What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4625809 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 4625809?

Compensation: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4625809?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4625809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9655249-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4625809 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 4625809?

Compensation: $900.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4625809?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4625809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9655249-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4625809 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4625809 — net $920.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – quiet enjoyment	$900.00	Compensation – quiet enjoyment
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$920.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$920.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $920.44 immediately calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenant’s claims are otherwise dismissed.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
44 Total award $920.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $920.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tribunal made an order on 2 August 2023 declaring this tenancy to be a residential tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). That decision gives the background to this case, and it should be read with this order.
A hearing took place on 2 August 2023 to consider the tenant’s claims for exemplary damages for attempting to contract out of the Act and for interference with her quiet enjoyment. I will treat the application as including a claim for compensation. Nature of the Parties’ Arrangement
I have decided that the parties had a tenancy under the Act because I was not satisfied that the landlord continued to use the premises as her principal residence. But that does not affect the practical nature of the arrangement which was, at least to some extent, a house sharing arrangement. As I said in my previous order, the Act does not preclude such an arrangement.
This was not a conventional landlord and tenant situation where the tenant or tenants have exclusive occupation of the premises from the landlord. That is an arm’s length agreement and the parties’ rights and obligations are more distinct than they are in the situation I am dealing with here. This affects the way I must approach the tenant’s claims.
The other thing that affects my approach is the fact that, until the previous order was issued, the landlord believed that this was a house sharing situation and therefore not covered by the Act. I have decided that she was wrong about that, but I must recognise that the decision was not clear cut. The contrary was arguable, and the situation was in a “grey area”. The Tenant’s Claims Quiet Enjoyment - Minor
I have called this minor because they involve the sorts of irritations that commonly arise in a house sharing situation. There were issues concerning electricity use, the landlord’s dogs and visitors to the premises.
I have made no order on these claims. I find that they were minor. They are also, to some extent, the inevitable result of living in the same house. They are not, in my view, things that the Tribunal should get involved in unless they become serious.
I acknowledge that the landlord did attempt to unreasonably restrict the tenant’s use of the premises by, for example, placing restrictions on visitors. But she was treating the premises as her home at that stage and, as I have said, she had some reason to do so. Termination Notices
The landlord gave the tenant four termination notices during the tenancy. Three were given before the Tribunal’s previous order and one after it. The first two were 28-day notices and the second two were 63 day notices on the grounds that the landlord intending occupying the premises as her principal place of residence and that she intended carrying out renovation work to the premises.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord.
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.
As well, 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 this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
I find that an award of exemplary damages is not warranted in this case.
I find that the first two notices were served at a time when the landlord believed, and had reason to believe, that she was entitled to serve them. There are issues regarding whether she was contractually entitled to serve them, but they are not relevant to exemplary damages.
Therefore, I find that the necessary element of intention was not present. If I am wrong about that, I find that in all the circumstances an award of exemplary damages is not appropriate.
The second two notices relied on grounds and if those grounds were genuine, it is difficult to see how the notices could be retaliatory.
The landlord has moved back into the premises, and I accept that she had at least one valid ground to serve the notices at the time she did. I do not need to consider whether the other ground was valid.
I find, therefore, that either the notices were not retaliatory or that exemplary damages are not appropriate.
But there is no doubt that the first two notices were unlawful, and they constituted an interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises in a fundamental way. I accept that they caused her a considerable amount of stress and uncertainty. She is entitled to compensation for that. An award in the sum of $900 is appropriate.

Attempting to Avoid the Act?

No remedy would be available for attempting to avoid the Act in this case but for completeness I find that the landlord did not attempt to do so. As I have said, she genuinely believed that the Act did not apply and there was no deliberate attempt to avoid the Act. Bond
The landlord did not lodge the tenant’s bond until after the Tribunal’s previous order. She did not believe that she was required to lodge it. She did lodge it after the order. No award of exemplary damages is warranted. Landlord’s Application
The tenant vacated the premises on 27 September and so there is no need to consider the landlord’s application for possession. Her application is therefore dismissed. Filing Fee
The tenant has had some success and so I have awarded her the filing fee. Suppression
For the same reasons given in the previous order, I have given both parties name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4625809 — net $920.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation – quiet enjoyment	$900.00	Compensation – quiet enjoyment
Filing fee	$20.44	Filing fee
Net award	$920.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$920.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $920.44 immediately calculated as shown in the table below.
The tenant’s claims are otherwise dismissed.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
44 Total award $920.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $920.44

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tribunal made an order on 2 August 2023 declaring this tenancy to be a residential tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). That decision gives the background to this case, and it should be read with this order.
A hearing took place on 2 August 2023 to consider the tenant’s claims for exemplary damages for attempting to contract out of the Act and for interference with her quiet enjoyment. I will treat the application as including a claim for compensation. Nature of the Parties’ Arrangement
I have decided that the parties had a tenancy under the Act because I was not satisfied that the landlord continued to use the premises as her principal residence. But that does not affect the practical nature of the arrangement which was, at least to some extent, a house sharing arrangement. As I said in my previous order, the Act does not preclude such an arrangement.
This was not a conventional landlord and tenant situation where the tenant or tenants have exclusive occupation of the premises from the landlord. That is an arm’s length agreement and the parties’ rights and obligations are more distinct than they are in the situation I am dealing with here. This affects the way I must approach the tenant’s claims.
The other thing that affects my approach is the fact that, until the previous order was issued, the landlord believed that this was a house sharing situation and therefore not covered by the Act. I have decided that she was wrong about that, but I must recognise that the decision was not clear cut. The contrary was arguable, and the situation was in a “grey area”. The Tenant’s Claims Quiet Enjoyment - Minor
I have called this minor because they involve the sorts of irritations that commonly arise in a house sharing situation. There were issues concerning electricity use, the landlord’s dogs and visitors to the premises.
I have made no order on these claims. I find that they were minor. They are also, to some extent, the inevitable result of living in the same house. They are not, in my view, things that the Tribunal should get involved in unless they become serious.
I acknowledge that the landlord did attempt to unreasonably restrict the tenant’s use of the premises by, for example, placing restrictions on visitors. But she was treating the premises as her home at that stage and, as I have said, she had some reason to do so. Termination Notices
The landlord gave the tenant four termination notices during the tenancy. Three were given before the Tribunal’s previous order and one after it. The first two were 28-day notices and the second two were 63 day notices on the grounds that the landlord intending occupying the premises as her principal place of residence and that she intended carrying out renovation work to the premises.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord.
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.
As well, 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 this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
I find that an award of exemplary damages is not warranted in this case.
I find that the first two notices were served at a time when the landlord believed, and had reason to believe, that she was entitled to serve them. There are issues regarding whether she was contractually entitled to serve them, but they are not relevant to exemplary damages.
Therefore, I find that the necessary element of intention was not present. If I am wrong about that, I find that in all the circumstances an award of exemplary damages is not appropriate.
The second two notices relied on grounds and if those grounds were genuine, it is difficult to see how the notices could be retaliatory.
The landlord has moved back into the premises, and I accept that she had at least one valid ground to serve the notices at the time she did. I do not need to consider whether the other ground was valid.
I find, therefore, that either the notices were not retaliatory or that exemplary damages are not appropriate.
But there is no doubt that the first two notices were unlawful, and they constituted an interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises in a fundamental way. I accept that they caused her a considerable amount of stress and uncertainty. She is entitled to compensation for that. An award in the sum of $900 is appropriate.

Attempting to Avoid the Act?

No remedy would be available for attempting to avoid the Act in this case but for completeness I find that the landlord did not attempt to do so. As I have said, she genuinely believed that the Act did not apply and there was no deliberate attempt to avoid the Act. Bond
The landlord did not lodge the tenant’s bond until after the Tribunal’s previous order. She did not believe that she was required to lodge it. She did lodge it after the order. No award of exemplary damages is warranted. Landlord’s Application
The tenant vacated the premises on 27 September and so there is no need to consider the landlord’s application for possession. Her application is therefore dismissed. Filing Fee
The tenant has had some success and so I have awarded her the filing fee. Suppression
For the same reasons given in the previous order, I have given both parties name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4625809 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4625809 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Attempting to Avoid the Act?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Attempting to Avoid the Act?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions