What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4761037 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 4761037?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4761037?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4761037?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9954755-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4761037 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 4761037?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4761037?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4761037?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9954755-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4761037 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4761037 — net $620.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages – failure to lodge the bond	$600.00	Exemplary damages – failure to lodge the bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$620.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$620.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Seth Michael Rayman’s application to set aside a notice to terminate the tenancy dated 15 January 2024 is dismissed.
By declaration, the landlord’s undated notice of rent increase delivered on 12 December 2023 is invalid and has no effect.
[The landlord/s] as the Trustees of [The Trust] must lodge the bond of $1,800 with the bond centre within 3 working days of this Order.
[The landlord/s] must pay Seth Michael Rayman $620.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages – failure to lodge the bond $600.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $620.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $620.44
The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Rayman has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for a range of alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations. He also asked for a declaration that a notice to terminate the tenancy was retaliatory and has no effect. Mr Rayman is required to establish each claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Mr Rayman withdrew claims for a work order and compensation relating to tree/garden maintenance at the hearing.
Both parties gave extensive oral evidence. Much of it was not relevant to the issues in this application, so is not referred to in this decision. The Tribunal is an adjudicative body, it looks to the issues raised in an application, hears evidence on those issues and makes a decision which is binding on the parties.
The landlord raised issues with rent arrears and other issues at the property, but had not submitted a cross-application, so those matters have not been considered or determined. Notice of Rent Increase
The landlord served an undated notice of rent increase on the tenant on or about 12 December 2024. That notice did not specify the new rent amount. The landlord said it would take advice on the amount payable.
Section 24(1) RTA states (emphasis added): The rent payable in respect of any tenancy may be increased by the landlord provided all of the following conditions are complied with: (a) the landlord shall give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and (b) that notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and (c) the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, not less than 28 days) after the date on which that notice is given; and (d) the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy; and (e) the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date on which the last increase took effect; and
The landlord advised the amount of the increase in early January 2024. The tenant accepted the increase but said that the 60 days’ notice period commenced when he was advised of the new rental amount. The landlord disputed that and said that the 60 days started when the notice was served in December. The landlord also indicated that it would take advice to confirm its position.
On the landlord’s argument, it would be open for them to advise the increased rent amount on day 59. That is clearly incorrect. A landlord cannot notify the tenant that rent will be going up in 60 days and advise the amount later.
The notice of rent increase in December 2023 did not comply with s24(1)(b) and is not enforceable. Notice to Terminate
On 15 January 2024, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 18 March 2024. The tenant claims 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) 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.
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? c. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
I find that the termination notice complies with s51(1)(d) RTA. The landlord requires the premises for their son. The landlord gave evidence that their son made a, last minute, decision to study in [City 1] for the 2024 academic year, rather than return to [City 2].
The application was also made within 28 days of the notice being given.
The key issue is whether the tenant has proved that the landlord was motivated wholly or partly, by him exercising his rights under the RTA, or by ay complaint against the landlord.
The Tribunal has held that the term motivate has the ordinary dictionary meaning “to give impetus to ... to impel”. Usually there will be little direct evidence about the landlord’s intent in giving a termination notice. Therefore, the Tribunal must consider what inferences, if any, can be drawn from the timing and sequence of events.
Where there is a short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord serving a notice, this may lead to a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights.
The landlord served the notice to terminate at the same time as the parties were discussing the validity of the landlord’s December notice of rent increase. The timing of the notice allows for a strong inference that the termination was at least partly motivated by the tenant challenging the rent increase.
However, the evidence from the landlord about the timing of their son’s decision and why he needs the property led me to a different conclusion; that the landlord was not motivated by the tenant exercising his rights. The landlord also told the tenant that it was taking advice in relation to the rent increase. The landlord was open to discussing the tenant’s concerns.
I also questioned the landlord as to why this tenancy was terminated. The landlord also owns the unit adjoining this one and rents it to another tenant. The explanation was reasonable; the other unit is bigger and is more than their son requires and the other tenant carries out all the landlord’s maintenance work.
The tenant did not prove that it is more likely than not that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was retaliatory. This aspect of the claim is dismissed. It follows that the tenancy will terminate on 18 March 2024. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment – Harassment
Seth Michael Rayman claims the landlord has breach his quiet enjoyment of the premises.
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 tenant claims that his interactions with the landlord, [Landlord 1], breached his quiet enjoyment of the property. His evidence was rather vague. He claims to have had direct, face to face, contact wither her twice during the tenancy. [Landlord 1] says that it was four times.
The tenant’s evidence did not establish any concerning behaviour by [Landlord 1]. Her written communications were professional and courteous. This aspect of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Tenancy Agreement
The tenant claims that the landlord did not provide a new tenancy agreement when his former partner and joint tenant left the property in May 2023.
The landlord acknowledged and accepted requests from both tenants removing the former partner as a tenant. The email exchanges record an effective amendment of the tenancy; no other documentation was required.
This aspect of the claim is also dismissed. Bond
Mr Rayman claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not lodge the bond within the required timeframe, or at all. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
The landlords have rented property for a number of years. They were aware of their obligation to lodge the bond. When I asked why they had not done so, [Landlord 1] said it was because rent was in arrears. That indicates an intentional decision not to lodge the bond.
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 award the tenant $600 exemplary damages.
Bond is tenant’s money unless and until the landlord proves a claim to it. [Landlord 1] acknowledged that the bond should be lodged but asked to lodge only $1,350.00 because rent is in arrears.
The full bond must be lodged within 3 working days of this Order. If the landlord believes that it has a claim to any of the bond, it must make an application in the normal way.
As the landlord was substantially successful, I have granted its request for suppression of its details.
The tenant was partially successful, so I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee. The tenant did not request suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4761037 — net $620.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages – failure to lodge the bond	$600.00	Exemplary damages – failure to lodge the bond
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$620.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$620.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Seth Michael Rayman’s application to set aside a notice to terminate the tenancy dated 15 January 2024 is dismissed.
By declaration, the landlord’s undated notice of rent increase delivered on 12 December 2023 is invalid and has no effect.
[The landlord/s] as the Trustees of [The Trust] must lodge the bond of $1,800 with the bond centre within 3 working days of this Order.
[The landlord/s] must pay Seth Michael Rayman $620.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below: DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages – failure to lodge the bond $600.00 Filing fee reimbursement $20.44 Total award $620.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $620.44
The tenant’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Rayman has applied for compensation and exemplary damages for a range of alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations. He also asked for a declaration that a notice to terminate the tenancy was retaliatory and has no effect. Mr Rayman is required to establish each claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Mr Rayman withdrew claims for a work order and compensation relating to tree/garden maintenance at the hearing.
Both parties gave extensive oral evidence. Much of it was not relevant to the issues in this application, so is not referred to in this decision. The Tribunal is an adjudicative body, it looks to the issues raised in an application, hears evidence on those issues and makes a decision which is binding on the parties.
The landlord raised issues with rent arrears and other issues at the property, but had not submitted a cross-application, so those matters have not been considered or determined. Notice of Rent Increase
The landlord served an undated notice of rent increase on the tenant on or about 12 December 2024. That notice did not specify the new rent amount. The landlord said it would take advice on the amount payable.
Section 24(1) RTA states (emphasis added): The rent payable in respect of any tenancy may be increased by the landlord provided all of the following conditions are complied with: (a) the landlord shall give the tenant notice in writing of the increase; and (b) that notice shall specify the amount of the increased rent and the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable; and (c) the day upon which the increased rent shall become payable shall be not less than 60 days (or, in the case of a boarding house tenancy, not less than 28 days) after the date on which that notice is given; and (d) the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date of the commencement of the tenancy; and (e) the rent must not be increased within 12 months after the date on which the last increase took effect; and
The landlord advised the amount of the increase in early January 2024. The tenant accepted the increase but said that the 60 days’ notice period commenced when he was advised of the new rental amount. The landlord disputed that and said that the 60 days started when the notice was served in December. The landlord also indicated that it would take advice to confirm its position.
On the landlord’s argument, it would be open for them to advise the increased rent amount on day 59. That is clearly incorrect. A landlord cannot notify the tenant that rent will be going up in 60 days and advise the amount later.
The notice of rent increase in December 2023 did not comply with s24(1)(b) and is not enforceable. Notice to Terminate
On 15 January 2024, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 18 March 2024. The tenant claims 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) 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.
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? c. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
I find that the termination notice complies with s51(1)(d) RTA. The landlord requires the premises for their son. The landlord gave evidence that their son made a, last minute, decision to study in [City 1] for the 2024 academic year, rather than return to [City 2].
The application was also made within 28 days of the notice being given.
The key issue is whether the tenant has proved that the landlord was motivated wholly or partly, by him exercising his rights under the RTA, or by ay complaint against the landlord.
The Tribunal has held that the term motivate has the ordinary dictionary meaning “to give impetus to ... to impel”. Usually there will be little direct evidence about the landlord’s intent in giving a termination notice. Therefore, the Tribunal must consider what inferences, if any, can be drawn from the timing and sequence of events.
Where there is a short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord serving a notice, this may lead to a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights.
The landlord served the notice to terminate at the same time as the parties were discussing the validity of the landlord’s December notice of rent increase. The timing of the notice allows for a strong inference that the termination was at least partly motivated by the tenant challenging the rent increase.
However, the evidence from the landlord about the timing of their son’s decision and why he needs the property led me to a different conclusion; that the landlord was not motivated by the tenant exercising his rights. The landlord also told the tenant that it was taking advice in relation to the rent increase. The landlord was open to discussing the tenant’s concerns.
I also questioned the landlord as to why this tenancy was terminated. The landlord also owns the unit adjoining this one and rents it to another tenant. The explanation was reasonable; the other unit is bigger and is more than their son requires and the other tenant carries out all the landlord’s maintenance work.
The tenant did not prove that it is more likely than not that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was retaliatory. This aspect of the claim is dismissed. It follows that the tenancy will terminate on 18 March 2024. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment – Harassment
Seth Michael Rayman claims the landlord has breach his quiet enjoyment of the premises.
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 tenant claims that his interactions with the landlord, [Landlord 1], breached his quiet enjoyment of the property. His evidence was rather vague. He claims to have had direct, face to face, contact wither her twice during the tenancy. [Landlord 1] says that it was four times.
The tenant’s evidence did not establish any concerning behaviour by [Landlord 1]. Her written communications were professional and courteous. This aspect of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Tenancy Agreement
The tenant claims that the landlord did not provide a new tenancy agreement when his former partner and joint tenant left the property in May 2023.
The landlord acknowledged and accepted requests from both tenants removing the former partner as a tenant. The email exchanges record an effective amendment of the tenancy; no other documentation was required.
This aspect of the claim is also dismissed. Bond
Mr Rayman claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord did not lodge the bond within the required timeframe, or at all. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
The landlords have rented property for a number of years. They were aware of their obligation to lodge the bond. When I asked why they had not done so, [Landlord 1] said it was because rent was in arrears. That indicates an intentional decision not to lodge the bond.
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 award the tenant $600 exemplary damages.
Bond is tenant’s money unless and until the landlord proves a claim to it. [Landlord 1] acknowledged that the bond should be lodged but asked to lodge only $1,350.00 because rent is in arrears.
The full bond must be lodged within 3 working days of this Order. If the landlord believes that it has a claim to any of the bond, it must make an application in the normal way.
As the landlord was substantially successful, I have granted its request for suppression of its details.
The tenant was partially successful, so I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee. The tenant did not request suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4761037 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4761037 — Exemplary damages

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