What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4661334 about?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4661334?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4661334?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4661334?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9484641-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4661334 about?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4661334?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4661334?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4661334?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9484641-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

642A Papamoa Beach Road, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa Tenancy Tribunal Case 4661334 — 14-day notice

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
Mr Doyle, the tenant, seeks a declaration from the Tenancy Tribunal that a notice of termination given to him by the landlord on 10 August 2023 ending the tenancy on 8 November 2023 is retaliatory and therefore of no effect.
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. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mr Doyle claims the notice was retaliatory for a number of reasons which include: (a) At an inspection on 4 July 2023 he requested that repairs to the fascia be done and in a follow-up email on 5 July 2023 he also suggested that given that scaffolding was required for the fascia repair, it would make sense that the cladding be repainted at the same time. In an email dated 8 July 2023 at
36pm Mr Doyle issued a 14 day notice to repair a laundry cabinet, repair the fascia and have the paintwork done. He says the notice of termination dated 10 August 2023 was motivated by his issuing of the 14 day notice to repair. (b) Mr Doyle also says that an email dated 13 July 2023 in which he was advised that the owners were considering selling, was also a response to his 14 day notice to remedy. (c) Further, Mr Doyle states that the landlord’s desire to terminate his tenancy because of his 14 day notice to remedy was endorsed by the landlord insisting on selling the premises vacant, rather than have him as an existing tenant, especially when the owner of the cross lease premises had already indicated to the landlord that they were interested in purchasing the premises. (d) He says that attitude towards him was also shown when the property manager advised him that she would no longer be managing the property from the end of July, and then her continuing on with the management. (e) Again, he points to the notice of inspection being scheduled at today’s date thus clashing with today’s hearing, as evidence of the property manager’s “spiteful” conduct towards him (f) Mr Doyle refers to NZTT 4545410 which he says shows the Tribunal declaring a notice of termination to be retaliatory in circumstances very similar to his own situation.
An applicant has the burden of proving their case on the balance of probabilities. In this case that means that Mr Doyle is required to show that more likely than not the notice of termination was motivated wholly or in part by his assertion of his legal rights.
Mr Doyle has not satisfied me that this is so.
I say this for reasons that include: (a) I accept the evidence showing that the owner of the premises had already approved repair of the fascia and the laundry cabinet, before Mr Doyle’s notice to remedy was issued. The approval email was sent to the property manager at 1.28pm on 8 July 2023 and Mr Doyle’s notice to remedy was sent to the property manager at 2.36pm on 8 July 2023; and (b) This indicates that prior to the 14 day notice to remedy the owners had accepted the need to repair the fascia and the laundry cabinet and that any subsequent notice to terminate was unlikely to have been motivated by the issuing of Mr Doyle’s 14 day notice to remedy; and (c) I also accept that the paintwork was cosmetic and that it was reasonable for the owners to not undertake this work prior to putting the house on the market; and (d) I accept the evidence that there was a long-standing intention to sell the property when the owner of the property passed away. The owner passed away in July 2022 and once probate was granted on 12 July 2023 the owner’s representatives then instructed the property manager to give notice of termination of the tenancy because they wished to sell the premises; and (e) I accept the evidence that the owner’s representatives wanted the premises vacated before it was put on the market so that they could get it ready for sale. It was not a response to the tenant’s 14 day notice to remedy, given that they had earlier authorised the 2 repairs and decided to forgo the painting as it was cosmetic; and (f) This application is distinguished from the decision in NZTT4545410. In that case the landlord issued a notice of termination to the tenant subsequent to the tenant making an application to the Tribunal and those proceedings being still on foot. This is not the case here. Prior to the issuing of the 14 day notice the owner had approved the essential repairs, and as a result of the owner’s wish to sell the premises so as to provide for his children, the tenant was given notice of termination on 10 August 2023, approximately 1 month after probate was granted. Mr Doyle was informally advised of this on 13 July 2023, one day after probate was granted; and (g) I cannot see the relevance as to whether the notice of termination was retaliatory, of the property manager advising him that she was no longer going to be acting as the property manager from the end of July, and then continuing to do so, or the scheduling of the inspection to today’s date. In any event I accept the property manager’s explanation that she decided to continue managing the property until it was sold because it was expeditious to do so, and that the scheduling of the inspection was inadvertent. C ter Haar 03 October 2023

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

Mr Doyle, the tenant, seeks a declaration from the Tenancy Tribunal that a notice of termination given to him by the landlord on 10 August 2023 ending the tenancy on 8 November 2023 is retaliatory and therefore of no effect.

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. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Mr Doyle claims the notice was retaliatory for a number of reasons which include: (a) At an inspection on 4 July 2023 he requested that repairs to the fascia be done and in a follow-up email on 5 July 2023 he also suggested that given that scaffolding was required for the fascia repair, it would make sense that the cladding be repainted at the same time. In an email dated 8 July 2023 at

36pm Mr Doyle issued a 14 day notice to repair a laundry cabinet, repair the fascia and have the paintwork done. He says the notice of termination dated 10 August 2023 was motivated by his issuing of the 14 day notice to repair. (b) Mr Doyle also says that an email dated 13 July 2023 in which he was advised that the owners were considering selling, was also a response to his 14 day notice to remedy. (c) Further, Mr Doyle states that the landlord’s desire to terminate his tenancy because of his 14 day notice to remedy was endorsed by the landlord insisting on selling the premises vacant, rather than have him as an existing tenant, especially when the owner of the cross lease premises had already indicated to the landlord that they were interested in purchasing the premises. (d) He says that attitude towards him was also shown when the property manager advised him that she would no longer be managing the property from the end of July, and then her continuing on with the management. (e) Again, he points to the notice of inspection being scheduled at today’s date thus clashing with today’s hearing, as evidence of the property manager’s “spiteful” conduct towards him (f) Mr Doyle refers to NZTT 4545410 which he says shows the Tribunal declaring a notice of termination to be retaliatory in circumstances very similar to his own situation.

An applicant has the burden of proving their case on the balance of probabilities. In this case that means that Mr Doyle is required to show that more likely than not the notice of termination was motivated wholly or in part by his assertion of his legal rights.

Mr Doyle has not satisfied me that this is so.

I say this for reasons that include: (a) I accept the evidence showing that the owner of the premises had already approved repair of the fascia and the laundry cabinet, before Mr Doyle’s notice to remedy was issued. The approval email was sent to the property manager at 1.28pm on 8 July 2023 and Mr Doyle’s notice to remedy was sent to the property manager at 2.36pm on 8 July 2023; and (b) This indicates that prior to the 14 day notice to remedy the owners had accepted the need to repair the fascia and the laundry cabinet and that any subsequent notice to terminate was unlikely to have been motivated by the issuing of Mr Doyle’s 14 day notice to remedy; and (c) I also accept that the paintwork was cosmetic and that it was reasonable for the owners to not undertake this work prior to putting the house on the market; and (d) I accept the evidence that there was a long-standing intention to sell the property when the owner of the property passed away. The owner passed away in July 2022 and once probate was granted on 12 July 2023 the owner’s representatives then instructed the property manager to give notice of termination of the tenancy because they wished to sell the premises; and (e) I accept the evidence that the owner’s representatives wanted the premises vacated before it was put on the market so that they could get it ready for sale. It was not a response to the tenant’s 14 day notice to remedy, given that they had earlier authorised the 2 repairs and decided to forgo the painting as it was cosmetic; and (f) This application is distinguished from the decision in NZTT4545410. In that case the landlord issued a notice of termination to the tenant subsequent to the tenant making an application to the Tribunal and those proceedings being still on foot. This is not the case here. Prior to the issuing of the 14 day notice the owner had approved the essential repairs, and as a result of the owner’s wish to sell the premises so as to provide for his children, the tenant was given notice of termination on 10 August 2023, approximately 1 month after probate was granted. Mr Doyle was informally advised of this on 13 July 2023, one day after probate was granted; and (g) I cannot see the relevance as to whether the notice of termination was retaliatory, of the property manager advising him that she was no longer going to be acting as the property manager from the end of July, and then continuing to do so, or the scheduling of the inspection to today’s date. In any event I accept the property manager’s explanation that she decided to continue managing the property until it was sold because it was expeditious to do so, and that the scheduling of the inspection was inadvertent. C ter Haar 03 October 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4661334 — 14-day notice at 642A Papamoa Beach Road, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4661334 — 14-day notice at 642A Papamoa Beach Road, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions