What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4888800 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4888800?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4888800?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4888800?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10561737-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4888800 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4888800?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4888800?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4888800?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10561737-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2 McVay Street, Napier South, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4888800 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Order contains some information personal to the landlords whose names and identifying details should be redacted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
On 13 May 2024 the landlords gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 12 August 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.
The termination notice was issued pursuant to section 51(2)(a), which gives a landlord the right to end a periodic tenancy on 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.”
On 9 February 2024 the Tribunal made an Order, in application 4685130, dismissing the landlords’ application for a declaration that they were entitled to give notice of termination under section 51(2)(f), on the basis that the tenant’s unreasonableness meant that it would not be reasonably practicable for her to remain in occupation while further repair/ maintenance work was carried out to the premises.
Understandably, given that Order, the tenant questions the validity of the termination notice now given by the landlords and suggests that it was given because she had asserted her rights as a tenant.
The landlords have provided evidence which shows that: a. sale of the premises has been considered by the landlords over some time and before issues arose with the tenant; b. there had been some discussions regarding the tenant’s possible purchase of the property, through a lease to buy type arrangement; c. there had been discussions with a real estate agents about possible sale of the property in August/ September 2023, later put on hold while the Tribunal processes were underway; d. the economic downturn has affected the landlords’ building company and they have been advised that investing in that business rather than in this rental property, is a more prudent financial decision; e. the company has purchased a bare section and the landlords intend to build a property, partly utilising the proceeds from sale of the premises.
Essentially, the landlords’ position is that the decision to terminate the tenancy and sell the premises was not made because of the issues the Tribunal has been dealing with, but rather that were it not for the need to deal with those issues first, the tenancy would have been ended and the premises sold earlier.
Section 51(2)(a) gives landlords a statutory right to end a periodic residential tendency where the premises are to be sold. For it to be found that the notice is not validly issued on those grounds and should be set aside as retaliatory, there must be a solid evidential foundation.
While I understand the tenant’s concerns about the timing of the termination notice and what may have motivated it, the evidence persuades me that in issuing the notice of termination, the landlords were properly exercising their legal right to do so, to give effect to a genuine intention to sell the property.
I accordingly do not find it approved on balance that the notice was improperly motivated in terms of section 54 and the application must be dismissed.
No order is made regarding the filing fee.

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Order contains some information personal to the landlords whose names and identifying details should be redacted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
On 13 May 2024 the landlords gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 12 August 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.
The termination notice was issued pursuant to section 51(2)(a), which gives a landlord the right to end a periodic tenancy on 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.”
On 9 February 2024 the Tribunal made an Order, in application 4685130, dismissing the landlords’ application for a declaration that they were entitled to give notice of termination under section 51(2)(f), on the basis that the tenant’s unreasonableness meant that it would not be reasonably practicable for her to remain in occupation while further repair/ maintenance work was carried out to the premises.
Understandably, given that Order, the tenant questions the validity of the termination notice now given by the landlords and suggests that it was given because she had asserted her rights as a tenant.
The landlords have provided evidence which shows that: a. sale of the premises has been considered by the landlords over some time and before issues arose with the tenant; b. there had been some discussions regarding the tenant’s possible purchase of the property, through a lease to buy type arrangement; c. there had been discussions with a real estate agents about possible sale of the property in August/ September 2023, later put on hold while the Tribunal processes were underway; d. the economic downturn has affected the landlords’ building company and they have been advised that investing in that business rather than in this rental property, is a more prudent financial decision; e. the company has purchased a bare section and the landlords intend to build a property, partly utilising the proceeds from sale of the premises.
Essentially, the landlords’ position is that the decision to terminate the tenancy and sell the premises was not made because of the issues the Tribunal has been dealing with, but rather that were it not for the need to deal with those issues first, the tenancy would have been ended and the premises sold earlier.
Section 51(2)(a) gives landlords a statutory right to end a periodic residential tendency where the premises are to be sold. For it to be found that the notice is not validly issued on those grounds and should be set aside as retaliatory, there must be a solid evidential foundation.
While I understand the tenant’s concerns about the timing of the termination notice and what may have motivated it, the evidence persuades me that in issuing the notice of termination, the landlords were properly exercising their legal right to do so, to give effect to a genuine intention to sell the property.
I accordingly do not find it approved on balance that the notice was improperly motivated in terms of section 54 and the application must be dismissed.
No order is made regarding the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4888800 — Exemplary damages at 2 McVay Street, Napier South, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4888800 — Exemplary damages at 2 McVay Street, Napier South, Napier 4110

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