What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4495177 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 4495177?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4495177?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4495177?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9878312-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4495177 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 4495177?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4495177?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4495177?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9878312-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4495177 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4495177 — net $1,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,500.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,520.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,520.44 immediately, made up as follows:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
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.
Both parties agree that notice to terminate the tenancy was given on 8 December 2022. The notice was intended to be a 63-day notice of termination as the landlord’s son was to move into the premises.
The notice gave a termination date of 29 January 2023. That is 52 days’ notice, rather than the required 63 days.
Section 57(7) notes that where there has been a mistake over the period of notice, or some delay in servicing the notice, the notice period can be waived both parties, or the landlord can application to Tribunal for consent to issue a further notice varying the first notice, so as to bring the period up to, or above the minimum required.
Section 51(9) sets out the reasons for consenting to such a variation, including: The Tribunal shall not give its consent under subsection (7) unless it is satisfied— (a) that the error in the notice or the delay in serving the notice was inadvertent; and (b) that the party who gave the notice has sought to correct the matter as soon as practicable after realising that the period of notice given is inadequate; and (c) that it would not be unfair to the other party to allow the original notice to be varied in the manner proposed.
The District Court in Charan v Barfoot & Thompson Limited (CIV-2010-092- 002100, Manukau DC, 14 June 2010) confirms that the notice periods are mandatory. Even the provisions of s51(7) do not shorten the notice periods, they simply allow correction of the notice to ensure adequate notice is given.
No application to vary the notice was made in this case, and I do not accept that the tenants waived their right to full notice.
The notice to terminate was invalid and unenforceable.
That said, the tenants have moved out of the premises, in accordance with the notice, so their remedy is in compensation.
In terms of section 60AA, I do not consider the landlord has committed an unlawful Act. The reason for the notice was valid, and there has been no challenge to that fact. Rather, the period of notice was wrong. The tenants could have challenged that notice and remained in the premises for the time it took to correct the notice or for new notice to be served. That would have reduced the pressure on them to find new accommodation, although I accept it would not have prevented the termination of the tenancy.
I do not consider exemplary damages are appropriate in the circumstances, however, I do consider the tenants are entitled to compensation for the landlord’s breach of the Act.
The landlord’s acknowledgement of fault and genuine apology are noted, and I have reduced the compensation for these reasons, and also because I accept that this was a genuine error in calculation.
I award compensation of $1,500.00 pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act. Filing Fee
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Both parties seek suppression of name. Having succeeded with their claim, the tenants are entitled to suppression.
The landlord seeks suppression on the basis of the impact of publication of this finding on her reputation, and the fact that this was a genuine accident rather than a deliberate action. Given the landlord’s acceptance of fault, I was surprised that this matter was not settled at mediation. I note and accept the reasons given. Considering the fact that the landlord did not dispute liability and left the quantum of compensation in the hands of the Tribunal, this is essentially an agreed order, and on that basis, I consider the landlord’s privacy interests outweigh the public interest in publication.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4495177 — net $1,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation	$1,500.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,520.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants and landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,520.44 immediately, made up as follows:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
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.
Both parties agree that notice to terminate the tenancy was given on 8 December 2022. The notice was intended to be a 63-day notice of termination as the landlord’s son was to move into the premises.
The notice gave a termination date of 29 January 2023. That is 52 days’ notice, rather than the required 63 days.
Section 57(7) notes that where there has been a mistake over the period of notice, or some delay in servicing the notice, the notice period can be waived both parties, or the landlord can application to Tribunal for consent to issue a further notice varying the first notice, so as to bring the period up to, or above the minimum required.
Section 51(9) sets out the reasons for consenting to such a variation, including: The Tribunal shall not give its consent under subsection (7) unless it is satisfied— (a) that the error in the notice or the delay in serving the notice was inadvertent; and (b) that the party who gave the notice has sought to correct the matter as soon as practicable after realising that the period of notice given is inadequate; and (c) that it would not be unfair to the other party to allow the original notice to be varied in the manner proposed.
The District Court in Charan v Barfoot & Thompson Limited (CIV-2010-092- 002100, Manukau DC, 14 June 2010) confirms that the notice periods are mandatory. Even the provisions of s51(7) do not shorten the notice periods, they simply allow correction of the notice to ensure adequate notice is given.
No application to vary the notice was made in this case, and I do not accept that the tenants waived their right to full notice.
The notice to terminate was invalid and unenforceable.
That said, the tenants have moved out of the premises, in accordance with the notice, so their remedy is in compensation.
In terms of section 60AA, I do not consider the landlord has committed an unlawful Act. The reason for the notice was valid, and there has been no challenge to that fact. Rather, the period of notice was wrong. The tenants could have challenged that notice and remained in the premises for the time it took to correct the notice or for new notice to be served. That would have reduced the pressure on them to find new accommodation, although I accept it would not have prevented the termination of the tenancy.
I do not consider exemplary damages are appropriate in the circumstances, however, I do consider the tenants are entitled to compensation for the landlord’s breach of the Act.
The landlord’s acknowledgement of fault and genuine apology are noted, and I have reduced the compensation for these reasons, and also because I accept that this was a genuine error in calculation.
I award compensation of $1,500.00 pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act. Filing Fee
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Both parties seek suppression of name. Having succeeded with their claim, the tenants are entitled to suppression.
The landlord seeks suppression on the basis of the impact of publication of this finding on her reputation, and the fact that this was a genuine accident rather than a deliberate action. Given the landlord’s acceptance of fault, I was surprised that this matter was not settled at mediation. I note and accept the reasons given. Considering the fact that the landlord did not dispute liability and left the quantum of compensation in the hands of the Tribunal, this is essentially an agreed order, and on that basis, I consider the landlord’s privacy interests outweigh the public interest in publication.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4495177 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4495177 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions