What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4594729 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 4594729?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4594729?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4594729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9253468-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4594729 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 4594729?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4594729?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4594729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9253468-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4594729 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s termination notice dated 1 June 2023 was retaliatory and is declared to be of no effect.
Yvonne Barbara Bennett must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee for the application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. The landlord is elderly and was represented by her daughter.
On 2 June 2023 the tenant applied to set aside a termination notice dated 1 June 2023 and for exemplary damages. There is also a claim for a work order and for breach of quiet enjoyment. Background facts
The tenant has lived at the property since December 2018. She had permission from the landlord to have dogs at the property, which is in a rural setting.
The landlord’s son and grandson, who act as her agents and help to manage the property, knew that the tenant had a dog. Text messages between the grandson and the tenant show that the tenant sometimes looked after the grandson’s dog while he was away.
In about late March 2023, the grandson’s dog was killed when the tenant’s dog chased her onto the road. On 1 April 2023 the grandson told the tenant by text that she had 2 months to “get rid of your dog” or she was “out”. Later he texted: “You’ve got 2 months”. The tenant says she removed her dog a month later.
On 1 June 2023 the landlord served a 63-day notice of termination. The last day of the tenancy would be 4 August 2023. The reason given for the notice was that the landlord required the premises within 90 days of the termination date as the principal place of residence (for at least 90 days) for the owner or a member of the owner’s family.
A statement from the grandson was provided at the hearing. This explained that the grandson, who is an apprentice carpenter, is paying too much for his current rent and would like to live closer to his horses to provide their daily care. Relevant law
A termination notice is retaliatory if, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by the Act, or by any complaint against the landlord (section 54(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).
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.
Section 38 of the Act provides that the landlord (which includes the landlord’s agents) shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
Section 48 of the Act provides for the landlord’s right of entry to the premises, which for the purpose of the section does not include land or facilities. Analysis – retaliatory notice
The tenant had permission to have dogs at the property and the landlord’s agents knew she had a dog. She was therefore exercising a right under the tenancy agreement to keep pets when the landlord’s agent (her grandson) told the tenant to remove her dog or be evicted.
The timing of the accident involving the grandson’s dog, his subsequent demand that the tenant leave in 2 months if she did not remove her dog, and service of the termination notice 2 months later shows a temporal connection. This implies that the landlord was partly motivated in giving notice by the tenant’s exercise of her rights.
I accept that there was also an apparently genuine reason for terminating the tenancy, pursuant to section 51(1)(a) of the Act, relating to the grandson’s own accommodation needs. But to be retaliatory, a notice only needs to be partly motivated by the tenant’s exercise of her rights.
I find that the 1 June 2023 termination notice is invalid and must be set aside. It follows that the landlord, through her agent, committed an “unlawful act”.
The Tribunal may award exemplary damages for an unlawful act if it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest (section 109(3) of the Act).
I am not satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages. The landlord, although bound by the acts of her authorised agents, did not demand that the tenant either remove her dog or leave. The evidence suggests that the landlord is not capable of managing the property herself and in reality, her agents are acting as the landlord on her behalf.
The grandson was understandably upset at the loss of his pet, which affected the previously good relationship he had with the tenant ([redacted]). The tenant said the termination notice had caused her a great deal of worry and stress. At the same time, while I have held that the termination notice was retaliatory, it was given for other reasons too. The grandson seems to have a genuine reason for wanting to live at the property, namely the affordability of his current housing. Work order/unlawful entry
The tenant applied for a work order requiring the landlord to replace the carpet. She said it is worn out. There were no photographs to support this claim or to establish that the carpet needs replacement. I decline to make a work order.
The tenant complained that the son and grandson harassed her about the condition of the grounds, sometimes parked at the barn, and cut down some trees affecting her privacy. The landlord said the trees had to be removed for maintenance reasons. One had blown over, and another was creating a shadow over the house.
The landlord’s son lives next to the property, so it might be expected he would sometimes visit. No detail of the dates or times of his or the grandson’s visits to the external parts of the property were given. It was not suggested that the landlord’s agents had entered the house without giving notice or without consent freely given by the tenant at the time of entry.
The landlord’s representative said her brother sometimes went to the property to help mow the lawn and tidy rubbish. The tenant said the son came to the property to complain that these matters had not been attended to but did not assist. The tenant said she only had a hand-mower, and it was time-consuming for her to mow the large section. I consider that the son, who has a ride-on mower more suitable for keeping the land tidy, may have had implied permission to access the property to mow the lawn.
I am not satisfied on the available evidence that there has been any unlawful entry to the property, or a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, or that she has been harassed by the landlord’s agents. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant has established that the termination notice was retaliatory. I exercise my discretion to award the filing fee.
The tenant is granted name suppression as requested, pursuant to section 95A(1) of the Act.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s termination notice dated 1 June 2023 was retaliatory and is declared to be of no effect.
Yvonne Barbara Bennett must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee for the application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today. The landlord is elderly and was represented by her daughter.
On 2 June 2023 the tenant applied to set aside a termination notice dated 1 June 2023 and for exemplary damages. There is also a claim for a work order and for breach of quiet enjoyment. Background facts
The tenant has lived at the property since December 2018. She had permission from the landlord to have dogs at the property, which is in a rural setting.
The landlord’s son and grandson, who act as her agents and help to manage the property, knew that the tenant had a dog. Text messages between the grandson and the tenant show that the tenant sometimes looked after the grandson’s dog while he was away.
In about late March 2023, the grandson’s dog was killed when the tenant’s dog chased her onto the road. On 1 April 2023 the grandson told the tenant by text that she had 2 months to “get rid of your dog” or she was “out”. Later he texted: “You’ve got 2 months”. The tenant says she removed her dog a month later.
On 1 June 2023 the landlord served a 63-day notice of termination. The last day of the tenancy would be 4 August 2023. The reason given for the notice was that the landlord required the premises within 90 days of the termination date as the principal place of residence (for at least 90 days) for the owner or a member of the owner’s family.
A statement from the grandson was provided at the hearing. This explained that the grandson, who is an apprentice carpenter, is paying too much for his current rent and would like to live closer to his horses to provide their daily care. Relevant law
A termination notice is retaliatory if, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by the Act, or by any complaint against the landlord (section 54(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).
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.
Section 38 of the Act provides that the landlord (which includes the landlord’s agents) shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
Section 48 of the Act provides for the landlord’s right of entry to the premises, which for the purpose of the section does not include land or facilities. Analysis – retaliatory notice
The tenant had permission to have dogs at the property and the landlord’s agents knew she had a dog. She was therefore exercising a right under the tenancy agreement to keep pets when the landlord’s agent (her grandson) told the tenant to remove her dog or be evicted.
The timing of the accident involving the grandson’s dog, his subsequent demand that the tenant leave in 2 months if she did not remove her dog, and service of the termination notice 2 months later shows a temporal connection. This implies that the landlord was partly motivated in giving notice by the tenant’s exercise of her rights.
I accept that there was also an apparently genuine reason for terminating the tenancy, pursuant to section 51(1)(a) of the Act, relating to the grandson’s own accommodation needs. But to be retaliatory, a notice only needs to be partly motivated by the tenant’s exercise of her rights.
I find that the 1 June 2023 termination notice is invalid and must be set aside. It follows that the landlord, through her agent, committed an “unlawful act”.
The Tribunal may award exemplary damages for an unlawful act if it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest (section 109(3) of the Act).
I am not satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages. The landlord, although bound by the acts of her authorised agents, did not demand that the tenant either remove her dog or leave. The evidence suggests that the landlord is not capable of managing the property herself and in reality, her agents are acting as the landlord on her behalf.
The grandson was understandably upset at the loss of his pet, which affected the previously good relationship he had with the tenant ([redacted]). The tenant said the termination notice had caused her a great deal of worry and stress. At the same time, while I have held that the termination notice was retaliatory, it was given for other reasons too. The grandson seems to have a genuine reason for wanting to live at the property, namely the affordability of his current housing. Work order/unlawful entry
The tenant applied for a work order requiring the landlord to replace the carpet. She said it is worn out. There were no photographs to support this claim or to establish that the carpet needs replacement. I decline to make a work order.
The tenant complained that the son and grandson harassed her about the condition of the grounds, sometimes parked at the barn, and cut down some trees affecting her privacy. The landlord said the trees had to be removed for maintenance reasons. One had blown over, and another was creating a shadow over the house.
The landlord’s son lives next to the property, so it might be expected he would sometimes visit. No detail of the dates or times of his or the grandson’s visits to the external parts of the property were given. It was not suggested that the landlord’s agents had entered the house without giving notice or without consent freely given by the tenant at the time of entry.
The landlord’s representative said her brother sometimes went to the property to help mow the lawn and tidy rubbish. The tenant said the son came to the property to complain that these matters had not been attended to but did not assist. The tenant said she only had a hand-mower, and it was time-consuming for her to mow the large section. I consider that the son, who has a ride-on mower more suitable for keeping the land tidy, may have had implied permission to access the property to mow the lawn.
I am not satisfied on the available evidence that there has been any unlawful entry to the property, or a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, or that she has been harassed by the landlord’s agents. Filing fee and name suppression
The tenant has established that the termination notice was retaliatory. I exercise my discretion to award the filing fee.
The tenant is granted name suppression as requested, pursuant to section 95A(1) of the Act.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4594729 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4594729 — 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