What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4874368 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4874368?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4874368?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4874368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10549611-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4874368 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4874368?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4874368?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4874368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10549611-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

36 Cawthron Crescent, Annesbrook, Nelson 7011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4874368 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The agent appeared for the owner as well. A support person accompanied the tenant.
The tenant sought compensation, believing the landlord notice to terminate was for invalid reasons.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Background
This was a very long tenancy, commencing 13 September 2007. The owner acted directly as landlord for most of the tenancy and the relationship between them appears amicable.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
It was apparent that in a symbiotic relationship, rent was consistently below market and limited maintenance, beyond essential needs, took place during the almost 17 years of the tenancy. The tenant did not seek to revisit that. Her focus was on how the tenancy ended.
The owner more recently engaged Summit Property Management to act as her agent.
On 2 February 2024, the agent was instructed by the owner to serve a notice to terminate on the grounds “extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner” (see s 51(2)(f) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)).

Did the notice to terminate cite invalid reasons?

The relevant time for determining the landlord’s intention is when the notice is given. For the notice to be a valid the landlord should genuinely intend to carry out the stated objective. It is not enough that it is a mere possibility or one of a range of options available.
The tenant requested further details in writing regarding the intended work. While such detail may have provided some clarity, there was no statutory obligation for such clarity to be provided. She also stated she emailed the owner regarding her interest in continuing/renewing the tenancy after the work was completed. She said no reply was received. No approach to the agent was made at this time. The premises was subsequently relisted for rent after the work was completed. Again, there is no statutory requirement to give a tenant a continuation or renewal when terminating for the reasons claimed.
As to the mind of the owner at the time of instructing the agent, I heard from the agent that immediate feedback from them had been provided to the owner (who lives remotely) from the first visit to the premises that the inside was tired and the carpet threadbare. A recent electrician call out around that time had been required (tenant instigated) due to a wiring concern.
It does not appear disputed the premises needed maintenance.
The respondent provided a significant evidence bundle that included a list of tasks completed during the vacated/repair period. This was supported by invoices.
While disputed by the tenant, it appears the owners completed much of the work themselves and, on occasion, stayed at the premised during this time. I do not consider the neighbour’s observations of activity or stays during this time are evidentially sufficient to counter the agent’s submission re conversations with the owner and her own observations.
Given the tasks completed (ignoring a number that were routine maintenance), that the owners completed much of the work themselves, and the more than likely use of the premises by them as accommodation at times during the work, I consider it not reasonably practicable for the tenant to have remained at the premises while the work was undertaken.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the owner was motivated other than for the reasons cited in the notice to terminate and the application must be dismissed. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
Further, 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.
The tenant requested suppression in her application. As she has been unsuccessful, suppression is not ordered as of right. However, I consider it appropriate to exercise my initiative and order suppression of her name. I do this recognising the very long tenancy without issue, the limited communication in response to her enquiries regarding the notice and intention, and the minimal public interest in her naming here.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The agent appeared for the owner as well. A support person accompanied the tenant.

The tenant sought compensation, believing the landlord notice to terminate was for invalid reasons.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Background

This was a very long tenancy, commencing 13 September 2007. The owner acted directly as landlord for most of the tenancy and the relationship between them appears amicable.

It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d) RTA. Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.

It was apparent that in a symbiotic relationship, rent was consistently below market and limited maintenance, beyond essential needs, took place during the almost 17 years of the tenancy. The tenant did not seek to revisit that. Her focus was on how the tenancy ended.

The owner more recently engaged Summit Property Management to act as her agent.

On 2 February 2024, the agent was instructed by the owner to serve a notice to terminate on the grounds “extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner” (see s 51(2)(f) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)).

Did the notice to terminate cite invalid reasons?

The relevant time for determining the landlord’s intention is when the notice is given. For the notice to be a valid the landlord should genuinely intend to carry out the stated objective. It is not enough that it is a mere possibility or one of a range of options available.

The tenant requested further details in writing regarding the intended work. While such detail may have provided some clarity, there was no statutory obligation for such clarity to be provided. She also stated she emailed the owner regarding her interest in continuing/renewing the tenancy after the work was completed. She said no reply was received. No approach to the agent was made at this time. The premises was subsequently relisted for rent after the work was completed. Again, there is no statutory requirement to give a tenant a continuation or renewal when terminating for the reasons claimed.

As to the mind of the owner at the time of instructing the agent, I heard from the agent that immediate feedback from them had been provided to the owner (who lives remotely) from the first visit to the premises that the inside was tired and the carpet threadbare. A recent electrician call out around that time had been required (tenant instigated) due to a wiring concern.

It does not appear disputed the premises needed maintenance.

The respondent provided a significant evidence bundle that included a list of tasks completed during the vacated/repair period. This was supported by invoices.

While disputed by the tenant, it appears the owners completed much of the work themselves and, on occasion, stayed at the premised during this time. I do not consider the neighbour’s observations of activity or stays during this time are evidentially sufficient to counter the agent’s submission re conversations with the owner and her own observations.

Given the tasks completed (ignoring a number that were routine maintenance), that the owners completed much of the work themselves, and the more than likely use of the premises by them as accommodation at times during the work, I consider it not reasonably practicable for the tenant to have remained at the premises while the work was undertaken.

The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the owner was motivated other than for the reasons cited in the notice to terminate and the application must be dismissed. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.

Further, 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.

The tenant requested suppression in her application. As she has been unsuccessful, suppression is not ordered as of right. However, I consider it appropriate to exercise my initiative and order suppression of her name. I do this recognising the very long tenancy without issue, the limited communication in response to her enquiries regarding the notice and intention, and the minimal public interest in her naming here.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4874368 — Tenancy dispute at 36 Cawthron Crescent, Annesbrook, Nelson 7011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4874368 — Tenancy dispute at 36 Cawthron Crescent, Annesbrook, Nelson 7011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the notice to terminate cite invalid reasons?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Did the notice to terminate cite invalid reasons?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions