What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4831417 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 4831417?

Compensation: Rent rebate for unlawf…: $59,475.43 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,800.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $25,364.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4831417?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4831417?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11056385-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4831417 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 4831417?

Compensation: Rent rebate for unlawf…: $59,475.43 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $4,800.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $25,364.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4831417?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4831417?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11056385-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4831417 — State of repair

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4831417 — net $38,911.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 26 June 2024	$25,364.29		Rent arrears (to 26 June 2024
Compensation: Rent rebate for unlawful premise-s78A of		$59,475.43	Rent rebate for unlawful premise-s78A of
Exemplary damages: S45(1)(b) and (c) breaches		$4,800.00	S45(1)(b) and (c) breaches
Total award	$25,364.29	$64,275.43
Net award		$38,911.14
Bond		$3,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$38,911.14

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4831417 — net $38,911.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears (to 26 June 2024	$25,364.29		Rent arrears (to 26 June 2024
Compensation: Rent rebate for unlawful premise-s78A of		$59,475.43	Rent rebate for unlawful premise-s78A of
Exemplary damages: S45(1)(b) and (c) breaches		$4,800.00	S45(1)(b) and (c) breaches
Total award	$25,364.29	$64,275.43
Net award		$38,911.14
Bond		$3,800.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$38,911.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Tribunal declares that part of the premises occupied by the Tenant are unlawful residential premises.
Ideal Real Estate Ltd, as agent for Fei Tang And Jun Yang is granted possession of the premises at [tenancy address suppressed] immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 to [the tenant] immediately.
Ideal Real Estate Ltd, as agent for Fei Tang And Jun Yang must pay [the tenant] $38,911.14, calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 26 June 2024.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, possession, rent arrears and exemplary damages for the tenant’s failure to quit the premise without reasonable excuse, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant has made a cross application for a work order, a declaration that the premise is unlawful pursuant to s78A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), a declaration that the notice ending the tenancy is retaliatory and not enforceable, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenant has also applied for compensation and/or penalties for the landlord’s alleged misrepresentation and/or non-disclosure under the Fair Trading Act 1986 and for Ideal Real Estate Ltd’s alleged breaches the Real Estate Agents Act, and common law duties the tenant says are owed to him. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine these claims or to award the damages sought. Background
The tenant entered a twelve-month fixed term tenancy with the landlord, that commenced on 6 November 2020 and was due to end on 5 November 2021.
The tenancy agreement not renewed or extended by the parties and became periodic from 6 November 2021.
The landlord’s agent advertised the property for rent on its website as having 7- bedrooms, 3 bathrooms and 3 car garaging and the tenant agreed to rent the premise based on this representation and that the premise was lawful for residential purposes.
The tenant’s wife and two children are listed as residents and the maximum number of occupants allowed to reside at the premise is four. This does not prohibit the tenant from having visitors that may stay for periods of time, so long as they do not become residents.
The landlord says that the tenant breached the maximum number of residents terms in the tenancy agreement by having his parents come to stay, but this claim does not form part of the landlord’s application to the Tribunal so will not be examined in this determination.
On 4 May 2023, the landlord gave the tenant a 63-day notice ending his tenancy, on 6 July 2023, as the owners intended to move back to the premise on their intended return to New Zealand.
On 5 May 2023, the tenant asked to vary the start date of the termination notice to start the 63 days’ notice from 11 June 2023. The tenant also offered to purchase the premise from the owners as he and his family did not want to move.
On 21 May 2023, the owners and the tenant entered into a sale and purchase agreement that was conditional upon solicitor approval, LIM and finance. Clause 26 of the Agreement records that the “purchaser warrants to pay rent of $950.00 per week until the settlement date”.
On 27 June 2023, the tenant advised the owners the LIM and finance conditions were not met, as the LIM had shown that a CCC had not been issued. Consequently, the sale and purchase agreement came to an end.
On 27 June 2023, the landlord gave the tenant a second 63-day notice ending his tenancy as the owners still intended to move back into the property.
On 28 June 2023, the tenant’s wife entered into a sales and purchase agreement with the owners. This Agreement was conditional for four working days on a LIM, finance and both lawyers’ approval. There was also a final inspection clause where an inspection would be conducted by the tenant’s wife 7 days after the Agreement became unconditional.
There is an ongoing dispute between the tenant’s wife and the owners as to the current status of the Agreement between them. This matter is to be heard by the High Court. The tenant’s wife says the Agreement is still on foot and she is waiting for the owners to prove the property complies with New Zealand building and safety regulations before completing the purchase. The owners say the property does comply with New Zealand building and safety regulations and the tenant’s wife is in breach of the Agreement, therefore the Agreement is at an end and penalties apply. The owners returned the tenant’s wife’s deposit on 27 February 2024 saying the Agreement has been frustrated.
Both parties during the hearing continually referred to the tenant and his wife as being both tenants and purchasers. In reality, the owners have a tenancy agreement with the tenant and a sales and purchase agreement with the tenant’s wife. The tenant’s wife is listed in the tenancy agreement as a resident, but she is not listed as a tenant. The tenant is not recorded on the sales and purchase agreement at all.
The owners have obligations to the tenant under the RTA and different obligations to the tenant’s wife under the sales and purchase agreement and relevant legislation. This is an important distinction the tenant appears not to have fully grasped. He therefore entangles these two separate sets of obligations in his application to the Tribunal.
For the purposes of assessing the tenant’s claims against the parties’ obligations under the RTA, I must focus on the tenancy relationship between the tenant and the landlord and not on the sale and purchase agreement between his wife and the owners.
On 16 January 2024, the landlord sent the tenant a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy as the owners intend to put the house on the market. The end of the 90-day period ended on 15 April 2024.

