What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4742151 about?

The tribunal order states: The notice dated 7 November 2023 to terminate the tenancy is varied to change

How much money was awarded in case 4742151?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4742151?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4742151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9835782-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4742151 about?

The tribunal order states: The notice dated 7 November 2023 to terminate the tenancy is varied to change

How much money was awarded in case 4742151?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4742151?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4742151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9835782-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4742151 — Exemplary damages

Order

The notice dated 7 November 2023 to terminate the tenancy is varied to change the last day of the tenancy from 9 January 2024 to 12 February 2024.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5:00pm on Monday 12 February 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearing on 8 January 2024 and both the tenant and the landlord have made applications to the Tribunal. Background
The parties have recently been to the Tribunal on another matter.
Orders were made in those proceedings on 11 October 2023. These included:- a. a refund to the tenant of an overpayment of rent due to an invalid rent increase implemented by a previous property manager, and b. a decision that a rent increase intended to take effect from 8 October 2023 was substantially more than the market rent and setting rent at $660.00 per week from the date of the order.
On 7 November 2023, the landlord gave the tenant notice to end the tenancy on 9 January 2024 (“the termination notice”). The reason given in the notice is that the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family.
Section 51(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) allows a landlord to terminate a periodic tenancy by giving a tenant at least 63 days’ notice for this reason.
The tenant has applied to the Tribunal to set aside the termination notice on the grounds that the notice is retaliatory.
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) RTA.
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.
The landlord says that the notice is not retaliatory but is given for a genuine reason.
The landlord has applied for a termination and possession order and for compensation if the termination of the tenancy is delayed. The tenant’s case
The tenant says that the termination notice has been given because she was successful in her previous application. She says that the property manager told her that the landlord now wants to have students rent the property (with the aim of obtaining more rent) and that the property is not suitable for her as a single mum with children.
Her written submission says that there is a short period of time between the Tribunal decision that the rent increase was above market rent (made on 11 October 2023), and the termination notice (7 November 2023) and that this raises a strong inference that the notice is not made for genuine reasons.
She feels that it is unfair to terminate her tenancy as she pays her rent on time and has done nothing wrong. The landlord’s case
The landlord says that the owners genuinely intend to live in the premises themselves.
Evidence has been provided to show that the owners rent a house in a semi- rural location on the outskirts of the same city in which the tenancy premises is located. 1 The property manager explained that the house that the owners rent is located closer to the school that their children attend.
The owners received notice from their landlord on 30 October 2023 that the rent would increase from $750 per week to $800 per week as from 1 January 2024. A copy of the signed notice to increase the rent has been supplied in evidence.
The property manager says that the owners have told her that the difference between the rent that they receive for the tenancy premises and the increased rent that they are now required to pay where they live, has caused them to re- evaluate. They have decided to move back into this property. Analysis
I agree that there is a relatively short period of time (exactly 4 weeks) between the previous Tribunal decision and the landlord issuing the termination notice. The tenant exercised her legal right to challenge the previous rent increase and was successful. I understand why she thinks that the landlord may have acted in retaliation.
I also accept from the evidence that there have been other occasions since the agent has been appointed on which the tenant has raised a complaint or exercised a legal right. These include the tenant complaining that the agent’s follow-up communication about a delay in the transfer of her rent payments to the agent was excessive, a dispute about one rent payment (for 17 January 2023) which was not resolved for 9 months, and the tenant pointing out that the agent had miscalculated the dates for a proposed rent increase intended to take effect on 16 May 2023.
I agree with the tenant’s submission, that the proximity and history of these issues between the landlord and tenant does raise an inference that the termination may be retaliatory.
However, if a landlord has a genuine and lawful reason for terminating a tenancy then a termination is not retaliatory.
In this case, I am satisfied from the evidence provided by the landlord that the owners have a genuine reason for terminating this tenancy. They were notified of a rent increase at the property that they rent, they re-evaluated their position, and 7 days later they issued the termination notice to the tenant. 1 The owners’ tenancy is in the name of the female owner of the tenancy premises. The tenancy of the tenancy premises is in the name of the male owner. The agent provided a copy of the Management Agreement between the agent and the owner which links the tenancy address with the female owner. My decision
My decision is that the termination notice is not retaliatory. The tenant’s application is dismissed.
This means that the tenancy should have ended on 9 January 2024.
However, this date has already passed, and it is not reasonable to expect the tenant and her two young children to move out of the premises immediately. Also, the owners are required to give their own landlord at least 28 days’ notice to terminate their own tenancy.
I have therefore set a termination date for this tenancy of 5:00pm on Monday 12 February 2024. Landlord’s application for compensation
The landlord has also applied for compensation. The agent’s submission says that the owners should have been able to move into the tenancy premises on 10 January 2024 so any delay to this date means they are paying additional rent where they live. It wants the tenant to pay the difference between the rent the owners have to pay and the rent paid by the tenant ($880.00 - $660.00 = $140.00 per week).
I dismiss this application. Compensation is only awarded when a party has breached the law. The tenant has not done anything wrong. She had a legal right and reasonable grounds for thinking that the termination notice may have been retaliatory, and she made this application promptly after receiving the termination notice. She did not know that the owners were renting elsewhere and that their rent had been increased. Conclusion and suppression orders
The tenancy is not ending because the tenant has done anything wrong. It is ending because an owner has the legal right to decide that they or a member of their family will live in tenancy premises.
Neither party is at fault. For this reason, I do not make orders about the filing fees, and I suppress both parties’ names. This is consistent with the previous proceedings and is appropriate in the circumstances. There may be a public interest in the subject matter of this decision, but I consider that the parties’ interests in keeping their identities private outweigh any need for others to know who they are.

