What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4584290 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 4584290?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4584290?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4584290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9308231-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4584290 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 4584290?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4584290?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4584290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9308231-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4584290 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Agent] appeared for the landlord. The owners attended via teleconference. Both tenants attended the hearing.
The tenanted premises were at [tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”).
The tenancy of the premises commenced on 17 February 2022.
The tenants claim that the landlord has acted unlawfully to terminate the tenancy without grounds (see s.60AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)). That section provides that a landlord commits an unlawful act (rendering them liable to an order for exemplary damages) where the landlord gives a notice to a tenant terminating a tenancy, knowing that they are not entitled under the RTA, to give that notice.
The tenancy agreement records that this was a fixed term tenancy which was to end on 16 February 2023.
On 16 October 2022, the tenants asked the landlord if there was any possibility of extending the term of the tenancy.
By email dated 19 October 2023, the landlord confirmed that; “The owners have come back to me and have said they are planning a refurbishment and will live in it a while from April next year. So at this stage all they can offer is a short renewal through until April next year. Would you like a short renewal or will you vacate in February when your current contract finishes?” Tenant Evidence
The tenants said that having received the email notice from the landlord on 19 October 2022, they accepted that the fixed term tenancy ended on 16 February 2023 and that the tenancy from that time until 30 April 2023 was a periodic tenancy. The landlord confirmed in evidence that this was also their understanding.
The tenants asked the landlord if there was any flexibility in their giving the landlord 28 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy between 16 February 2023 and 30 April 2023, as this was proving to be an issue in their search for new accommodation. The landlord replied saying that they would require the 28 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 30 April 2023 as agreed by the parties.
On or about 17 May 2023, the tenants were informed that the premises were being advertised for rent at an increased rental of $700.00.per week.
The tenants say that the landlord has terminated the tenancy with the intention of relisting the tenancy at a higher rent. The tenant has applied for compensation for costs associated with moving and exemplary damages .
The tenants say that the landlord was entitled under s.51(1)(a) RTA to give them notice to terminate the tenancy, if within 90 days of the termination date the premises were used by the owner or their family as a principal place of residence for at least 90 days. The tenants say that the owners have not used the premises as a place of residence.
The tenants says that the owner was entitled under s.51(2)(f) RTA to give them notice if; o Extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs or redevelopment of the premises were to be carried out by the landlord; and o It would not be reasonably practical for the tenant to remain in occupation whilst the work is carried out; and o That work or a material step towards it are taken within 90 days of the termination date.
The tenant says that the work has not been carried out. Landlord Evidence
The landlord essentially accepts the tenant evidence, but explains the situation as follows.
The owners live in [Country].
It was the owners intention to carry out renovations to the premises personally.
It was their intention to move to New Zealand and reside in the premises whilst the renovation work was carried out. The owner [Owner] is a builder and the owners explained that they have worked on renovation projects in the past.
They say that as of 18 October 2022, when the tenants were given notice of termination of the fixed term tenancy, that this was their intention.
The owner provided evidence from a medical practitioner that on 2 February 2023, [Owner] suffered right shoulder rotator cuff tear. The medical certificates record that [Owner] would have no capacity to work until August 2023.
Surgery to the shoulder was scheduled to be carried out on 1 June 2023.
The owners visited the premises for a week on 6 May 2023 to replace the carpet at the premises.
The owners also met with building designers and arranged a full land survey whilst in [City] during that week . The owners provided evidence of site meetings with an architect on 12 May 2023 and elevation survey plans.
The balance of the renovation work was put off until [Owner] had sufficiently recovered.
[Agent] said that he was informed by the owners that the renovation project was to be suspended as a result of the injury. He contacted the tenants by phone soon after the tenancy ended ( and before the property was relisted as being for rent) to see if they wanted to move back to the premises. The tenants did not take up that offer.
The owner [Owner 2] said that it had been their intention to live on site while the renovation work was carried out. [Agent] said that the nature of the work was such that it would not have been suitable for a tenant to remain in the premises whilst the work was carried out.
The renovation was to have been carried out in a 2-stage process. The first stage consisting of renovating the bathroom, recarpeting and extending the bottom floor. The second stage was to be renovation to the upper floor.
The owners say that they have rented out their property in [Country] because of their intention to be at the premises. The injury to [Owner] has resulted in the owners remaining in [Country] and living in a caravan.
Rather than have the premises sit empty for the period from the end of the tenancy until the when the owners are able to return, a decision was made to relet the premises. The landlord said that the premises had been advertised as being available for a short term only .
In response to the suggestion by the tenants that their tenancy had been terminated so that the rent could be increased, the landlord said that had that been their intention, they would simply have given the tenants notice of a rent increase. Issues
The onus or job of proving the claim is on the tenants. They must prove their claim to the Tribunal on the usual civil law standard called the balance of probabilities. The point where I accept what they say is more likely than not to be correct. In a crude mathematical sense, they must prove their claim to the point where I am 51% sure that what they are saying is correct. Proof to 50 % or less means as a matter of law that their claim must fail.
Having reviewed the evidence, I have no doubt that when the landlord gave notice of termination on behalf of the owners in October 2022, the owners did not wish to renew the fixed term tenancy because they intended to use the premises within 90 days of the date of termination, as their principal place of residence. That they let out their residence in [Country] and now find themselves living in a caravan supports that finding.
I have no doubt that when the landlord gave notice on behalf of the owners in October 2022, that the owners intended to carry out renovations to the premises, or at least take a material step towards doing so within 90 days of the termination date. I further accept (by a fine margin) that it would not have been reasonably practical for the tenants to remain at the premises whilst the work was carried out. I record that this limb of the test was not referred to by the tenants in their evidence.
I accept the evidence provided by the owners that their expressed intentions have changed solely as a result of the injury to [Owner]. The injury being such that he could not physically carry out the work intended.
As a result of these findings, I do not consider that the landlord gave notice to the tenant knowing that they were not entitled to. The application is dismissed.
The situation that arose caused the tenants a great deal of stress in a very difficult [City] rental market through absolutely no fault of their own. Anecdotal evidence of landlord’s terminating tenancies with the intention of raising rentals or transferring residential tenancies into other markets is not unheard of. I do not consider this to be one of those cases.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord details is ordered.
The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter, but I do not consider that there is any public interest in the tenant details being published. The tenants have throughout acted genuinely on the facts as they perceived them to be. I do not think that the tenants have pursued these proceedings maliciously. Suppression of the tenants’ details is ordered.
I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4584290 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4584290 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions