How much money was awarded in case 4856382?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4856382?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4856382?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10309876-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4856382?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4856382?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4856382?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10309876-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Caravan 4, 26 Marjorie Jayne Crescent, Otahuhu, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4856382 — Exemplary damages

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4856382 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, the landlord will inspect the premises at Caravan 4, 26 Marjorie

Order

By consent, the landlord will inspect the premises at Caravan 4, 26 Marjorie Jayne Crescent, Otahuhu, Auckland at 10.00am on Monday 13 May 2024.

The landlord’s Notice to Terminate the tenancy dated 15 December 2023 is set aside.

The tenant’s application to have the termination notice declared retaliatory is dismissed.

The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

The landlord’s application for a possession order is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Pere represented the landlord.

The tenant has applied to have a notice to terminate the tenancy set aside and for a declaration that the notice was a retaliatory notice and an award of exemplary damages.

The landlord has applied for a possession order.

Ms Pere confirmed that the notice served on the tenant was for termination due to extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises to be carried out by the landlord or owner.

The notice emailed to the tenant did not specify the reason for the termination. However, I accept from the evidence produced, including a photo of the notice being placed in the tenant’s letter box, that the reason for the termination was specified in the notice delivered to him.

The difficulty the landlord faces is that the notice was issued before the landlord could carry out an inspection. The tenant would not allow access.

Ms Pere said that the landlord has refurbished other caravans, so it was aware of the work needing to be done.

Some of that work just comprises the replacement of chattels such as the mattress and other chattels.

A notice to terminate based on extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment must be specific to the tenancy premises.

Without an inspection, the landlord cannot know exactly what work is required.

I have made an order (by consent) for the landlord to inspect the premises next Monday. Only then will it know what work is required and whether it meets the threshold for termination of the tenancy.

I have set aside the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy because it was premature. As I have noted, until the landlord conducts an inspection the exact nature of the work required is not known. Therefore, neither the landlord (nor the Tribunal) knows whether the work to be done is extensive.

The tenant submitted that the notice to terminate the tenancy was a retaliatory notice based on him taking a previous successful application in the Tribunal, and him standing up for other tenants.

I do not find that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was a retaliatory notice. Ms Pere gave evidence that the landlord has already refurbished 7 other caravans. It wants to continue that work and refurbish this tenant’s caravan.

Had the landlord not refurbished the other caravans, the tenant’s claim of retaliatory notice might be plausible. But the landlord’s desire to now refurbish the tenant’s caravan is in line with the work it has already completed on the other caravans.

That is a separate and distinct reason for seeking to terminate the tenancy, unconnected with the landlord’s previous 28-day notice to terminate the tenancy, successfully challenged by the tenant. Nor is it connected to the tenant standing up for the rights of other tenants.

What has occurred here is a failure of process. That is quite distinct from the landlord acting in a retaliatory manner.

The tenant’s application for a declaration that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was a retaliatory notice is dismissed. So too is his application for exemplary damages. Exemplary damages can only be awarded if the notice to terminate is declared retaliatory.

I make no award of the filing fees in this case. Neither application has been fully successful.

Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Order

By consent, the landlord will inspect the premises at Caravan 4, 26 Marjorie Jayne Crescent, Otahuhu, Auckland at 10.00am on Monday 13 May 2024.
The landlord’s Notice to Terminate the tenancy dated 15 December 2023 is set aside.
The tenant’s application to have the termination notice declared retaliatory is dismissed.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The landlord’s application for a possession order is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Pere represented the landlord.
The tenant has applied to have a notice to terminate the tenancy set aside and for a declaration that the notice was a retaliatory notice and an award of exemplary damages.
The landlord has applied for a possession order.
Ms Pere confirmed that the notice served on the tenant was for termination due to extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises to be carried out by the landlord or owner.
The notice emailed to the tenant did not specify the reason for the termination. However, I accept from the evidence produced, including a photo of the notice being placed in the tenant’s letter box, that the reason for the termination was specified in the notice delivered to him.
The difficulty the landlord faces is that the notice was issued before the landlord could carry out an inspection. The tenant would not allow access.
Ms Pere said that the landlord has refurbished other caravans, so it was aware of the work needing to be done.
Some of that work just comprises the replacement of chattels such as the mattress and other chattels.
A notice to terminate based on extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment must be specific to the tenancy premises.
Without an inspection, the landlord cannot know exactly what work is required.
I have made an order (by consent) for the landlord to inspect the premises next Monday. Only then will it know what work is required and whether it meets the threshold for termination of the tenancy.
I have set aside the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy because it was premature. As I have noted, until the landlord conducts an inspection the exact nature of the work required is not known. Therefore, neither the landlord (nor the Tribunal) knows whether the work to be done is extensive.
The tenant submitted that the notice to terminate the tenancy was a retaliatory notice based on him taking a previous successful application in the Tribunal, and him standing up for other tenants.
I do not find that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was a retaliatory notice. Ms Pere gave evidence that the landlord has already refurbished 7 other caravans. It wants to continue that work and refurbish this tenant’s caravan.
Had the landlord not refurbished the other caravans, the tenant’s claim of retaliatory notice might be plausible. But the landlord’s desire to now refurbish the tenant’s caravan is in line with the work it has already completed on the other caravans.
That is a separate and distinct reason for seeking to terminate the tenancy, unconnected with the landlord’s previous 28-day notice to terminate the tenancy, successfully challenged by the tenant. Nor is it connected to the tenant standing up for the rights of other tenants.
What has occurred here is a failure of process. That is quite distinct from the landlord acting in a retaliatory manner.
The tenant’s application for a declaration that the landlord’s notice to terminate the tenancy was a retaliatory notice is dismissed. So too is his application for exemplary damages. Exemplary damages can only be awarded if the notice to terminate is declared retaliatory.
I make no award of the filing fees in this case. Neither application has been fully successful.
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4856382 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Caravan 4, 26 Marjorie Jayne Crescent, Otahuhu,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4856382 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Caravan 4, 26 Marjorie Jayne Crescent, Otahuhu,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions