What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4609369 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4609369?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609369?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11831972-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4609369 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4609369?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609369?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11831972-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat A, 50 Wright Road, Dairy Flat, Auckland 0794 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4609369 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

On 6 November 2024 the Tribunal granted the tenant a rehearing of an order dated 12 October 2023 dismissing his application for exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord had unlawfully terminated his tenancy on the pretext that a family member (the owner’s daughter) wished to reside at the premises.
The tenant alleged that the termination was retaliatory based on him raising maintenance issues.
Both parties attended the hearing I held on 22 January 2022.
The hearing was problematic because the interpreter arranged for the hearing did not turn up. The landlord (owner) does not speak English and was due to return to China.
However, I was able to hear evidence from the landlord’s daughter who spoke good English. That evidence was important because the basis of the tenant’s claim is that the landlord made up the reason to terminate the tenancy; it was misleading to say that the premises were needed for the landlord’s daughter to reside in.
I asked the witness relevant questions with the tenant’s consent.
The parties agreed with my suggestion that they provide written submissions addressing the issues.
I made a timetable for the submissions to be filed. Due to an error on the tenant’s part, I later amended the timetable. The tenant provided written submissions in line with the amended directions I issued. The Tribunal received no submissions from the landlord. The hearing ended on 9 May 2025. The tenant’s case
The thrust of the tenant’s case is that the landlord made up a reason to terminate the tenancy, unhappy with his request for maintenance to be done to the premises.
The tenant states that the landlord has been unreliable in what she had told the Tribunal and has provided false statements. He states that the Tribunal’s examination of the witness (the landlord’s daughter) could have been more thorough.
Mr Priestly said he noticed an advertisement for the premises (the minor dwelling) sometime in January 2024 by a property management company which suggest that the decision to rent it was probably made in late December 2023/early January 2024. He suggested that the Tribunal request the listing details to confirm that. However, it is not the Tribunal’s role to obtain evidence for a party.
Mr Priestley has stated that ‘there are too many anomalies in the landlord’s and their daughter’s story’.
Mr Priestley seeks the maximum award of exemplary damages because of what he considers was a retaliatory notice to terminate his tenancy of the minor dwelling and a ‘made-up’ reason for ending the tenancy. The witness evidence
The landlord’s daughter said that she was at high school and wanted to have her own space and privacy because there were several people coming from China for a wedding who would have been staying with her mother.
She said she moved into the premises a few days after Mr Priestley vacated and she lived there until new tenants moved in on 8 March 2024.
She said she enjoyed living independently but made the decision to study overseas and her parents thought it better to rent out the unit to pay for her international student fees. Discussion
Unlike the first adjudicator, I had the benefit of hearing from the landlord’s daughter who moved into the minor dwelling that Mr Priestley had rented.
The notice to terminate the tenancy was based on a family member (the daughter) requiring the premises for their use. For this tenancy, section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) allowed a landlord to terminate the tenancy on 63 days’ notice. But the family member must use the premises as their principal place of residence for at least 90 days.
These premises, described as the minor dwelling, were on the same title as the main dwelling so the landlord’s teenage daughter did not occupy them at a physically distinct location.
The tenant has concentrated on that aspect of the termination of his tenancy at the rehearing rather than on the issue of retaliatory notice, although he does mention that.
A rehearing is a hearing afresh. I heard no evidence from the tenant on which I could conclude that the notice to terminate was a retaliatory notice based on him raising maintenance issues.
That then leaves the question: did the landlord genuinely require the premises for use by their daughter as her principal place of residence for at least 90 days?
While Mr Priestley has suggested that the Tribunal’s questioning of the landlord’s daughter was not thorough enough, in my order dated 22 January 2025, I recorded at paragraph 6: Mr Priestley agreed that my questions addressed the relevant matters, and he did not ask any further questions of the witness.
The landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was dated 19 June 2023. The tenancy was to end on 23 August 2023. But the tenant remained in possession.
The Tribunal terminated the tenancy by order dated 12 October 2023 and in doing so gave the tenant a further period of 63 days in which to vacate. Possession was granted to the landlord on 15 December 2023.
Had the tenant vacated when he was meant to, the landlord’s daughter would have taken possession after 23 August 2023, so there would be no issue about her remaining in possession for at least 90 days.
It was the tenant’s challenge to that decision and the Tribunal’s (generous) extension by allowing a further 63-day period before possession was granted to the landlord that pushed the timeframe out.
So, while the landlord’s daughter vacated the tenancy before the end of the 90- day period mentioned in section 51(1) RTA, after the landlord eventually was able to obtain possession of the premises, that would not have occurred but for the later extension of time granted by the Tribunal.
Mr Priestley’s suspicion that his tenancy was ended for the landlord to just get rid of him is understandable. Part of the problem, it seems, was the language barrier. He suspects that the owners have played on that. Also, the fact that the premises were listed for rent so soon after the landlord’s daughter moved in seems questionable to him.
However, plans change. I had heard evidence from the landlord’s daughter. I examined that evidence with the tenant’s consent, and I specifically asked him whether I had asked all the questions he wanted the witness to answer. He confirmed that I had.
A decision to terminate a tenancy can be unsettling and inconvenient for a tenant. Mr Priestley referred to the stress, anguish, and cost. I acknowledge that. But his suspicion about the landlord being deliberately misleading and misrepresenting her English language ability are not conclusions I would draw. My observation of the landlord was that she did not understand the proceedings in English at all. I took the unusual step of allowing a support person to translate what I was saying in the absence of a Tribunal appointed interpreter.
The Tribunal’s earlier concern that the landlord’s daughter had not given evidence has been addressed; that seems to have been a factor in the tenant being granted a rehearing.
I find that the landlord did not end the tenancy based on retaliation for anything the tenant did, and the reason for the notice terminating the tenancy was genuine. But for the later events – the tenant’s application and the Tribunal’s extension of time to vacate – the tenant’s daughter would have taken possession much earlier and would have remained in possession for at least 90 days. Result
The tenant’s application is dismissed. He has failed to prove that the landlord unlawfully terminated the tenancy or that the notice to terminate was retaliatory. Name suppression
In his written submissions the tenant has specifically stated that he wishes that this order be published in the public interest. Because the application is unsuccessful the tenant would not have been eligible for a name suppression order.
I received no application for name suppression from the landlord.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

On 6 November 2024 the Tribunal granted the tenant a rehearing of an order dated 12 October 2023 dismissing his application for exemplary damages on the basis that the landlord had unlawfully terminated his tenancy on the pretext that a family member (the owner’s daughter) wished to reside at the premises.
The tenant alleged that the termination was retaliatory based on him raising maintenance issues.
Both parties attended the hearing I held on 22 January 2022.
The hearing was problematic because the interpreter arranged for the hearing did not turn up. The landlord (owner) does not speak English and was due to return to China.
However, I was able to hear evidence from the landlord’s daughter who spoke good English. That evidence was important because the basis of the tenant’s claim is that the landlord made up the reason to terminate the tenancy; it was misleading to say that the premises were needed for the landlord’s daughter to reside in.
I asked the witness relevant questions with the tenant’s consent.
The parties agreed with my suggestion that they provide written submissions addressing the issues.
I made a timetable for the submissions to be filed. Due to an error on the tenant’s part, I later amended the timetable. The tenant provided written submissions in line with the amended directions I issued. The Tribunal received no submissions from the landlord. The hearing ended on 9 May 2025. The tenant’s case
The thrust of the tenant’s case is that the landlord made up a reason to terminate the tenancy, unhappy with his request for maintenance to be done to the premises.
The tenant states that the landlord has been unreliable in what she had told the Tribunal and has provided false statements. He states that the Tribunal’s examination of the witness (the landlord’s daughter) could have been more thorough.
Mr Priestly said he noticed an advertisement for the premises (the minor dwelling) sometime in January 2024 by a property management company which suggest that the decision to rent it was probably made in late December 2023/early January 2024. He suggested that the Tribunal request the listing details to confirm that. However, it is not the Tribunal’s role to obtain evidence for a party.
Mr Priestley has stated that ‘there are too many anomalies in the landlord’s and their daughter’s story’.
Mr Priestley seeks the maximum award of exemplary damages because of what he considers was a retaliatory notice to terminate his tenancy of the minor dwelling and a ‘made-up’ reason for ending the tenancy. The witness evidence
The landlord’s daughter said that she was at high school and wanted to have her own space and privacy because there were several people coming from China for a wedding who would have been staying with her mother.
She said she moved into the premises a few days after Mr Priestley vacated and she lived there until new tenants moved in on 8 March 2024.
She said she enjoyed living independently but made the decision to study overseas and her parents thought it better to rent out the unit to pay for her international student fees. Discussion
Unlike the first adjudicator, I had the benefit of hearing from the landlord’s daughter who moved into the minor dwelling that Mr Priestley had rented.
The notice to terminate the tenancy was based on a family member (the daughter) requiring the premises for their use. For this tenancy, section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) allowed a landlord to terminate the tenancy on 63 days’ notice. But the family member must use the premises as their principal place of residence for at least 90 days.
These premises, described as the minor dwelling, were on the same title as the main dwelling so the landlord’s teenage daughter did not occupy them at a physically distinct location.
The tenant has concentrated on that aspect of the termination of his tenancy at the rehearing rather than on the issue of retaliatory notice, although he does mention that.
A rehearing is a hearing afresh. I heard no evidence from the tenant on which I could conclude that the notice to terminate was a retaliatory notice based on him raising maintenance issues.
That then leaves the question: did the landlord genuinely require the premises for use by their daughter as her principal place of residence for at least 90 days?
While Mr Priestley has suggested that the Tribunal’s questioning of the landlord’s daughter was not thorough enough, in my order dated 22 January 2025, I recorded at paragraph 6: Mr Priestley agreed that my questions addressed the relevant matters, and he did not ask any further questions of the witness.
The landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was dated 19 June 2023. The tenancy was to end on 23 August 2023. But the tenant remained in possession.
The Tribunal terminated the tenancy by order dated 12 October 2023 and in doing so gave the tenant a further period of 63 days in which to vacate. Possession was granted to the landlord on 15 December 2023.
Had the tenant vacated when he was meant to, the landlord’s daughter would have taken possession after 23 August 2023, so there would be no issue about her remaining in possession for at least 90 days.
It was the tenant’s challenge to that decision and the Tribunal’s (generous) extension by allowing a further 63-day period before possession was granted to the landlord that pushed the timeframe out.
So, while the landlord’s daughter vacated the tenancy before the end of the 90- day period mentioned in section 51(1) RTA, after the landlord eventually was able to obtain possession of the premises, that would not have occurred but for the later extension of time granted by the Tribunal.
Mr Priestley’s suspicion that his tenancy was ended for the landlord to just get rid of him is understandable. Part of the problem, it seems, was the language barrier. He suspects that the owners have played on that. Also, the fact that the premises were listed for rent so soon after the landlord’s daughter moved in seems questionable to him.
However, plans change. I had heard evidence from the landlord’s daughter. I examined that evidence with the tenant’s consent, and I specifically asked him whether I had asked all the questions he wanted the witness to answer. He confirmed that I had.
A decision to terminate a tenancy can be unsettling and inconvenient for a tenant. Mr Priestley referred to the stress, anguish, and cost. I acknowledge that. But his suspicion about the landlord being deliberately misleading and misrepresenting her English language ability are not conclusions I would draw. My observation of the landlord was that she did not understand the proceedings in English at all. I took the unusual step of allowing a support person to translate what I was saying in the absence of a Tribunal appointed interpreter.
The Tribunal’s earlier concern that the landlord’s daughter had not given evidence has been addressed; that seems to have been a factor in the tenant being granted a rehearing.
I find that the landlord did not end the tenancy based on retaliation for anything the tenant did, and the reason for the notice terminating the tenancy was genuine. But for the later events – the tenant’s application and the Tribunal’s extension of time to vacate – the tenant’s daughter would have taken possession much earlier and would have remained in possession for at least 90 days. Result
The tenant’s application is dismissed. He has failed to prove that the landlord unlawfully terminated the tenancy or that the notice to terminate was retaliatory. Name suppression
In his written submissions the tenant has specifically stated that he wishes that this order be published in the public interest. Because the application is unsuccessful the tenant would not have been eligible for a name suppression order.
I received no application for name suppression from the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609369 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat A, 50 Wright Road, Dairy Flat, Auckland 0794

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609369 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat A, 50 Wright Road, Dairy Flat, Auckland 0794

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