What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4421681 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4421681?

Compensation: $1,740.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4421681?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4421681?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8450076-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4421681 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4421681?

Compensation: $1,740.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4421681?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4421681?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8450076-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4421681 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4421681 — net $3,740.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,740.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$2,000.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$3,740.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,740.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name and identifying details.
Rempstone Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $3,740.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation $1,740.00 Exemplary damages $2,000.00 Total award $3,740.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $3,740.00
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Yang and Mr Bai.
The tenancy started on 1 October 2021. The tenancy agreement records that the tenancy was for a fixed term to 30 September 2022.
The property was not provided to the tenants in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy. The tenants arranged for the removal of rubbish which was reimbursed by the landlord.
The tenants incurred other costs to make the property a comfortable home for their family. They now seek reimbursement for a range of costs incurred during the tenancy.
The claim arose because the relationship broke down near the end of the tenancy. The tenant’s claimed that a notice to terminate the tenancy was improperly given and/or retaliatory.
The tenant attempted to negotiate either an extension of the tenancy or an earlier termination if it found a new property. The landlord would not agree to either option.
The tenants felt that there was no “give and take” at the end of the tenancy and that they had been treated unfairly despite taking good care of the property, intending it to be a long-term home for their family.
As the applicant, the tenants must establish their claims to the required civil standard, on the balance of probabilities. The tenants are required to prove that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached its obligation/s. Where compensation is claimed, the tenants must also establish the loss they have suffered. Compensation Claims – Costs Incurred During the Tenancy
The tenants provided a spreadsheet and receipts for costs incurred during the tenancy. They also provided emails between them and the landlord. The landlord disputed the claims
Many of the costs were incurred to make a home for the tenants’ family, not to remedy a breach of the landlord’s obligations. The landlord’s obligations are set out in s45 Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). Under that section a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Some of the issues raised by the tenant such as a musty smell in the bathroom, silicone to the bath and purchasing some turf to cover exterior tiles are more consistent with landlord maintenance obligations. However, the evidence did not meet the required threshold to prove a breach of the landlord’s obligations. The evidence showed issues which could and perhaps, should, have been investigated but did not establish that a breach had occurred.
The claim for reimbursement of costs incurred during the tenancy is dismissed. Notice to Terminate the Tenancy
On 7 June 2022, Rempstone gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 30 September 2022. The notice recorded that the property was required for a member of the owner’s family. See sections 60A(2)(d), 50(1)(b) and 51(1)(a) RTA.
The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory. The tenants also claim that the landlord was not entitled to give the notice because the owner’s sister never moved into the property.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) RTA 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
An application under s54 is to be made withing 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy.
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 this obligation, 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 RTA.
The landlord claims that the owner’s sister did intend to reside at the property. Ms Yang referred to text messages and email exchanges between her and the property owner. In March 2022, the property owner emailed Ms Yang and indicated that his sister may move to [Event location suppressed] (or somewhere else in the South Island).
In April Ms Yang contacted the property and asked if his sister was still intending to move to [Event location suppressed]. Ms Yang provided excerpts of screenshots of a text exchange with the property owner. She then provided a more fulsome copy of the text exchange on 19 April 2022.
The 19 April text exchange reveals that Ms Yang contacted the owner to see whether his sister intend to move to [Event location suppressed]. The owner replied that his sister would buy a house “to make things easier”.
Ms Yang then replied: “I think [Tenancy address suppressed] is too fussy, but we can’t get rid of them without ground reasons. My suggestion is to tell them to increase the rent to $650 if she wants to keep staying.”
The property owner then asked whether it would be better for his sister to stay at the property first, before buying a property. Ms Yang replied that it would. The property responded “Got it” followed by a winking emoji.
The landlord’s sister did not move into the property, or to [Event location suppressed]. Ms Yang says that she and the property owner were only aware of that in October, after the tenancy ended. She referred to email and text messages in support of her position.
The text exchange on 19 April 2022 shows that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. However, the tenant’s application was not made within 28 workings days after receiving the notice. See s54 RTA.
I am not persuaded that there was a genuine intention for the property owner’s sister to move into the property. I find that the landlord gave the notice to terminate knowing that it was not entitled to do so and has committed an unlawful act. S60AA RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Ms Yang was aware that she had to have proper grounds to terminate the tenancy at the end of the fixed term. I do not accept her submission that she was acting on instructions from the property owner and in accordance with the RTA. Ms Yang considered the tenant to be “too fussy” and contrived to end the tenancy by either proposing a substantial rent increase of $70 per week or having the owner’s sister move into the property.
The tenants’ correspondence and requests were not unreasonable or demanding. The tenants were placed under considerable financial stress when the tenancy was terminated. They sought the landlord’s agreement to an early release from this tenancy to avoid paying double rent, but that was declined. I award compensation of $1,740.00 which equates to three weeks rent.
I also award exemplary damages of $2,000 for the reasons set out in paragraphs 28 and 29 above.
As the tenants were substantially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the filing fee and granted their request for suppression of their details.
The landlord also submitted a cross application but that was a defence to the tenant’s claim. The cross application is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4421681 — net $3,740.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,740.00	Compensation
Exemplary damages	$2,000.00	Exemplary damages
Net award	$3,740.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,740.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name and identifying details.
Rempstone Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $3,740.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Compensation $1,740.00 Exemplary damages $2,000.00 Total award $3,740.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $3,740.00
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Yang and Mr Bai.
The tenancy started on 1 October 2021. The tenancy agreement records that the tenancy was for a fixed term to 30 September 2022.
The property was not provided to the tenants in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the start of the tenancy. The tenants arranged for the removal of rubbish which was reimbursed by the landlord.
The tenants incurred other costs to make the property a comfortable home for their family. They now seek reimbursement for a range of costs incurred during the tenancy.
The claim arose because the relationship broke down near the end of the tenancy. The tenant’s claimed that a notice to terminate the tenancy was improperly given and/or retaliatory.
The tenant attempted to negotiate either an extension of the tenancy or an earlier termination if it found a new property. The landlord would not agree to either option.
The tenants felt that there was no “give and take” at the end of the tenancy and that they had been treated unfairly despite taking good care of the property, intending it to be a long-term home for their family.
As the applicant, the tenants must establish their claims to the required civil standard, on the balance of probabilities. The tenants are required to prove that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached its obligation/s. Where compensation is claimed, the tenants must also establish the loss they have suffered. Compensation Claims – Costs Incurred During the Tenancy
The tenants provided a spreadsheet and receipts for costs incurred during the tenancy. They also provided emails between them and the landlord. The landlord disputed the claims
Many of the costs were incurred to make a home for the tenants’ family, not to remedy a breach of the landlord’s obligations. The landlord’s obligations are set out in s45 Residential Tenancies Act (RTA). Under that section a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety.
Some of the issues raised by the tenant such as a musty smell in the bathroom, silicone to the bath and purchasing some turf to cover exterior tiles are more consistent with landlord maintenance obligations. However, the evidence did not meet the required threshold to prove a breach of the landlord’s obligations. The evidence showed issues which could and perhaps, should, have been investigated but did not establish that a breach had occurred.
The claim for reimbursement of costs incurred during the tenancy is dismissed. Notice to Terminate the Tenancy
On 7 June 2022, Rempstone gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 30 September 2022. The notice recorded that the property was required for a member of the owner’s family. See sections 60A(2)(d), 50(1)(b) and 51(1)(a) RTA.
The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory. The tenants also claim that the landlord was not entitled to give the notice because the owner’s sister never moved into the property.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) RTA 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
An application under s54 is to be made withing 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating the tenancy.
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 this obligation, 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 RTA.
The landlord claims that the owner’s sister did intend to reside at the property. Ms Yang referred to text messages and email exchanges between her and the property owner. In March 2022, the property owner emailed Ms Yang and indicated that his sister may move to [Event location suppressed] (or somewhere else in the South Island).
In April Ms Yang contacted the property and asked if his sister was still intending to move to [Event location suppressed]. Ms Yang provided excerpts of screenshots of a text exchange with the property owner. She then provided a more fulsome copy of the text exchange on 19 April 2022.
The 19 April text exchange reveals that Ms Yang contacted the owner to see whether his sister intend to move to [Event location suppressed]. The owner replied that his sister would buy a house “to make things easier”.
Ms Yang then replied: “I think [Tenancy address suppressed] is too fussy, but we can’t get rid of them without ground reasons. My suggestion is to tell them to increase the rent to $650 if she wants to keep staying.”
The property owner then asked whether it would be better for his sister to stay at the property first, before buying a property. Ms Yang replied that it would. The property responded “Got it” followed by a winking emoji.
The landlord’s sister did not move into the property, or to [Event location suppressed]. Ms Yang says that she and the property owner were only aware of that in October, after the tenancy ended. She referred to email and text messages in support of her position.
The text exchange on 19 April 2022 shows that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. However, the tenant’s application was not made within 28 workings days after receiving the notice. See s54 RTA.
I am not persuaded that there was a genuine intention for the property owner’s sister to move into the property. I find that the landlord gave the notice to terminate knowing that it was not entitled to do so and has committed an unlawful act. S60AA RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
Ms Yang was aware that she had to have proper grounds to terminate the tenancy at the end of the fixed term. I do not accept her submission that she was acting on instructions from the property owner and in accordance with the RTA. Ms Yang considered the tenant to be “too fussy” and contrived to end the tenancy by either proposing a substantial rent increase of $70 per week or having the owner’s sister move into the property.
The tenants’ correspondence and requests were not unreasonable or demanding. The tenants were placed under considerable financial stress when the tenancy was terminated. They sought the landlord’s agreement to an early release from this tenancy to avoid paying double rent, but that was declined. I award compensation of $1,740.00 which equates to three weeks rent.
I also award exemplary damages of $2,000 for the reasons set out in paragraphs 28 and 29 above.
As the tenants were substantially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the filing fee and granted their request for suppression of their details.
The landlord also submitted a cross application but that was a defence to the tenant’s claim. The cross application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4421681 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4421681 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions