Tanya Lieven is appealing the tribunal's finding in the High Court.
Tanya Lieven is appealing the tribunal's finding in the High Court.
A landlord who decided to sell a block of units told her tenants she would be bringing through prospective buyers any time during business hours but when one of them complained she said she didn’t need their permission as he had already been given notice.
Things ended updeteriorating to the point the tenant trespassed her from the property while they tried to resolve things. She then hit back with a threat to sue him for any loss on what she said could be a $8 million sale of the upmarket Wellington property.
The saga began when Tanya Lieven, who is also a real estate agent, emailed the tenants to advise them she had listed the properties and would be bringing people through.
One man replied saying he wanted 48 hours’ notice before anyone came into his house, triggering what would become a back-and-forth exchange with Lieven eventually threatening to sue.
“Just to be clear, we don’t need your permission,” Lieven told the man in a series of emails recently released by the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal.
“You have been provided notice effective immediately with times and days,” she said. “That’s notice.”
She went on to say that the property was for sale and the tenants were required under the Residential Tenancies Act to comply before stating that potential buyers would be viewing the property the following day.
Her tenant at the Roseneath property in Wellington then asked for the specific viewing times before amending his request to 24 hours’ notice with weekend viewings agreed to on a case-by-case basis only.
“You have had notice,” Lieven responded, again by email.
When the tenant repeated his request for notice Lieven said again that she had given notice already and that it was “valid and binding”.
The emails continued with the tenant eventually issuing Lieven with a trespass notice warning her to stay out of the house until they could come to an agreement.
“Then I’ll sue you for each & every loss. The purchase price is $8m,” she responded.
The block of units overlooks Wellington's iconic Oriental Parade. Photo / Ross Setford
Lieven did not reply to further emails from the man asking if she would accept mediation so he took her to the Tenancy Tribunal who found that her conduct constituted a “direct threat” when she indicated she would sue the man.
The tribunal adjudicator awarded the tenant $1500 compensation and exemplary damages and found that Lieven had confused the rules of the Residential Tenancies Act which cover a landlord’s right to enter the premises as well as a requirement to give notice to any occupants once a property has been listed for sale.
Lieven unsuccessfully appealed the ruling in the Wellington District Court.
After his win at the Tenancy Tribunal in 2019 the tenant also lodged a complaint with the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal (READT) which deals with complaints about realtor conduct.
Because Lieven was both the landlord and the listed realtor she was subject to the jurisdictions of both tribunals.
Nearly three years later the READT has now found Lieven guilty of unsatisfactory conduct and fined her $3000, issued a censure for her actions and ordered she undertake training in regards to legal issues realtors face as part of their profession.
Lieven told NZME she was appealing the tribunal’s recently released decision in the High Court.
She said that the tenant knew the property was going to be sold and renewed their lease anyway and that their conduct had “prejudiced the entire sale”.
“It’s not harassment to tell someone they’re interfering in contractual relations,” she said. “It’s not a threat. That is the situation.”
Lieven said that she didn’t enter the property and neither did any prospective buyer because the tenant had “stymied” anyone going in.
“There was really nothing else that I could have done differently in that situation,” she said.
The tenant was not named in the decision.
In its finding the READT ruled that in giving evidence before the tribunal Lieven “demonstrated an unsound knowledge of the Residential Tenancies Act and attempted to gloss over the correct interpretation of the legislation”.
It found Lieven should have had better understanding of her obligations under the act and that overall she fell short of those.
“We find that Ms Lieven’s conduct in harassing the tenants in the manner that she did and in threatening to sue the tenants was inappropriate and fell short of the standard that a reasonable member of the public should expect from a competent licensee,” the tribunal said in its decision.
“Furthermore, Ms Lieven has failed to accept responsibility for her conduct. In the circumstances, we find that a censure is appropriate.”
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
