What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4787717 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4787717?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4787717?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4787717?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10290286-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4787717 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4787717?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4787717?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4787717?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10290286-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4787717 — Exemplary damages

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its property manager.
The tenant filed his application because he was given a notice to terminate his boarding house tenancy immediately, and he thought the landlord acted unfairly because the property manager did not make good enquiries after an incident involving other boarding house tenants. He is also concerned that the landlord gave a notice it was not entitled to give, knowing they were not entitled to do so.
Essentially the tenant’s claim is for compensation or damages because of a breach of section 60AA RTA which states that because the landlord gave a notice it was not entitled to give, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching this obligation 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant said two other tenants falsely accused him of punching a tenant in the head. These two went to the police station and made a complaint. They also contacted the landlord and reported the alleged assault. The tenant went to the police station on the day to try to sort things out. According to him the police said they did not believe the allegation because there were no injuries.
The tenant got a copy of the police report after filing his application. The report confirms there were no visible injuries on the tenant who said he was hit. The tenant was not charged.
Unfortunately, the landlord did not speak with the police. She said she knew the police would not speak with a property manager. Instead, she emailed the other boarding house tenants and asked if they had information about an “incident”. I have seen emailed replies from two boarding house tenants. One did not hear anything at the time. Two said they wanted to meet, but I have no documentary evidence as to what was said at the meeting. There is nothing at all from the person who supposedly heard everything. Based on this information she wrote a letter ending the tenancy immediately because of the assault and some other safety concerns. Termination of a boarding house tenancy at such short notice is allowed by section 66U(1) RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove because he is the applicant. He is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means he has to have the better evidence at the hearing.
I find the property manager should have spoken with the police. Because there were no injuries and no follow up it seems most likely to me the police did not take the allegation seriously. Further, I’m not sure that removing the hall lights and leaving the front door open are grounds — on their own — for ending the tenancy immediately. On the other hand, there is evidence the landlord spoke with the other boarding house tenants, and some evidence in the emails that these tenants reported an incident and had concerns about their safety. Whether or not they told the landlord the truth is not for me to decide.
I find I do not prefer the tenant’s evidence over the landlord’s evidence. This means that the tenant has not proved his claim, and it is dismissed.
The tenant made an application for suppression. The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. See section 95A RTA.
I am using my discretion to allow suppression for both parties. This is because I have not found any breaches of the RTA, parties are encouraged to use the Tribunal to resolve disputes, and any public interest is in the law and not the names.

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by its property manager.
The tenant filed his application because he was given a notice to terminate his boarding house tenancy immediately, and he thought the landlord acted unfairly because the property manager did not make good enquiries after an incident involving other boarding house tenants. He is also concerned that the landlord gave a notice it was not entitled to give, knowing they were not entitled to do so.
Essentially the tenant’s claim is for compensation or damages because of a breach of section 60AA RTA which states that because the landlord gave a notice it was not entitled to give, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breaching this obligation 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant said two other tenants falsely accused him of punching a tenant in the head. These two went to the police station and made a complaint. They also contacted the landlord and reported the alleged assault. The tenant went to the police station on the day to try to sort things out. According to him the police said they did not believe the allegation because there were no injuries.
The tenant got a copy of the police report after filing his application. The report confirms there were no visible injuries on the tenant who said he was hit. The tenant was not charged.
Unfortunately, the landlord did not speak with the police. She said she knew the police would not speak with a property manager. Instead, she emailed the other boarding house tenants and asked if they had information about an “incident”. I have seen emailed replies from two boarding house tenants. One did not hear anything at the time. Two said they wanted to meet, but I have no documentary evidence as to what was said at the meeting. There is nothing at all from the person who supposedly heard everything. Based on this information she wrote a letter ending the tenancy immediately because of the assault and some other safety concerns. Termination of a boarding house tenancy at such short notice is allowed by section 66U(1) RTA.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove because he is the applicant. He is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means he has to have the better evidence at the hearing.
I find the property manager should have spoken with the police. Because there were no injuries and no follow up it seems most likely to me the police did not take the allegation seriously. Further, I’m not sure that removing the hall lights and leaving the front door open are grounds — on their own — for ending the tenancy immediately. On the other hand, there is evidence the landlord spoke with the other boarding house tenants, and some evidence in the emails that these tenants reported an incident and had concerns about their safety. Whether or not they told the landlord the truth is not for me to decide.
I find I do not prefer the tenant’s evidence over the landlord’s evidence. This means that the tenant has not proved his claim, and it is dismissed.
The tenant made an application for suppression. The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. See section 95A RTA.
I am using my discretion to allow suppression for both parties. This is because I have not found any breaches of the RTA, parties are encouraged to use the Tribunal to resolve disputes, and any public interest is in the law and not the names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4787717 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4787717 — 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