Order

The notice dated 7 November 2023 to terminate the tenancy is varied to change the last day of the tenancy from 9 January 2024 to 12 February 2024.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5:00pm on Monday 12 February 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearing on 8 January 2024 and both the tenant and the landlord have made applications to the Tribunal. Background
The parties have recently been to the Tribunal on another matter.
Orders were made in those proceedings on 11 October 2023. These included:- a. a refund to the tenant of an overpayment of rent due to an invalid rent increase implemented by a previous property manager, and b. a decision that a rent increase intended to take effect from 8 October 2023 was substantially more than the market rent and setting rent at $660.00 per week from the date of the order.
On 7 November 2023, the landlord gave the tenant notice to end the tenancy on 9 January 2024 (“the termination notice”). The reason given in the notice is that the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family.
Section 51(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) allows a landlord to terminate a periodic tenancy by giving a tenant at least 63 days’ notice for this reason.
The tenant has applied to the Tribunal to set aside the termination notice on the grounds that the notice is retaliatory.
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) RTA.
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.
The landlord says that the notice is not retaliatory but is given for a genuine reason.
The landlord has applied for a termination and possession order and for compensation if the termination of the tenancy is delayed. The tenant’s case
The tenant says that the termination notice has been given because she was successful in her previous application. She says that the property manager told her that the landlord now wants to have students rent the property (with the aim of obtaining more rent) and that the property is not suitable for her as a single mum with children.
Her written submission says that there is a short period of time between the Tribunal decision that the rent increase was above market rent (made on 11 October 2023), and the termination notice (7 November 2023) and that this raises a strong inference that the notice is not made for genuine reasons.
She feels that it is unfair to terminate her tenancy as she pays her rent on time and has done nothing wrong. The landlord’s case
The landlord says that the owners genuinely intend to live in the premises themselves.
Evidence has been provided to show that the owners rent a house in a semi- rural location on the outskirts of the same city in which the tenancy premises is located. 1 The property manager explained that the house that the owners rent is located closer to the school that their children attend.
The owners received notice from their landlord on 30 October 2023 that the rent would increase from $750 per week to $800 per week as from 1 January 2024. A copy of the signed notice to increase the rent has been supplied in evidence.
The property manager says that the owners have told her that the difference between the rent that they receive for the tenancy premises and the increased rent that they are now required to pay where they live, has caused them to re- evaluate. They have decided to move back into this property. Analysis
I agree that there is a relatively short period of time (exactly 4 weeks) between the previous Tribunal decision and the landlord issuing the termination notice. The tenant exercised her legal right to challenge the previous rent increase and was successful. I understand why she thinks that the landlord may have acted in retaliation.
I also accept from the evidence that there have been other occasions since the agent has been appointed on which the tenant has raised a complaint or exercised a legal right. These include the tenant complaining that the agent’s follow-up communication about a delay in the transfer of her rent payments to the agent was excessive, a dispute about one rent payment (for 17 January 2023) which was not resolved for 9 months, and the tenant pointing out that the agent had miscalculated the dates for a proposed rent increase intended to take effect on 16 May 2023.
I agree with the tenant’s submission, that the proximity and history of these issues between the landlord and tenant does raise an inference that the termination may be retaliatory.
However, if a landlord has a genuine and lawful reason for terminating a tenancy then a termination is not retaliatory.
In this case, I am satisfied from the evidence provided by the landlord that the owners have a genuine reason for terminating this tenancy. They were notified of a rent increase at the property that they rent, they re-evaluated their position, and 7 days later they issued the termination notice to the tenant. 1 The owners’ tenancy is in the name of the female owner of the tenancy premises. The tenancy of the tenancy premises is in the name of the male owner. The agent provided a copy of the Management Agreement between the agent and the owner which links the tenancy address with the female owner. My decision
My decision is that the termination notice is not retaliatory. The tenant’s application is dismissed.
This means that the tenancy should have ended on 9 January 2024.
However, this date has already passed, and it is not reasonable to expect the tenant and her two young children to move out of the premises immediately. Also, the owners are required to give their own landlord at least 28 days’ notice to terminate their own tenancy.
I have therefore set a termination date for this tenancy of 5:00pm on Monday 12 February 2024. Landlord’s application for compensation
The landlord has also applied for compensation. The agent’s submission says that the owners should have been able to move into the tenancy premises on 10 January 2024 so any delay to this date means they are paying additional rent where they live. It wants the tenant to pay the difference between the rent the owners have to pay and the rent paid by the tenant ($880.00 - $660.00 = $140.00 per week).
I dismiss this application. Compensation is only awarded when a party has breached the law. The tenant has not done anything wrong. She had a legal right and reasonable grounds for thinking that the termination notice may have been retaliatory, and she made this application promptly after receiving the termination notice. She did not know that the owners were renting elsewhere and that their rent had been increased. Conclusion and suppression orders
The tenancy is not ending because the tenant has done anything wrong. It is ending because an owner has the legal right to decide that they or a member of their family will live in tenancy premises.
Neither party is at fault. For this reason, I do not make orders about the filing fees, and I suppress both parties’ names. This is consistent with the previous proceedings and is appropriate in the circumstances. There may be a public interest in the subject matter of this decision, but I consider that the parties’ interests in keeping their identities private outweigh any need for others to know who they are.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4742151 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4742151 — 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