What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4601449 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 4601449?

Compensation: Loss Of Use Of Garage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4601449?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4601449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9500589-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4601449 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 4601449?

Compensation: Loss Of Use Of Garage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4601449?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4601449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9500589-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13 Spinnaker Lane, Tutukaka, RD 3, Whangarei 0173 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4601449 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4601449 — net $320.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of use of garage	$300.00	Loss of use of garage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	39. [The tenant/s] has been partially successful in her application, and I will award her the filing fee of $20.44 6 .
Net award	$320.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$320.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 29 June 2022 and ended on 24 April 2023.
The tenant’s application seeks compensation and exemplary damages under the following headings: a. Unlawful termination. b. Unlawful rent increase. c. Loss of amenity / breach of quiet enjoyment associated with a leak in the garage.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 27 September 2023. [The tenant/s], Ms Xu, and Ms Pitman (representing Better Rentals and Property Management) attended the hearing. Unlawful termination
At the time of negotiating the tenancy [The tenant/s] told the landlord that she wanted a long-term tenancy. [The tenant/s] explained that she had lived in Tutukaka before, she liked the area, and she wanted to ‘put down roots’, even though it necessitated a long commute to her place of work. [The tenant/s] had approximately 100m3 of personal belongings, and it was expensive and difficult for her to move.
The landlords told her that they also wanted a long-term tenancy.
The parties entered into a periodic tenancy.
On 3 March 2023, less than nine months after the start of the tenancy, the landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy on 4 May 2023 on the grounds that the owners intended to move back into the property.
[The tenant/s] raised two issues under this heading: a. That she had accepted the tenancy on the understanding that it would be a long-term arrangement. b. That the landlord put the property on the market for sale within a few days of her vacating the property.
I accept that the landlord did indicate their intention that this would be a ‘long term’ tenancy, and that [The tenant/s] accepted the tenancy on this understanding.
However, there are only two types of residential tenancies in New Zealand – fixed term tenancies and periodic tenancies. If a tenancy is not for a fixed term, it is a periodic tenancy 1 . Periodic tenancies can be lawfully terminated by notice. Tenants can terminate a periodic tenancy at any time for any reason by giving the landlord 28 days’ notice in writing 2 . A landlord can only terminate a tenancy in certain circumstances, and the period of notice that they are required to give is usually 63 days or 90 days (depending on the reason for termination) 3 . 1 Per the definition of periodic tenancy in section 2, Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 Section 51(2B) RTA 3 Section 51(a) and (b) RTA
The parties entered into a periodic tenancy in this instance.
The initial conversations about a long-term tenancy did not prevent the landlord from terminating the tenancy by notice, provided that they had grounds to do so.
A landlord can terminate the tenancy by giving 63-days’ notice if the landlord (or a member of the landlord’s family) requires the premises as their principal place of residence 4 .
A landlord can terminate the tenancy by giving 90-days’ notice if the landlord intends to put the premises on the market for sale within days of the end of the tenancy 5 .
On Ms Xu’s instruction, Ms Pitman issued notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that the owners required the premises as their principal place of residence.
Soon after [The tenant/s] moved out, the property was put on the market for sale.
[The tenant/s] seeks compensation / exemplary damages on the grounds that the landlord intentionally gave her notice on the incorrect grounds, which meant that her notice period was only 63 days and not the 90 days that she was entitled to.
Ms Xu submitted that: a. She and her husband own a takeaway business in the Whangarei Heads area. b. They (and their young daughter) were living in a small flat above the takeaway shop. c. In February this year, she discovered that her elderly grandfather, who lives in China, was very unwell and in hospital. d. In China, a person can only get hospital care if it is paid for in advance. Hospital care is very expensive. e. She was very concerned about her grandfather’s ongoing care and the financial strain this was placing on her family in China. She needed to make some money available to assist her family. f. She found someone who was interested in purchasing the takeaway business. Her intention was to sell the business and move back into the Spinnaker Lane house. g. On that basis, she instructed Ms Pitman to give notice to terminate the tenancy. 4 Section 51(1)(a) RTA 5 Section 51(2)(a) RTA h. The purchaser then encountered difficulties obtaining finance. It was possible that the sale of the business could fall through. i. She could not risk being without funds to assist her family. Reluctantly, she put the Spinnaker Lane house on the market for sale. j. The business purchaser was eventually able to obtain finance, and the sale of the business proceeded. As soon as she received the proceeds from the sale, she took the Spinnaker Lane house off the market. k. She is living in the house now with her family.
Ms Xu’s submissions were clear, detailed, and persuasive. I accept that the summary above is an accurate record of the circumstances around the issuance of the termination notice and subsequent events.
My finding is that the termination was not incorrect or unlawful, and that there are no grounds for making an award of compensation or exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. At the time of giving the notice the landlord genuinely intended to move back into the premises and use it as their principal place of residence. The correct type of notice was given to the tenant. b. The landlord has in fact moved back into the premises and is using it as their principal place of residence. Unlawful rent increase
In March 2023, Mr Cao was at the property for purposes related to the garage leak. Whilst there he had a conversation with [The tenant/s], which [The tenant/s] recorded. [The tenant/s] provided a transcript of the conversation in her evidence.
In that wide-ranging conversation Mr Cao commented that the amount of rent [The tenant/s] paid fell well short of the costs of owning the property, and that they would be in a position of having to sell the property unless the rent increased.
[The tenant/s] submitted that this constituted a breach of section 24(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which states that the landlord may not increase the rent within the first 12 months of the commencement of the tenancy.
I agree that that landlord would have breached this section if they had issued a notice of rent increase. They did not.
At the hearing Ms Xu stated that her husband should not have said these things to [The tenant/s]. I agree that it was careless, and it caused [The tenant/s] some anxiety. However, a theoretical conversation about a possible rent increase is not a rent increase. There has been no breach of a legal duty owed by the landlord, and no basis for an award of compensation or exemplary damages. Garage leak
In November 2022 [The tenant/s] let the landlord know about a leak coming into a corner of the garage.
Ms Xu involved her builder and her insurers.
After a lengthy process of investigation and repairs, exacerbated by the Christmas / New Year break, by early February 2023 it appeared that the leak was successfully repaired.
After Cyclone Gabrielle hit in mid-February, the leak recurred.
After some negotiation, the landlords agreed to pay [The tenant/s] compensation of $400.00, based on $50.00 per week for 8 weeks.
[The tenant/s] considers that this amount is insufficient having regards to: a. The length of time that she was impacted by the leaks. b. The loss of use of the garage. Before the leak, [The tenant/s] had her vehicle and boxes of her belongings in the garage. When the leak occurred, she had to move boxes which mean that there was no longer room for her car. This situation persisted from November until the end of her tenancy. c. The inconvenience resulting from multiple attendances by builders, insurance representatives, and the landlords.
I am satisfied that the landlords met their maintenance obligation. They acted promptly and appropriately when [The tenant/s] informed them of the leak. The process of investigating and repairing the leak was complex. Ms Xu and Ms Pitman ensured that there were minimal delays in the investigation / repair process.
However, I agree that the leak caused [The tenant/s] a loss of amenity for which she is entitled to compensation. She lost the use of part of the garage for a lengthy period. The work necessitated regular visits by various persons.
The assessment of compensation should take into account the period during which [The tenant/s] experienced these impacts. Although the landlord took all reasonable steps to repair the leak promptly, and it appeared that the leak was repaired by early February 2023, unfortunately it recurred after Cyclone Gabrielle which meant that [The tenant/s] was impacted for the whole period from November 2022 until the end of her tenancy in April 2023, except for a couple of weeks in early February.
My finding is that the landlord’s assessment of compensation was based on too short a period. Compensation should be assessed on 20 weeks.
However, the amount of compensation calculated by the landlord, $50.00 per week was, in my view, an over-assessment of the loss of amenity that [The tenant/s] incurred. The leak affected a relatively small part of the garage. Landlords have a duty to maintain the premises, and tradespeople (etc.) being at the property to do work is a routine part of being a tenant.
In my view an appropriate assessment of compensation is 20 weeks at $35.00 per week.
Therefore, [The tenant/s] is entitled to further compensation of $300.00. Filing fee, name suppression
[The tenant/s] has been partially successful in her application, and I will award her the filing fee of $20.44 6 .
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression.
Name suppression can be granted on the basis that a party has “substantially succeeded in the proceedings” 7 . [The tenant/s] has not substantially succeeded in these proceedings.
The Tribunal also has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest” 8 .
Since leaving this tenancy [The tenant/s] has had difficulties with finding a new rental. [The tenant/s] is concerned that publication of her name may exacerbate those difficulties.
There is no legitimate public interest in the publication of the tenant’s name in this instance.
The request for name suppression is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4601449 — net $320.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Loss of use of garage	$300.00	Loss of use of garage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	39. [The tenant/s] has been partially successful in her application, and I will award her the filing fee of $20.44 6 .
Net award	$320.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$320.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 29 June 2022 and ended on 24 April 2023.
The tenant’s application seeks compensation and exemplary damages under the following headings: a. Unlawful termination. b. Unlawful rent increase. c. Loss of amenity / breach of quiet enjoyment associated with a leak in the garage.
The hearing took place in [Event location suppressed] on 27 September 2023. [The tenant/s], Ms Xu, and Ms Pitman (representing Better Rentals and Property Management) attended the hearing. Unlawful termination
At the time of negotiating the tenancy [The tenant/s] told the landlord that she wanted a long-term tenancy. [The tenant/s] explained that she had lived in Tutukaka before, she liked the area, and she wanted to ‘put down roots’, even though it necessitated a long commute to her place of work. [The tenant/s] had approximately 100m3 of personal belongings, and it was expensive and difficult for her to move.
The landlords told her that they also wanted a long-term tenancy.
The parties entered into a periodic tenancy.
On 3 March 2023, less than nine months after the start of the tenancy, the landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy on 4 May 2023 on the grounds that the owners intended to move back into the property.
[The tenant/s] raised two issues under this heading: a. That she had accepted the tenancy on the understanding that it would be a long-term arrangement. b. That the landlord put the property on the market for sale within a few days of her vacating the property.
I accept that the landlord did indicate their intention that this would be a ‘long term’ tenancy, and that [The tenant/s] accepted the tenancy on this understanding.
However, there are only two types of residential tenancies in New Zealand – fixed term tenancies and periodic tenancies. If a tenancy is not for a fixed term, it is a periodic tenancy 1 . Periodic tenancies can be lawfully terminated by notice. Tenants can terminate a periodic tenancy at any time for any reason by giving the landlord 28 days’ notice in writing 2 . A landlord can only terminate a tenancy in certain circumstances, and the period of notice that they are required to give is usually 63 days or 90 days (depending on the reason for termination) 3 . 1 Per the definition of periodic tenancy in section 2, Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 2 Section 51(2B) RTA 3 Section 51(a) and (b) RTA
The parties entered into a periodic tenancy in this instance.
The initial conversations about a long-term tenancy did not prevent the landlord from terminating the tenancy by notice, provided that they had grounds to do so.
A landlord can terminate the tenancy by giving 63-days’ notice if the landlord (or a member of the landlord’s family) requires the premises as their principal place of residence 4 .
A landlord can terminate the tenancy by giving 90-days’ notice if the landlord intends to put the premises on the market for sale within days of the end of the tenancy 5 .
On Ms Xu’s instruction, Ms Pitman issued notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that the owners required the premises as their principal place of residence.
Soon after [The tenant/s] moved out, the property was put on the market for sale.
[The tenant/s] seeks compensation / exemplary damages on the grounds that the landlord intentionally gave her notice on the incorrect grounds, which meant that her notice period was only 63 days and not the 90 days that she was entitled to.
Ms Xu submitted that: a. She and her husband own a takeaway business in the Whangarei Heads area. b. They (and their young daughter) were living in a small flat above the takeaway shop. c. In February this year, she discovered that her elderly grandfather, who lives in China, was very unwell and in hospital. d. In China, a person can only get hospital care if it is paid for in advance. Hospital care is very expensive. e. She was very concerned about her grandfather’s ongoing care and the financial strain this was placing on her family in China. She needed to make some money available to assist her family. f. She found someone who was interested in purchasing the takeaway business. Her intention was to sell the business and move back into the Spinnaker Lane house. g. On that basis, she instructed Ms Pitman to give notice to terminate the tenancy. 4 Section 51(1)(a) RTA 5 Section 51(2)(a) RTA h. The purchaser then encountered difficulties obtaining finance. It was possible that the sale of the business could fall through. i. She could not risk being without funds to assist her family. Reluctantly, she put the Spinnaker Lane house on the market for sale. j. The business purchaser was eventually able to obtain finance, and the sale of the business proceeded. As soon as she received the proceeds from the sale, she took the Spinnaker Lane house off the market. k. She is living in the house now with her family.
Ms Xu’s submissions were clear, detailed, and persuasive. I accept that the summary above is an accurate record of the circumstances around the issuance of the termination notice and subsequent events.
My finding is that the termination was not incorrect or unlawful, and that there are no grounds for making an award of compensation or exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. At the time of giving the notice the landlord genuinely intended to move back into the premises and use it as their principal place of residence. The correct type of notice was given to the tenant. b. The landlord has in fact moved back into the premises and is using it as their principal place of residence. Unlawful rent increase
In March 2023, Mr Cao was at the property for purposes related to the garage leak. Whilst there he had a conversation with [The tenant/s], which [The tenant/s] recorded. [The tenant/s] provided a transcript of the conversation in her evidence.
In that wide-ranging conversation Mr Cao commented that the amount of rent [The tenant/s] paid fell well short of the costs of owning the property, and that they would be in a position of having to sell the property unless the rent increased.
[The tenant/s] submitted that this constituted a breach of section 24(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which states that the landlord may not increase the rent within the first 12 months of the commencement of the tenancy.
I agree that that landlord would have breached this section if they had issued a notice of rent increase. They did not.
At the hearing Ms Xu stated that her husband should not have said these things to [The tenant/s]. I agree that it was careless, and it caused [The tenant/s] some anxiety. However, a theoretical conversation about a possible rent increase is not a rent increase. There has been no breach of a legal duty owed by the landlord, and no basis for an award of compensation or exemplary damages. Garage leak
In November 2022 [The tenant/s] let the landlord know about a leak coming into a corner of the garage.
Ms Xu involved her builder and her insurers.
After a lengthy process of investigation and repairs, exacerbated by the Christmas / New Year break, by early February 2023 it appeared that the leak was successfully repaired.
After Cyclone Gabrielle hit in mid-February, the leak recurred.
After some negotiation, the landlords agreed to pay [The tenant/s] compensation of $400.00, based on $50.00 per week for 8 weeks.
[The tenant/s] considers that this amount is insufficient having regards to: a. The length of time that she was impacted by the leaks. b. The loss of use of the garage. Before the leak, [The tenant/s] had her vehicle and boxes of her belongings in the garage. When the leak occurred, she had to move boxes which mean that there was no longer room for her car. This situation persisted from November until the end of her tenancy. c. The inconvenience resulting from multiple attendances by builders, insurance representatives, and the landlords.
I am satisfied that the landlords met their maintenance obligation. They acted promptly and appropriately when [The tenant/s] informed them of the leak. The process of investigating and repairing the leak was complex. Ms Xu and Ms Pitman ensured that there were minimal delays in the investigation / repair process.
However, I agree that the leak caused [The tenant/s] a loss of amenity for which she is entitled to compensation. She lost the use of part of the garage for a lengthy period. The work necessitated regular visits by various persons.
The assessment of compensation should take into account the period during which [The tenant/s] experienced these impacts. Although the landlord took all reasonable steps to repair the leak promptly, and it appeared that the leak was repaired by early February 2023, unfortunately it recurred after Cyclone Gabrielle which meant that [The tenant/s] was impacted for the whole period from November 2022 until the end of her tenancy in April 2023, except for a couple of weeks in early February.
My finding is that the landlord’s assessment of compensation was based on too short a period. Compensation should be assessed on 20 weeks.
However, the amount of compensation calculated by the landlord, $50.00 per week was, in my view, an over-assessment of the loss of amenity that [The tenant/s] incurred. The leak affected a relatively small part of the garage. Landlords have a duty to maintain the premises, and tradespeople (etc.) being at the property to do work is a routine part of being a tenant.
In my view an appropriate assessment of compensation is 20 weeks at $35.00 per week.
Therefore, [The tenant/s] is entitled to further compensation of $300.00. Filing fee, name suppression
[The tenant/s] has been partially successful in her application, and I will award her the filing fee of $20.44 6 .
[The tenant/s] sought name suppression.
Name suppression can be granted on the basis that a party has “substantially succeeded in the proceedings” 7 . [The tenant/s] has not substantially succeeded in these proceedings.
The Tribunal also has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party “having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest” 8 .
Since leaving this tenancy [The tenant/s] has had difficulties with finding a new rental. [The tenant/s] is concerned that publication of her name may exacerbate those difficulties.
There is no legitimate public interest in the publication of the tenant’s name in this instance.
The request for name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4601449 — Tenancy dispute at 13 Spinnaker Lane, Tutukaka, RD 3, Whangarei 0173

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4601449 — Tenancy dispute at 13 Spinnaker Lane, Tutukaka, RD 3, Whangarei 0173

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