What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4688549 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 4688549?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $8,300.00 awarded to landlord; Without Grounds- First Invalid Termi…: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4688549?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4688549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9862870-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4688549 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 4688549?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $8,300.00 awarded to landlord; Without Grounds- First Invalid Termi…: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4688549?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4688549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9862870-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4688549 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4688549 — net $1,200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 22 January 2024	$8,300.00		Rent arrears (to 22 January 2024
Exemplary damages: (acting to terminate the tenancy		$1,000.00	(acting to terminate the tenancy
without grounds- first invalid termination notice		$3,000.00	without grounds- first invalid termination notice
Exemplary damages: (breach of privacy		$1,000.00	(breach of privacy
Total award	$8,300.00	$5,000.00
Net award	$1,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,200.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4688549 — net $1,200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 22 January 2024	$8,300.00		Rent arrears (to 22 January 2024
Exemplary damages: (acting to terminate the tenancy		$1,000.00	(acting to terminate the tenancy
without grounds- first invalid termination notice		$3,000.00	without grounds- first invalid termination notice
Exemplary damages: (breach of privacy		$1,000.00	(breach of privacy
Total award	$8,300.00	$5,000.00
Net award	$1,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,200.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Simone and Donald Dreifuss, at 11:59pm, on Tuesday 27 February 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Simone and Donald Dreifuss immediately.
[The tenant] must pay Simone and Donald Dreifuss $1,200.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties have agreed if the tenant wishes to move out before 27 February 2024 he may do so by the giving of one week’s written notice, on the condition he pays the $500.00 per week rent on time each Tuesday and in full until the date he vacates the premises and had handed possession back to the landlord by the returning of the keys. The tenant’s claims
The tenant claims that: a. The landlord has breached its obligations under sections 51(3), 51(4) and 51(6) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) by issuing him with two unlawful termination notices, both trying to terminate his tenancy without proper grounds, and issuing him with the second notice without having revoked the prior notice; b. .The landlord breached his privacy and quiet enjoyment when he agreed to a real estate agent viewing the premises and, on the landlord’s instructions, the real estate agent extensively videoed and photographed the inside of the premises and all the tenant’s belongings, without his knowledge or permission and then used what they saw in the footage as a reason to try and terminate the tenancy, prior to having the unconditional sale and purchase agreement the landlord relied on as a valid reason for issuing the second 90 day termination notice; c. The landlord issued an unlawful rent increase notice on 9 August 2023 that increased the rent from $500.00 to $800.00 per week, because he had flatmates. The notice had insufficient information in it and breached section 24(1) (b) and (c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986; d. The landlord failed to maintain the premises; and e. The premises did not meet the healthy Homes insulation standard.
The landlord claims the tenant is in rent arrears of $8,300.00 to 22 January 2024 and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing. Invalid termination notices
The premises have been on the market since January 2023 and have not yet sold. Therefore, the landlord and/or their property manager could have issued the tenant with a valid 90-day notice of termination in January 2023, pursuant to s2(a) of the Act but did not.
The landlord chose to continue to rent the premises to the tenant until it had an unconditional sale and purchase agreement and was required to give the purchaser vacant possession. The tenant agreed to continue with his tenancy until that time. This suggests the landlord is fully aware of the lawful reasons they can use to terminate the tenancy.
Therefore, the tenant was surprised when the landlord gave him the first invalid 90-day termination notice, on 21 June 2023, ending the tenancy on 21 September 2023, and confusingly also notifying him “at the expiry of that period the tenancy will be on a month-to-month basis as determined by clauses in the Sale and Purchase Agreement. The monthly tenancy may or may not continue up until February 2024”.
This notice is invalid as it does not meet the requirements set out in ss51(3) and (4) of the Act, in that there is no specified date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises, the “clauses in the Sale and Purchase Agreement” referred to in the notice are not provided or detailed, and the lack of clarity in the notice makes it “misleading” and “affects unjustly the interests of the recipient”.
On 9 August 2023, the landlord gave the tenant the second invalid 90-day termination notice ending the tenancy on 8 November 2023, stating the reason as being “the owner is required, under an unconditional agreement for the sale of the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession”. During the hearing the landlord’s property manager explained that there was a conditional offer on the premises, but no unconditional sale and purchase agreement existed at the time the notice was served nor at the date of the hearing, being 6 October 2023.
In issuing two invalid termination notices, the landlord has also breached their obligations under section 60AA of the Act.
Under Section 60AA 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 $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord was aware that they could not legally issue the first invalid termination notice for the periodic tenancy in order to convert it into a rolling series of monthly fixed term tenancies for an undefined period. The landlord was also fully aware that they did not have the unconditional offer to purchase the premises, on 9 August 2023, that they relied on when they issued the tenant the second invalid termination notice.
The Property Manager gave evidence during the hearing that strongly suggested the landlord just wanted the tenant gone so they “could make a clean start on the place”, that they were annoyed with the tenant and that they had asked him to issue these two notices of termination out of frustration and retaliation for: a. The tenant raising concerns about the tenancy and complaining about lack of communication from the property manager and exercising his statutory rights and his rights under the tenancy agreement; b. The tenant making money off short-term international flatmates, after being given a rent reduction because the house was in a condition that made it difficult to get longer term flatmates, which was only exacerbated further during the Covid-19 lockdowns of 2020 and 2021; c. The tenant having a bed leaning up against a wall, at the time the video and photographs were taken, that the landlord was upset about because the house was on the market; and d. The tenant using the flat the property manager had given him permission to occupy while his basement room, in the main premises, were uninhabitable due to flooding. The landlord did not appear to be aware their property manager had given permission to the tenant to use that space until the flooded room was habitable again.
I find the landlord has committed two unlawful acts when issuing the tenant these two invalid termination notices.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I am satisfied that the intent of the landlord in committing these unlawful acts was retaliatory in nature and resulted from the landlord’s frustration and displeasure at the tenant for the reasons in paragraph 13 above.
These unlawful acts have caused the tenant and his young daughter considerable stress, anxiety and uncertainty. He has been left still not knowing whether the owner may retaliate again and issue further invalid notices if he does something she does not like, or in response to him exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or because of any other complaint made against the landlord.
It is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly issues retaliatory, invalid and unlawful termination notices. Having issued two such notices to the tenant, it is just to award exemplary damages to the tenant.
Schedule 1A of the Act provides for exemplary damages of up to $6,500.00 to be ordered for a landlord acting to terminate a tenancy without grounds.
It is just to award $1,000.00 to the tenant for the issuance of the first termination notice without grounds and a further award of $3,000.00 for the issuance second termination notice without grounds. The retaliatory nature of these acts, the repeated nature of them and the high levels of stress and anxiety this repeated conduct has caused to the tenant has resulted in a higher award for the second notice than the first. Breach of privacy
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has breached his privacy, which is a form of harassment.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The landlord instructed a real estate agent to come into the premises, for the purposes of viewing it as part of the sale process. The tenant agreed to this in good faith, even though he was unable to be present when the real estate agent came for the viewing. The tenant was not informed and did not agree to the real estate agent taking a video and photographs of the inside of the premises and the tenant’s property. I find they have breached the tenant’s privacy and quiet enjoyment of the premises and therefore committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord requested the real estate agent engage in an act that they knew breached the tenant’s privacy, when they instructed the real estate agent to take extensive video footage and photographs of the inside of the premises without the tenant’s permission. They did not inform the tenant that they had issued these instructions, prior to the agreed viewing, denying the tenant the opportunity to agree to or raise any concerns he may have had. The tenant was unaware of this breach until the landlord then took retaliatory action against the tenant, as a result of what the landlord saw in the video footage and photographs and asked their property manager to issue the second invalid termination notice. This breach of privacy and quiet enjoyment has led to the tenant feeling harassed and has resulted in significant stress and anxiety for him.
It is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that intentionally interferes with the privacy of a tenant and then uses what they obtained from that breach to commit a further unlawful act.
Schedule 1A of the Act provides for exemplary damages of up to $3,000.00 to be ordered for a landlord’s interference with the privacy of a tenant.
I find it just to award $1,000.00 for the landlord’s interference with the privacy of the tenant. Unlawful rent notice and rent increase
The landlord issued an unlawful rent increase notice on 9 August 2023 that increased the rent from $500.00 to $800.00 per week.
The reason given for the rent increase was that the tenant had been given a significant rent reduction during COVID-19 as he had not been able to get flatmates at that time. This was because the state of the house made it hard to attract local flatmates and the only persons wanting to flat at the premises were overseas visitors wanting short term accommodation.
After the New Zealand borders reopened to visitors the tenant found flatmates and was getting rent from them. The landlord claims that at one point the tenant had 4 flatmates, in breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement, and was getting $230.00 from each one, including power and water costs. Therefore, the landlord considered it reasonable to increase the rent to $800.00.
The notice did specify the amount of the increased rent, but not the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable. The tenant began paying the new rental rate from the following week and continued to do so for a period of 7 weeks.
Section 24(1)(c) of the RTA states “the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days after the date on which that notice is given”. The landlord is clearly in breach of this section of the RTA.
The tenant unilaterally stopped paying the new rental rate of $700.00 after he made the application to the Tenancy Tribunal as he considered the landlord to be in breach of its obligations under s24 of the RTA. He has continued to pay $500.00 per week to date.
The parties have agreed that the tenant has been rented the premises at well below market rate since 19 June 2013, the tenant has had had very few rent increases during his tenancy nearly 11 year tenancy and has enjoyed significant rent reductions since the COVID-19 pandemic.
In addition, the landlord acknowledges the premises need a lot of work and that has been reflected in the rental rates given to the tenant during his tenure. Had the house been up to the required standards it would have fetched far more than $900.00 per week in rent.
Therefore, the tenant agrees to drop his claim for unlawful increase of rent and being made to pay above market rent claims and the landlord has agreed not to pursue the difference between the $800.00 per week rent increase and the $500.00 per week the tenant unilaterally dropped the rent back to in September 2023.
The rent related claims are therefore dismissed. Failure to maintain and breach of the Healthy Homes insulation standard.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under subsections 45(1)(b) and (bb), a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes and a landlord must also comply with the healthy homes standards.
Breaching these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant also sought general damages for the inconvenience resulting from the failure to maintain, such as not being able to use the downstairs portion of the property for some time after the January/February 2023 floods flooded that part of the premises.
The parties have agreed during the hearing that the premises were not at the statutorily required standard during the tenancy, as the house is 150 years old and the landlord had the intention of selling the house to property developers. Therefore, it did not want to invest in insulation, new carpet and the like. The landlord also allowed the tenant to relocate his bedroom area to another part of the property for the period his room was uninhabitable, post the floods. The tenant then put flatmates in that other area of the premises and remained living in the uninhabitable part of the house himself after pulling up the wet carpet.
The parties further agreed that the significant rent reductions the tenant enjoyed (on a rent that was never at market rate) and he had more than 4 persons living in the premises at times (in breach of the terms of the tenancy agreement) sufficiently compensates the tenant for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises and for its failure to bring the premises up to the Healthy Homes Standard.
Therefore, although I find that the landlord is in breach of its obligations under s45 of the RTA, I have not awarded any exemplary or general damages. The parties have agreed this is a fair and reasonable approach in all the circumstances. Reimbursement of the filing fee
The landlord has already reimbursed the tenant for the filing fee last year after the orders from the part heard matter were published. Therefore, no further orders are made in relation to the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4688549 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4688549 — Rent arrears

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