TENANT CLAIMS

Did the landlord issue the tenant a retaliatory notice?

On 16 January 2024, the landlord sent the tenant a 90-day notice terminating his tenancy on 15 April 2024, citing the reason as the owners intending to sell the property.
The tenant says this notice is retaliatory and should be held unenforceable.
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.
Section 50(1)(b) of RTA confirms “no tenancy to which this Act applies shall terminate or be terminated, in the case of a periodic tenancy to which a right of termination under any of sections 51 to 53B, 55AA, 56A(1), 58(1)(c), and 59 to 59B applies, except by the giving notice in accordance with the applicable section”.
Section 51 of the RTA provides a list of lawful reasons the landlords could have given the tenant notice to end her periodic tenancy. S51(2)(a) of the RTA states “A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice, if the premises are to be put on the market by the owner within 90 days after the termination date for the purposes of sale or other disposition”.
Prima facie, the notice of termination is lawful, pursuant to s51(2)(a) of the RTA, as the landlord has proven the owners are motivated to sell the property as soon as practicable as they have returned to New Zealand to live, have committed to purchasing another home on the basis that they will soon sell the premise the tenant is renting and time is of the essence to them.
The tenant does not claim the notice is unlawful, he claims the notice is retaliatory, as it is in direct conflict with the terms of the sale and purchase agreement between the owners and his wife, that he says confirms his wife can continue to rent the house for $950.00 per week until settlement date, and the settlement date has not yet been reached.
The tenant also states that this notice is in retaliation for he and his wife trying to exercise their legal rights by seeking to have the landlord investigate and remediate a potential upstairs toilet leak that has damaged the floor timbers and affected both showers and them seeking to delay settlement until the premise has a CoA and is proven to meet the building and safety regulations.
On 17 January 2024 at 11:51, the tenant sent an email to the landlord’s agent asking for help “to understand the intention behind issuing the notice” and the relationship between the notice and the terms of the sale and purchase agreement the owners have with his wife. He also expressed some concerns that the notice indicates the vendor is seeking to put the property on the market, despite the tenant’s wife’s existing sale and purchase agreement, which has gone unconditional, and the full deposit paid.
The landlord’s agent confirmed in a reply email on 17 January 2024 at 13:21 “we all want the purchase agreement to go ahead and settle as the plan, so you and the owner can both move on. Of course, in this case, the 90 days will be dismissed. If unfortunately, the settlement does not happen, the owner is willing to refund you the deposit. You and your family can look for another suitable one and the owner can put the property up for sale asap. Hopefully we can have this settled smoothly”.
On 25 January 2024, the owners lawyer confirms by email “our client instructs us to accept proposal under point 1 to defer settlement by COA + 10 working days”. As far as I am aware, the COA had not been obtained as at the date of the hearing or a final settlement date agreed.
This email exchange proves the landlord was motivated by the need to have vacant possession of the house, as the owners intend to sell it as soon as they can, whether to the tenant’s wife or another party. The landlord has also made it clear, in this email exchange, if the Agreement with the tenant’s wife settles then the family can remain in renting the house until settlement date. If the sale falls over, the tenant and his family will need to vacate the house with immediacy.
I find it more likely than not the Landlord provided a valid notice to terminate, and I do not accept the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that the notice is retaliatory.
The tenant’s wife and the owners need to negotiate and record, separately to the tenancy agreement, what happens regarding her continuing to rent the property until settlement date or the date the sales and purchase agreement falls over.
For these reasons, the tenancy is terminated, and possession is granted to the Landlord on 6 December 2024 at 11:59pm. This will allow the tenant and his wife time to negotiate with the landlord whether the family can remain in the house pursuant to the sales and purchase agreement or to find a suitable place to live. Unlawful premise
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) RTA. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
The tenant claimed that the premises are unlawful residential premises as part of the premise does not comply with relevant building, health, and safety legislation. Therefore, the tenant says he should not be held liable for payment of the full rental amount under the tenancy agreement. He claims he should get a rent rebate of $450.00 per week for the parts of the house that are unlawful for residential purposes.
Unlawful residential premises include dwellings within a property which have been constructed for another purpose, such as a garage or a commercial building, or properties which do not comply with relevant building, health, and safety legislation.
The tenant produced a Safe and Sanitary Report from a Licensed Building Practitioner (LBP), dated 5 February 2024, which concluded: a. Separate toilet upstairs has been moved and installed to the back wall and there is no record of any variation of the plans. It is not known if it was by a certified plumber as it is leaking and has caused rot to the timber wall around it. Therefore, this part of the premise was found to lack adequate sanitary facilities for its intended use; and b. The downstairs area, which includes three bedrooms, a living room, and a toilet with a shower, lacks adequate ventilation and light and presents major safety issues, also rendering it unsafe and uninhabitable.
The LBP’s findings confirm that the living conditions provided to the tenant and his family were classified as both "dangerous" and "insanitary" under Sections 121 and 123 of the New Zealand Building Act 2004. Section 11(1) of the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947(HIR) also provide that “every habitable room shall be provided with 1 or more windows so situated in an external wall or external walls that adequate light is admitted”.
The tenant has also produced evidence that shows these issues were present from the start of the tenancy and the tenant was not informed of them and that he has notified the landlord of these issues on multiple occasions and the landlord has neglected to rectify these breaches.
The landlord’s evidence is that it does not comment on the merit of the allegations made by the tenant and that the burden of proof for these allegations lies with the tenant, who must prove them on the balance of probabilities. It does however state that the test for “uninhabitability” is that the premises are (in part or fully) destroyed or so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. 1 This case is distinguished in that it relates to the definition of uninhabitable as it related to s59 of the RTA, which is a different head of claim to the one made by the tenant under ss36 and 45(1)(c) of the RTA.
I am satisfied that the Safe and Sanitary Report proves on balance that the landlord failed to comply with section 36 and 45(1) of the RTA and the landlord has failed to disprove this claim. Accordingly, a declaration is made that part of the premises are unlawful residential premises. Amount of rent to be refunded
Pursuant to section 78A (4) of the RTA where premises are found to be unlawful the Tribunal can consider reimbursing rent paid. The Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so. See section 78A(4)(ii) RTA. A proportionate return of rent may be considered.
The tenant made submissions regarding the rent refund to be ordered and has sought a rent rebate of $450.00 per week from the $950.00 per week he has paid from the start of the tenancy (6 November 2020) until the date of the hearing (26 June 2024), being 189 weeks 5 days. He also claims that his parents had health issues that he says are attributable to the issues raised in the Safety and Sanitary report. He did not produce any evidence to support this claim.
The Tribunal has considered the following special circumstances of this case:
The landlord claims that the tenant had the benefit of living in the premises during this period at an affordable rent and did not raise concerns about the bathrooms and toilet until around the end of 2022 to July 2023 and did not raise the other issues set out in the Safety and Sanitary report until the sales and purchase agreement with his wife became unconditional and the tenant commissioned the report in February 2024. Further, it refutes the tenant’s parents’ health issues have been attributed to the premises by a medical health professional.
The Tribunal is obliged to take a strict approach when an unlawful premises is rented out because of the risks involved. 1 Watkin v Brazier Property Investments Ltd DC Christchurch CIV-2011-009-1006.
Having carefully considered the special circumstances of this case the Tribunal orders a refund to the tenant of 33 percent of the rent for the period part of the premise was uninhabitable, being $313.50 per week for 189 weeks 5 days in the sum of $59,475.43.
The Tribunal could make an order for compensation for breaches by the landlord of responsibilities to maintain the premises and comply with building requirements pursuant to sections 45(1)(b) and (c) RTA. However, I consider that the finding that the premises are unlawful, and the rent refund ordered pursuant to section 78A, deals with this matter and the landlord’s conduct should not be double counted under s45(1) of the RTA also. Failure to maintain and comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premise
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 45(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Under section 45(1)(b) of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain the rental premise in a reasonable state of repair. This means the landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention, within a timeframe that is reasonable in the circumstances. In Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd, the Wellington District Court held “what that time is depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”. 2
There is an obligation to repair, even if the tenant has notice of the state of repair of the premises when entering a tenancy agreement.
A tenant may give a landlord 14 days’ notice to remedy a breach of the RTA and/or any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety, but should do so in good faith and to remedy a real and significant breach 3 . However, notice from the tenant is not required if the landlord knew of the need to repair 4 or the need for repair was apparent from observation 5 .
There is also failure to repair if the repair is ineffective, non-complaint or unsafe 6 .
Under s45(1)(c) the landlord must also comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety. This includes, but is not limited to, a 2 Collins v Professionals Hutt City Ltd DC Wellington CIV-2009-085-1431, 24 February 2019 at [15]. 3 Brough v Housing NZ Ltd NZTT1848/1, 27 May 202 at [13]. 3 Berghan v Ponsonby Property Management Ltd trading as L J Hooker [2015] NZTT Manukau 2845 at [9]- [11]. 5 Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v Casey DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1762, 7 November 2007 at [4]. 5 Staife v Aegis Trust [2016] NZTT Auckland 3314 at [31]. requirement for the landlord to comply with the Resource Management Act, the Building Act 2004, the Building Code, Health Act 1956, Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, and Bylaws made under the Local Government Act 2002.
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which a maximum award of exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200.00 may be awarded. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Compensation may also be awarded in the form or rent reductions, water rates reductions or compensation for the stress, inconvenience and loss of amenity suffered by the tenants or reimbursement for actual costs incurred by the tenant that should not have been borne by him.
The tenant gave evidence that: a. There is a significant issue with one of the upstairs toilets, involving a potential leak that has damaged the floor timbers and affected both showers. The toilet has been relocated without any documented approvals for the plumbing and drainage work. The LBP inspected the toilet and, for safety reasons, advised the tenant not to use it. At the date of the hearing, it was still considered uninhabitable; b. The tenant has provided evidence the landlord's lawyer stated that if the tenant addressed the issue with the toilet, the tenant would be responsible for the costs, even though the tenant warned the landlord that failing to fix the problem could lead to further damages. The tenant says the landlord has denied the tenant’s request. As a result, the shower in the master room required major repairs due to the leakage, which also possibly affected part of the other shower; c. The Greenhome Building and Inspection Report, dated 18 June 2023, shows high moisture readings on the bottom of the wall at the left-hand side of the toilet and the toilet leaks and an LBP also advised the tenant not to use the toilet for safety reasons until it is fixed. It has never been fixed; and d. The LBP issued a Safety and Sanitary report on 5 February 2024 that proves the downstairs areas of the premise lacks adequate light and ventilation and is unsafe and continues to be an unresolved issue.
I am satisfied that the landlord, after becoming aware of the repair, maintenance and buildings, health, and safety legislation issues, chose not to address these issues in a reasonable timeframe in all the circumstances and that the tenant and his family suffered a loss of amenity, stress, and inconvenience because of these ongoing and intentional breaches.
As set out in paragraph [54] above, the rent refund ordered pursuant to section 78Acompensated the tenant for the landlord’s breaches of s45(1)(b) and (c) and it must not be double counted under s45(1) of the RTA also. Exemplary damages
The landlord has committed two intentional breaches of s45(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA and 1 of s11(1) of the HIR. These breaches were prolonged and resulted in the tenant and his family suffering the loss of amenity of these areas of the house and ongoing issues with trying to purchase the house.
I find the landlord has committed these unlawful acts intentionally and compounded those breaches by, failing to offer the tenant a rent rebate for the stress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity, failing to address the ongoing breaches and trying to get the tenant to pay for the remediation of these breaches.
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 it is in the public interest to penalise a landlord that repeatedly breaches its s45(1) of the RTA obligations and its s11(1) HIR obligations for such lengthy periods and showing such a cavalier attitude to the tenant’s many significant and ongoing plights. In all the circumstances outlined above I find it just to award $4,800.00 exemplary damages to the tenant, being 66% of the maximum penalty available.

Did the landlord fail to meet its healthy homes standards obligations?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). Specifically, the tenant considers that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy: a. For private rentals i. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy; or ii. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. iii. All private rentals must comply by 1 July 2025. b. All boarding houses must comply by 1 July 2021. c. All houses rented by Kāinga Ora and registered Community Housing Providers must comply by 1 July 2024.
Tenancies that commenced after 1 July 2019 and before 1 July 2021 are not required to meet all the healthy homes standard until 1 July 2025 but must comply with the Smoke Alarms and Insulation Regulations set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016.
The HHS does provide some exemptions in specific circumstances.
The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
Breaching the landlord’s HHS obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A).
The date of commencement of tenant’s tenancy was prior to 1 July 2021 when all tenancies had to comply with all the healthy homes’ standards within 90 days of the commencement of the tenancy unless an exemption applied. If an exemption applied, this exemption needed to be recorded in the signed tenancy agreement.
The tenancy agreement commenced on 6 November 2020. The evidence shows it has never been renewed or extended. As such the ventilation standard does not apply to the premise until 1 July 2025.
The tenant’s claim for breach of the ventilation standard is dismissed for lack of proof to support the claim. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Rent arrears and should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord has applied for rent arrears of $25,364.29 to 26 June 2024, termination of the tenancy and possession of the premise pursuant to section 55(1)(a) of the RTA as the rent was more than 21 days in arrears at the date the landlord made its application to the Tribunal.
The landlord has provided rent records to prove the amount owing and the tenant did not dispute this amount was owing at the hearing.
The tenant claims he did not pay these rent arrears as has an equitable offset via his cross application to the Tribunal.
The tenant has proven that he has an equitable offset, therefore, the tenancy has not been terminated pursuant to s55(1)(a) of the RTA but has been terminated pursuant to s51(2)(a) of the RTA as set out in paragraphs [24] to [39] above.

Did the tenant fail to quit the premise?

The landlord claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on 15 April 2024 after being given a lawful notice by the landlord on 16 January 2024.
The tenant claims the landlord could not lawfully terminate his tenancy because doing so would be in direct conflict with the terms of the sale and purchase agreement between the owners and his wife, that he says confirms his wife can continue to rent the house for $950.00 per week until settlement date, and the settlement date has not yet been reached.
Further, he claimed the notice was invalid as it was retaliatory.
I have found at paragraphs [24] to [39] above that the termination notice was lawful and have subsequently terminated the tenancy and granted possession back to the landlord.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find that the tenant refused to quit the premise, but with reasonable excuse. He and his wife have been awaiting the outcome of this hearing and the High Court hearing to ascertain whether the tenancy should be ended, and possession granted back to the landlord, prior to a settlement date for the sale and purchase agreement being reached or the sale and purchase agreement is found by the High Court to have been frustrated by the tenant’s wife. The tenant and his wife were justifiably concerned that if they had quit the premise before all of these issues were addressed, they may have to make an interim move, only to have to move back into the premise as they deemed it unlikely they could negotiate to stay in the premise until the matters that are to come before the High Court are resolved.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for exemplary damaged for the tenant’s failure to quit the premise without reasonable excuse for lack of evidence to prove the claim on balance. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the tenant and the landlord have substantially succeeded with their claims’ I must reimburse both the filing fees.
One filing fee is offset by the other, so these amounts awarded have not been recorded in the Order table set out above. Name suppression
The tenant has applied for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
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 (See s95A of the RTA).
The tenant has wholly succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication of the tenant’s name is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details are ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4831417 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4831417 — State of repair

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANT CLAIMS

Did the landlord issue the tenant a retaliatory notice?

Did the landlord fail to meet its healthy homes standards obligations?

Rent arrears and should the tenancy be terminated?

Did the tenant fail to quit the premise?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANT CLAIMS

Did the landlord issue the tenant a retaliatory notice?

Did the landlord fail to meet its healthy homes standards obligations?

Rent arrears and should the tenancy be terminated?

Did the tenant fail to quit the premise?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions