What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4565309 about?

The tribunal order states: The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4565309?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4565309?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4565309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9298501-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4565309 about?

The tribunal order states: The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4565309?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4565309?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4565309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9298501-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

39A Hindmarsh Street, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4565309 — Exemplary damages

Order

The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

The respondent did not appear and could not be contacted by phone.
Sharon McDermott represented Peter, her brother, at the hearing.
The claim is that the landlord has committed an unlawful act under section 60AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986. (RTA).
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 tenancy began in May 2003 according to the tenant’s application. In July 2022, about 17 years later, the landlord gave notice that the periodic tenancy would come to an end because her family would be occupying the property from January 2023. A landlord is permitted to end a periodic tenancy on these grounds. Peter moved out of the property.
In April 2023 Sharon found the property advertised for rent on Trademe. When Sharon contacted the owner about this she was told that the family had changed their mind but she had renovated the premises. Sharon brought photos and the advertisement to the hearing confirming this had happened. She said that tradesmen were measuring up for the renovation even before Peter moved out.
Because the landlord ended the tenancy but did not use the premises for family as stated when ending the tenancy, it is possible that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The landlord did not appear at the hearing to provide evidence to show there had been a genuine change of plans by the family. If she had provided that evidence, it is possible that the change of plans was not intentional and therefore there was no intention to commit an unlawful act. It is possible that notice was given based on family occupying the premises, but the intention was always to renovate after 17 years of the premises being tenanted.
It should be noted that under section 51(2)(f) RTA the landlord could have given notice to Peter to end the tenancy to carry out renovations. In that section a landlord can give 90 days notice where the landlord intends carry out: extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and— (i) it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken; and (ii) the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date;
After Peter’s tenancy ended the owner did carry out a major renovation beginning within 90 days of the end of the tenancy. The work included turning the premises into a two bedroom unit from a one bedroom unit. I am satisfied that this was an extensive alteration making it impractical for the premises to be tenanted while that work was being done. Therefore, whether the notice was for family to be using the premises or for extensive alterations, the landlord could have ended Peter’s tenancy. The result would have been the same. Exemplary damages
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this case, whether the tenancy was terminated for family to move in or for alteration and refurbishment of the premises, the effect on Peter was the same. Peter’s tenancy would end. The landlord could end his tenancy in either case and so the effect would be that he would have to leave the premises. I understand that this change has been extremely difficult for Peter, who suffers from a serious medical condition. The landlord did not correctly give the reason for the tenancy ending but had grounds for ending the tenancy for family or alterations and the effect on Peter would have been the same.
Therefore, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. I do not find it just to order exemplary damages. Deduction from the bond for carpet damage
Sharon claimed that the landlord had taken money from the bond for carpet, but the carpet was not replaced.
The Application lodged by Sharon only rerefers to the ground for termination and exemplary damages and not to a deduction from the bond for carpet. I can only make orders about what is in an application.

Order

The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

The respondent did not appear and could not be contacted by phone.
Sharon McDermott represented Peter, her brother, at the hearing.
The claim is that the landlord has committed an unlawful act under section 60AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986. (RTA).
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 tenancy began in May 2003 according to the tenant’s application. In July 2022, about 17 years later, the landlord gave notice that the periodic tenancy would come to an end because her family would be occupying the property from January 2023. A landlord is permitted to end a periodic tenancy on these grounds. Peter moved out of the property.
In April 2023 Sharon found the property advertised for rent on Trademe. When Sharon contacted the owner about this she was told that the family had changed their mind but she had renovated the premises. Sharon brought photos and the advertisement to the hearing confirming this had happened. She said that tradesmen were measuring up for the renovation even before Peter moved out.
Because the landlord ended the tenancy but did not use the premises for family as stated when ending the tenancy, it is possible that the landlord has committed an unlawful act. The landlord did not appear at the hearing to provide evidence to show there had been a genuine change of plans by the family. If she had provided that evidence, it is possible that the change of plans was not intentional and therefore there was no intention to commit an unlawful act. It is possible that notice was given based on family occupying the premises, but the intention was always to renovate after 17 years of the premises being tenanted.
It should be noted that under section 51(2)(f) RTA the landlord could have given notice to Peter to end the tenancy to carry out renovations. In that section a landlord can give 90 days notice where the landlord intends carry out: extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and— (i) it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken; and (ii) the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date;
After Peter’s tenancy ended the owner did carry out a major renovation beginning within 90 days of the end of the tenancy. The work included turning the premises into a two bedroom unit from a one bedroom unit. I am satisfied that this was an extensive alteration making it impractical for the premises to be tenanted while that work was being done. Therefore, whether the notice was for family to be using the premises or for extensive alterations, the landlord could have ended Peter’s tenancy. The result would have been the same. Exemplary damages
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this case, whether the tenancy was terminated for family to move in or for alteration and refurbishment of the premises, the effect on Peter was the same. Peter’s tenancy would end. The landlord could end his tenancy in either case and so the effect would be that he would have to leave the premises. I understand that this change has been extremely difficult for Peter, who suffers from a serious medical condition. The landlord did not correctly give the reason for the tenancy ending but had grounds for ending the tenancy for family or alterations and the effect on Peter would have been the same.
Therefore, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. I do not find it just to order exemplary damages. Deduction from the bond for carpet damage
Sharon claimed that the landlord had taken money from the bond for carpet, but the carpet was not replaced.
The Application lodged by Sharon only rerefers to the ground for termination and exemplary damages and not to a deduction from the bond for carpet. I can only make orders about what is in an application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4565309 — Exemplary damages at 39A Hindmarsh Street, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4565309 — Exemplary damages at 39A Hindmarsh Street, Johnsonville, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions