale.
📖 What the law says
This section requires a landlord to immediately tell their tenant in writing if they decide to sell the rented property after the tenancy agreement has started. It also says that when a landlord is looking for new tenants, they must tell potential tenants if the property is for sale.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenants' claim for compensation under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a claim by tenants seeking compensation for a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants argued that the landlord failed to provide written notice of the property's sale, as required by section 47. The Tribunal found that while there was a technical breach, the tenants did not suffer any actual loss and thus were not entitled to compensation.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5112250 1
[2025] NZTT 5112250
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted] Bennington-Barr
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing. [NAME] represented the landlord. [NAME] and [NAME] represented the tenants.
2. The tenants had a one-year fixed term tenancy of the premises commencing on 24 January 2024. Approximately three months before the expiry of the fixed term the landlords advised the tenants that they would not be renewing the tenancy because they were putting the property on the market for sale. The tenants subsequently found another tenancy and they vacated on 15 November 2024. The parties negotiated an earlier end to this tenancy to 13 January 2025 on the condition that the landlords have access to the property after 26 November to prepare the house for sale.
3. On or about 16 December, the tenants found the property advertised for sale. They claim that this is a breach of section 47 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and they claim compensation of $3,320.00 being rent payable by them from 16 December 2024 until 13 January 2025 (the end of the tenancy).
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5112250 2
They also believe that the landlord may have conducted open homes at the premises after that date, but they did not provide sufficient evidence to support their belief.
4. Section 47(1) of the Act provides that if the landlord puts the premises on the market for sale the landlord must, as soon as practicable, give the tenant written notice of that fact.
5. There is no dispute that the landlords did not give the tenants written notice when they advertised the property for sale. However, I consider it to be simply a technical breach of section 47. The tenants were fully aware that the landlord did intend to put the premises on the market for sale and the tenants have not established that they suffered any loss as a result of the breach. The only effect on the tenants, as claimed by [NAME] and [NAME], was stress that they may be liable for damage to the premises caused by those viewing the property at open homes. However, as mentioned there was insufficient evidence to support the tenants’ belief that open homes did occur. Moreover, the landlords completed an end of tenancy inspection and report when the tenants vacated in November. They are therefore unlikely to be held liable for any damage that occurred after that date.
6. The tenants’ application for compensation is therefore dismissed.
R Merrett
13 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5112250 3
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5112250 4
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenants were already aware that the landlord intended to sell the property.
- The tenants did not show that they actually lost anything because the landlord failed to give written notice.
- There was not enough proof to support the tenants' belief that open homes had actually occurred.
- The landlords completed an inspection when the tenants moved out, making them unlikely to be responsible for later damage.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenants' claim of stress from potential liability for damage was not supported by sufficient evidence of open homes.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenants' claim for compensation under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the landlord breached the Residential Tenancies Act by failing to provide written notice of the property's sale.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the claim because the tenants did not suffer any actual loss from the breach, despite the technical violation.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 47 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenants did not suffer any actual loss from the breach of providing written notice.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenants who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, suffering no actual loss from a technical breach of the Residential Tenancies Act may prevent them from obtaining compensation.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered.