What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4614078 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4614078?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614078?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614078?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9283578-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4614078 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4614078?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614078?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614078?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9283578-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4614078 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA RTA. Under Section 60AA RTA 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 parties agreed on the following facts: a. On 21 April 2023 the landlord gave the tenants notice of termination under section 51(1)(a) RTA on the basis that the landlord required the property as his principal place of residence. b. The termination date under the notice was 22 June 2023. c. The landlord’s manager advised that the owner, who ordinarily resided overseas, needed to occupy the property for some months in order to be near a sick friend. d. On 15 June 2023 the landlord contacted his manager and advised that because a close family member was unwell in [redacted] where he lived, he had to put his plans to return to [redacted] “indefinitely”. The landlord’s property manager provided an email from the landlord confirming his intentions and the reason for his change of plan. e. The landlord asked his property manager to see if the tenants wished to stay in the property and continue with their tenancy. f. The landlord’s agent immediately contacted the tenants to advise that the landlord no longer required the property and offered it to the tenants. As the tenants had found and were committed to alternative accommodation, they declined the offer. g. The property manager confirmed that the tenants had been good tenants throughout the tenancy of over three years. h. The tenants confirmed that they had not had any issues with the landlord or his agent during the tenancy.

The tenants brought this application because they were unhappy that their tenancy was unnecessarily brought to an end and were claiming compensation for their costs of moving and the increased rentals that they were now facing.

In order to succeed in their claim, the tenants need to persuade the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the landlord had issued his notice to terminate the tenancy knowing that he was not entitled to do so under the RTA.

On the evidence before the Tribunal is clear that the landlord understood that he was entitled to give notice under section 51(1)(a) RTA and that he did so in good faith, fully intending to return and live in the property for some months. It is unfortunate for both the landlord and the tenants that he had to rescind this notice due to reasons outside his control at such a late stage in the notice period.

Having found that the landlord was entitled to give notice to terminate the tenancy on the basis that the landlord required the property for his own occupation, I must dismiss the tenants’ claim under section 60AA RTA.

As there is no public interest in the outcome of the tenants’ application, it is appropriate that name suppression be granted to the parties using the Tribunal’s discretion under section 95A(4) RTA.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA RTA. Under Section 60AA RTA 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 parties agreed on the following facts: a. On 21 April 2023 the landlord gave the tenants notice of termination under section 51(1)(a) RTA on the basis that the landlord required the property as his principal place of residence. b. The termination date under the notice was 22 June 2023. c. The landlord’s manager advised that the owner, who ordinarily resided overseas, needed to occupy the property for some months in order to be near a sick friend. d. On 15 June 2023 the landlord contacted his manager and advised that because a close family member was unwell in [redacted] where he lived, he had to put his plans to return to [redacted] “indefinitely”. The landlord’s property manager provided an email from the landlord confirming his intentions and the reason for his change of plan. e. The landlord asked his property manager to see if the tenants wished to stay in the property and continue with their tenancy. f. The landlord’s agent immediately contacted the tenants to advise that the landlord no longer required the property and offered it to the tenants. As the tenants had found and were committed to alternative accommodation, they declined the offer. g. The property manager confirmed that the tenants had been good tenants throughout the tenancy of over three years. h. The tenants confirmed that they had not had any issues with the landlord or his agent during the tenancy.
The tenants brought this application because they were unhappy that their tenancy was unnecessarily brought to an end and were claiming compensation for their costs of moving and the increased rentals that they were now facing.
In order to succeed in their claim, the tenants need to persuade the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the landlord had issued his notice to terminate the tenancy knowing that he was not entitled to do so under the RTA.
On the evidence before the Tribunal is clear that the landlord understood that he was entitled to give notice under section 51(1)(a) RTA and that he did so in good faith, fully intending to return and live in the property for some months. It is unfortunate for both the landlord and the tenants that he had to rescind this notice due to reasons outside his control at such a late stage in the notice period.
Having found that the landlord was entitled to give notice to terminate the tenancy on the basis that the landlord required the property for his own occupation, I must dismiss the tenants’ claim under section 60AA RTA.
As there is no public interest in the outcome of the tenants’ application, it is appropriate that name suppression be granted to the parties using the Tribunal’s discretion under section 95A(4) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4614078 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4614078 — 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