What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4745324 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenants and the Landlord’s names

How much money was awarded in case 4745324?

Compensation: $6,058.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4745324?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4745324?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10331476-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4745324 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenants and the Landlord’s names

How much money was awarded in case 4745324?

Compensation: $6,058.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4745324?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4745324?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10331476-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4745324 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4745324 — net $6,078.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for giving notice without cause	$6,058.00	Compensation for giving notice without cause
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,078.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,078.44

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenants and the Landlord’s names and identifying details.
must pay immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by it’s directors, [names redacted].
The tenants claim that the landlord unlawfully terminated the tenancy and seek compensation for moving costs, various expenses, increased rent at their new property, stress and inconvenience. They also seek exemplary damages.
The tenancy began on 25 November 2022 at a rental of $900 per week and was for a one year fixed term. The tenants intended that the tenancy be a long term tenancy of four to five years as they had teenage children that they wanted to attend the nearby school.
However on 22 September 2023, during the fixed one year term, the tenants received a 90 day notice terminating the tenancy on the basis that the owner wanted to move back in.
The tenants were very disappointed and immediately wrote to the landlord to express their dismay. They found that there were very few rental properties available and they had to move to a property in the same area that was not as well located at a higher rental of $1,050. The tenants moved on 10 November 2023. The move was disruptive for their family and caused considerable stress.
The tenancy ended reasonably amicably given the circumstances and the landlord refunded the bond and provided the tenants with a very positive reference. However the parties were unable to agree on compensation and after some investigation the tenants came to the conclusion that the termination notice was unlawful. They then filed this claim.
At the hearing the directors of the landlord explained that they had found themselves faced with a very difficult family situation. They described in some detail the circumstances in which they found themselves and which led to them giving notice to the tenants. They said that they were desperate and had no other option but to move back into the property and thought that they were acting within the law in giving notice. Termination of tenancy to accommodate family
The landlord has purported to terminate the tenancy under section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which provides that: 51 Termination by notice (1) A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 63 days notice if— (a) 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...
The landlord was unable to give notice under this section because: a. Section 51(1)(a) only applies to periodic tenancies. This was a fixed tenancy and so the landlord was unable to give notice during the fixed term. b. The landlord is a company and so cannot give notice under section 51(1)(a), as a company is not a natural person and cannot move into the property and does not have family members. This has previously been confirmed in Tribunal cases (see for example Williams v Dalkara GP Limited [2016] NZTT 4026134 and Applicants v Cosmo Holdings Limited [2023] NZTT 4472260. There are advantages that might be obtained by landlords using a company ownership structure but it does mean that this particular section of the RTA cannot be used to terminate the tenancy. Compensation
Both the tenants and the directors of the landlord’s families have experienced some considerable difficulties and during the hearing they each party expressed understanding of each other’s situations and sympathy for one another. Given the circumstances I granted a brief adjournment during the hearing to see whether the parties might be able to reach agreement as to an appropriate level of compensation. At the conclusion of the adjournment however the parties advised that they would prefer that the Tribunal determine the appropriate compensation.
I have considered the issue of compensation carefully. Compensation is for loss that flows from the breach by the other party. The loss must be foreseeable and reasonable, and not too remote.
I have no difficulty in awarding the tenants’ their moving costs, which were proved by invoice, in the amount of $1,058. These costs would not have been incurred if the landlord had not given notice unlawfully.
The tenants also provided invoices for various minor items purchased as part of the move (such as a dryer hanging kit, drill bits and screws) but I do not consider that these items are closely enough linked to the landlord’s breach.
I accept that the tenant could only find a comparable property at an increased rent. However the rent at this tenancy would likely have increased at the end of the 12 month period in accordance with usual practice (which was only one month away) and it is not possible to know how much that might have been. It is also not possible to know whether the landlord would have granted another 12 month term or whether the tenancy might have become periodic that the point.
I also accept that the tenants have suffered stress and inconvenience of an upheaval not even one year into the tenancy and have had to take time off work to do all of the administrative tasks involved in moving house.
It is not always possible to calculate compensation with absolute precision. Standing back and looking at the situation as a whole, I consider that compensation of $5,000 is appropriate. This figure takes into account the $600 that the tenants paid over and above the rent that they would have paid during the last four weeks of the tenancy (where the difference between the old rent and the new rent can be accurately calculated), together with a contribution to the increased rental over the following year and compensation for the stress and inconvenience suffered. Exemplary damages
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 $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord has terminated the tenancy unlawfully and has therefore committed an unlawful act.
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) RTA. The purpose of exemplary damage are to punish and deter.
Having heard from the parties I do not consider that it would be just to award exemplary damages as there was a genuine mistake made the directors of the landlord while in difficult circumstances. Name suppression and filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants have sought name suppression and as the substantially successful party they are entitled to an order for suppression under section 95A RTA.
After hearing from the parties on the issue of name suppression however I have decided to exercise my discretion to suppress both parties’ names.
The tenants and the directors of the landlord live in a close knit community and will continue to interact with each other as community member and neighbours. They each expressed considerable goodwill towards each other at the hearing. Naming the landlord in this situation is likely to also identify the tenants. There is no public interest in naming the landlord as the property is no longer tenanted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4745324 — net $6,078.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for giving notice without cause	$6,058.00	Compensation for giving notice without cause
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,078.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$6,078.44

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenants and the Landlord’s names and identifying details.
must pay immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by it’s directors, [names redacted].
The tenants claim that the landlord unlawfully terminated the tenancy and seek compensation for moving costs, various expenses, increased rent at their new property, stress and inconvenience. They also seek exemplary damages.
The tenancy began on 25 November 2022 at a rental of $900 per week and was for a one year fixed term. The tenants intended that the tenancy be a long term tenancy of four to five years as they had teenage children that they wanted to attend the nearby school.
However on 22 September 2023, during the fixed one year term, the tenants received a 90 day notice terminating the tenancy on the basis that the owner wanted to move back in.
The tenants were very disappointed and immediately wrote to the landlord to express their dismay. They found that there were very few rental properties available and they had to move to a property in the same area that was not as well located at a higher rental of $1,050. The tenants moved on 10 November 2023. The move was disruptive for their family and caused considerable stress.
The tenancy ended reasonably amicably given the circumstances and the landlord refunded the bond and provided the tenants with a very positive reference. However the parties were unable to agree on compensation and after some investigation the tenants came to the conclusion that the termination notice was unlawful. They then filed this claim.
At the hearing the directors of the landlord explained that they had found themselves faced with a very difficult family situation. They described in some detail the circumstances in which they found themselves and which led to them giving notice to the tenants. They said that they were desperate and had no other option but to move back into the property and thought that they were acting within the law in giving notice. Termination of tenancy to accommodate family
The landlord has purported to terminate the tenancy under section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which provides that: 51 Termination by notice (1) A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 63 days notice if— (a) 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...
The landlord was unable to give notice under this section because: a. Section 51(1)(a) only applies to periodic tenancies. This was a fixed tenancy and so the landlord was unable to give notice during the fixed term. b. The landlord is a company and so cannot give notice under section 51(1)(a), as a company is not a natural person and cannot move into the property and does not have family members. This has previously been confirmed in Tribunal cases (see for example Williams v Dalkara GP Limited [2016] NZTT 4026134 and Applicants v Cosmo Holdings Limited [2023] NZTT 4472260. There are advantages that might be obtained by landlords using a company ownership structure but it does mean that this particular section of the RTA cannot be used to terminate the tenancy. Compensation
Both the tenants and the directors of the landlord’s families have experienced some considerable difficulties and during the hearing they each party expressed understanding of each other’s situations and sympathy for one another. Given the circumstances I granted a brief adjournment during the hearing to see whether the parties might be able to reach agreement as to an appropriate level of compensation. At the conclusion of the adjournment however the parties advised that they would prefer that the Tribunal determine the appropriate compensation.
I have considered the issue of compensation carefully. Compensation is for loss that flows from the breach by the other party. The loss must be foreseeable and reasonable, and not too remote.
I have no difficulty in awarding the tenants’ their moving costs, which were proved by invoice, in the amount of $1,058. These costs would not have been incurred if the landlord had not given notice unlawfully.
The tenants also provided invoices for various minor items purchased as part of the move (such as a dryer hanging kit, drill bits and screws) but I do not consider that these items are closely enough linked to the landlord’s breach.
I accept that the tenant could only find a comparable property at an increased rent. However the rent at this tenancy would likely have increased at the end of the 12 month period in accordance with usual practice (which was only one month away) and it is not possible to know how much that might have been. It is also not possible to know whether the landlord would have granted another 12 month term or whether the tenancy might have become periodic that the point.
I also accept that the tenants have suffered stress and inconvenience of an upheaval not even one year into the tenancy and have had to take time off work to do all of the administrative tasks involved in moving house.
It is not always possible to calculate compensation with absolute precision. Standing back and looking at the situation as a whole, I consider that compensation of $5,000 is appropriate. This figure takes into account the $600 that the tenants paid over and above the rent that they would have paid during the last four weeks of the tenancy (where the difference between the old rent and the new rent can be accurately calculated), together with a contribution to the increased rental over the following year and compensation for the stress and inconvenience suffered. Exemplary damages
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 $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord has terminated the tenancy unlawfully and has therefore committed an unlawful act.
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) RTA. The purpose of exemplary damage are to punish and deter.
Having heard from the parties I do not consider that it would be just to award exemplary damages as there was a genuine mistake made the directors of the landlord while in difficult circumstances. Name suppression and filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants have sought name suppression and as the substantially successful party they are entitled to an order for suppression under section 95A RTA.
After hearing from the parties on the issue of name suppression however I have decided to exercise my discretion to suppress both parties’ names.
The tenants and the directors of the landlord live in a close knit community and will continue to interact with each other as community member and neighbours. They each expressed considerable goodwill towards each other at the hearing. Naming the landlord in this situation is likely to also identify the tenants. There is no public interest in naming the landlord as the property is no longer tenanted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4745324 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4745324 — Tenancy dispute

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