What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4905893 about?

The tribunal order states: Kitt Stevenson’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4905893?

Compensation: Healthy Homes Report: $352.45 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent For The Last Two Weeks Of The T…: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4905893?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4905893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10842975-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4905893 about?

The tribunal order states: Kitt Stevenson’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4905893?

Compensation: Healthy Homes Report: $352.45 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Rent For The Last Two Weeks Of The T…: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4905893?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4905893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10842975-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

25 Tukanae Street, Strathmore Park, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4905893 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4905893 — net $8,072.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent for the last two weeks of the tenancy	$2,200.00		Rent for the last two weeks of the tenancy
Refund of the bond money		$4,400.00	Refund of the bond money
Compensation: Healthy Homes Report		$352.45	Healthy Homes Report
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged		$750.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Breach duty to appoint agent		$500.00	Breach duty to appoint agent
Exemplary damages: Breaches Healthy Homes		$2,000.00	39. I order the landlord to pay $2,000.
Exemplary damages: Tenancy agreement breaches		$250.00	Tenancy agreement breaches
Exemplary damages: Giving notice without grounds		$2,000.00	39. I order the landlord to pay $2,000.
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$2,200.00	$10,272.89
Net award		$8,072.89
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$8,072.89

Order

Kitt Stevenson’s application is dismissed.
Kitt Stevenson must pay [The tenant/s] $8,072.89 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing. Mr Stevenson did not attend.
The tenants moved into the tenancy premises in April 2023. The house belongs to Mr Stevenson, and it was rented out fully furnished because he was living overseas. During the tenancy Mr Stevenson often commented that the arrangement was not a real tenancy, because the house was rented fully furnished. The tenancy ended on 17 August 2024 after the tenants gave notice. The tenants filed an application because they want their bond, compensation and exemplary damages because of breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Mr Stevenson also filed an application for compensation and exemplary damages. He did not attend the hearing and made a last minute request for an adjournment. The questions I have to decide include: • Was this a real tenancy? • Should I allow an adjournment? • What orders should be made for the bond? • Should the landlord have appointed an agent sooner? • Were there breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards? • Were there breaches in the tenancy agreement? • Were the tenants given a retaliatory notice? • Did the landlord give notice to end the tenancy without grounds?

Was this a real tenancy?

Section 77(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence. Tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent. Tenancy agreement means any express agreement under which any person grants a tenancy of premises in exchange for rent.
Mr Stevenson agreed in writing that the tenants could live in the house and pay rent. Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Providing a fully furnished house while the owner lives overseas is not one of the exclusions. I find this was a residential tenancy.

Should I allow an adjournment?

The landlord requested an adjournment by email at 4.30 yesterday afternoon. I saw the email this morning. The reasons for the request included that the landlord was overseas, he would be back in a couple of weeks, that he was still waiting for invoices, and that it was likely the tenants would not attend the hearing. I considered his request at the start of the hearing and did not allow the adjournment. This is because the landlord has had two weeks to arrange his claims, arrange to attend the hearing, or arrange a representative.
The landlord has also made a number of requests that he attend the hearing by teleconference or by teams or by a video call or something similar. Once a matter has been set down for a face to face hearing the only option available to the Tenancy Tribunal for a party to attend remotely is a teleconference, which is simply a telephone call from the court room. A teleconference was not allowed because the hearing was set down for a day, was to hear two applications, and was generally too complex to be done by telephone. I note the landlord was advised on 29 July, after the case conference, that the matter was not suitable for a teleconference. He was given the option of appointing a representative and plenty of time to arrange this. He was advised the Tribunal would be unlikely to allow an adjournment for evidence gathering.
Consequently, I had the hearing without the landlord, and the landlord’s application was dismissed.

What orders should be made for the bond?

The tenants have applied for the refund for the $4,400 bond they paid at the start of the tenancy. The tenants acknowledge that they did not pay rent for the last two weeks of the tenancy. I have allowed for the payment of this rent from the bond.
The landlord had other claims against the bond money, but his application was dismissed because he did not attend the hearing. Because there is no counterclaim the rest of the bond $2,200 is refunded to the tenants.
The landlord did not lodge the bond. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 19(1),(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. 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) RTA.
The landlord knew the bond should be lodged. The tenants raised this with him in writing at the start of September 2023 and many times after that as well. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The tenants’ worries the bond would not be refunded were valid. It is in tenants interests that bond money is held by an independent third party, and there is public interest that landlords pay exemplary damages when they breach the RTA.
I allow $750, because I find the number of times the landlord was asked to comply and refused to be an aggravating factor.

Should the landlord have appointed an agent sooner?

The tenants claim the landlord was overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent. A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 16A(1), (6) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I can see from the emails I have been provided with that the landlord was out of New Zealand for more than a year before he appointed an agent. He did so after the tenants filed their application with the Tribunal. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. The same considerations for exemplary damages apply.
The landlords are deemed to know the requirements of the RTA when they operate a tenancy business. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The effect for the tenants of not having an agent is that communication was unnecessarily difficult. There was a time difference and the landlord delayed fixing things until he was back in the New Zealand. The tenants said they were sure the healthy homes breaches would have been dealt with sooner if the landlord had been at the house to see the issues first hand. It is in tenants interests that landlords are available and there is public interest that landlords are penalised when they breach the RTA.
I allow $500 which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord.

Were there breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord breached his obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). They consider the landlord failed to comply with the HHS ventilation and draught stopping standards. The compliance date for this tenancy was 29 July 2023 - 120 days after the tenancy started.
The ventilation standard requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. The tenancy agreement did not contain any information about HHS compliance. The tenants were cold and worried about mould, so they paid for an HHS assessment to be carried out in August 2023. The report identified that the kitchen and the ensuite lacked extractor fans. The tenants asked the landlord to remedy this breach. Initially he refused because this was not a “standard” tenancy. He eventually arranged for the missing extractors to be installed, after the tenants filed their application. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The HHS report identified unreasonable draughts around the kitchen window, and the front and back doors. The tenants notified the landlord. He said that draughts are standard in Wellington houses and that any property from the same era would be the same. Draught stopping was eventually arranged at the end of June 2024, after the tenants’ application was filed. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
Breaching the HHS obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The same considerations apply. The landlord should have known considered the HHS when he put his house up for rent. He was on notice after the tenants had the independent HHS assessment done, and he still took around 10 months to arrange tradespeople. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The tenants – who are new to renting – found the landlord’s denials of responsibility especially challenging to deal with. The house was hard to heat. The draughts were also noisy because wind whistled through the gaps. There was mould in the ensuite and in the adjoining bedroom. The cooking smells went through the whole house. The tenants and flatmates were unwell. There is public interest that tenants live in warm, dry houses, and that landlords pay when they ignore the HHS.
I allow $2000 in exemplary damages. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of similar orders against the landlord.
I also order that the landlord pay the cost of the HHS report because this is information that should have been disclosed in the tenancy agreement before the tenancy started.
I do not make orders for compensation for the high costs of heating because I have not been provided with any supporting documentation. This claim is dismissed.

Were there breaches in the tenancy agreement?

The landlord initially provided a one page tenancy agreement and provided page two in January. There are many errors and omissions in the agreement and the tenants have claimed exemplary damages for some of these.
Section 13 requires the landlord to include certain information in the tenancy agreement. The only information missing was an address for service, and this did not prevent the tenants from filing their claim. I find there was insufficient breach here to order exemplary damages.
Under section 13(1CA) RTA landlords must include HHS information in the tenancy agreement. The landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include the information and the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $750 for the breach. See section 13A(1F) and schedule 1 RTA.
There was no HHS information in the tenancy agreement. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. Again, the landlord is deemed to know the law. The effect on the tenant was they paid for their own report because they did not know their rights. There is public interest in landlords disclosing HHS information before the start of the tenancy so tenants can make an informed choice about tenancy premises. There is public interest in this landlord paying exemplary damages.
I allow $250 because I am not aware of similar orders against the landlord.
Finally, the tenants allege that the landlord required them to make an agreement which was contrary to their rights under the RTA. No person may enter into any transaction, contract or arrangement, or do anything that contravenes, or will contravene, any provision of the RTA. See section 137(1) RTA.
The tenants drew my attention to the clause in the agreement which states that the landlord can end the tenancy by giving four weeks notice to the tenants. This is a breach, but it is better remedied by considering the claim for giving notice without grounds. I decline to order exemplary damages here.

Were the tenants given a retaliatory notice?

Section 54 of the RTA provides that the Tribunal may declare a termination notice to be retaliatory, and of no effect, if the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or the RTA. The first issue to consider is does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?
The tenant provided me with copies of emails and text messages where the landlord attempted to end the tenancy by giving four weeks notice, which was a breach of section 51 RTA. He also attempted to end the tenancy at the end of the fixed term, which was a breach of section 60A RTA because fixed term tenancies become periodic when they ‘roll over’ the end date. This means the notices given were not valid, and the claim for retaliatory notice must fail.

Did the landlord give notice to end the tenancy without grounds?

Since 11 February 2021 landlords cannot give or purport to give a termination notice without a valid reason under s 51(1) or (2) RTA. It is an unlawful act for a landlord to give a termination notice to a tenant knowing they are not entitled to give the notice. Exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
On 16 January 2024 the landlord sent a text message stating that the guarantor had been rude and he was giving four weeks notice to end the tenancy from that day. On 22 January he sent an email stating that he was giving formal notice the fixed term tenancy would not be renewed past the 1 April end date. Neither notice complies with sections 51 or 60A RTA. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
The same considerations apply. I find the landlord acted intentionally because he failed to educate himself on the ways tenancies can end. The effect for the tenants was extreme uncertainty because they were not sure what their rights were. This caused stress and strife amongst those living at the house. It is in tenants interests that landlords do not make uninformed threats about ending tenancies, and there is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages when they breach tenants’ rights.
I order the landlord to pay $2,000. I am not aware of similar orders and the tenants stayed in the tenancy until they gave a 28 day notice in June, which is a mitigating factor. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest in names when landlords have to pay exemplary damages.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4905893 — net $8,072.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent for the last two weeks of the tenancy	$2,200.00		Rent for the last two weeks of the tenancy
Refund of the bond money		$4,400.00	Refund of the bond money
Compensation: Healthy Homes Report		$352.45	Healthy Homes Report
Exemplary damages: Bond not lodged		$750.00	Bond not lodged
Exemplary damages: Breach duty to appoint agent		$500.00	Breach duty to appoint agent
Exemplary damages: Breaches Healthy Homes		$2,000.00	39. I order the landlord to pay $2,000.
Exemplary damages: Tenancy agreement breaches		$250.00	Tenancy agreement breaches
Exemplary damages: Giving notice without grounds		$2,000.00	39. I order the landlord to pay $2,000.
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$2,200.00	$10,272.89
Net award		$8,072.89
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$8,072.89

Order

Kitt Stevenson’s application is dismissed.
Kitt Stevenson must pay [The tenant/s] $8,072.89 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The tenants attended the hearing. Mr Stevenson did not attend.
The tenants moved into the tenancy premises in April 2023. The house belongs to Mr Stevenson, and it was rented out fully furnished because he was living overseas. During the tenancy Mr Stevenson often commented that the arrangement was not a real tenancy, because the house was rented fully furnished. The tenancy ended on 17 August 2024 after the tenants gave notice. The tenants filed an application because they want their bond, compensation and exemplary damages because of breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Mr Stevenson also filed an application for compensation and exemplary damages. He did not attend the hearing and made a last minute request for an adjournment. The questions I have to decide include: • Was this a real tenancy? • Should I allow an adjournment? • What orders should be made for the bond? • Should the landlord have appointed an agent sooner? • Were there breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards? • Were there breaches in the tenancy agreement? • Were the tenants given a retaliatory notice? • Did the landlord give notice to end the tenancy without grounds?

Was this a real tenancy?

Section 77(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence. Tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent. Tenancy agreement means any express agreement under which any person grants a tenancy of premises in exchange for rent.
Mr Stevenson agreed in writing that the tenants could live in the house and pay rent. Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Providing a fully furnished house while the owner lives overseas is not one of the exclusions. I find this was a residential tenancy.

Should I allow an adjournment?

The landlord requested an adjournment by email at 4.30 yesterday afternoon. I saw the email this morning. The reasons for the request included that the landlord was overseas, he would be back in a couple of weeks, that he was still waiting for invoices, and that it was likely the tenants would not attend the hearing. I considered his request at the start of the hearing and did not allow the adjournment. This is because the landlord has had two weeks to arrange his claims, arrange to attend the hearing, or arrange a representative.
The landlord has also made a number of requests that he attend the hearing by teleconference or by teams or by a video call or something similar. Once a matter has been set down for a face to face hearing the only option available to the Tenancy Tribunal for a party to attend remotely is a teleconference, which is simply a telephone call from the court room. A teleconference was not allowed because the hearing was set down for a day, was to hear two applications, and was generally too complex to be done by telephone. I note the landlord was advised on 29 July, after the case conference, that the matter was not suitable for a teleconference. He was given the option of appointing a representative and plenty of time to arrange this. He was advised the Tribunal would be unlikely to allow an adjournment for evidence gathering.
Consequently, I had the hearing without the landlord, and the landlord’s application was dismissed.

What orders should be made for the bond?

The tenants have applied for the refund for the $4,400 bond they paid at the start of the tenancy. The tenants acknowledge that they did not pay rent for the last two weeks of the tenancy. I have allowed for the payment of this rent from the bond.
The landlord had other claims against the bond money, but his application was dismissed because he did not attend the hearing. Because there is no counterclaim the rest of the bond $2,200 is refunded to the tenants.
The landlord did not lodge the bond. A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 19(1),(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. 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) RTA.
The landlord knew the bond should be lodged. The tenants raised this with him in writing at the start of September 2023 and many times after that as well. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The tenants’ worries the bond would not be refunded were valid. It is in tenants interests that bond money is held by an independent third party, and there is public interest that landlords pay exemplary damages when they breach the RTA.
I allow $750, because I find the number of times the landlord was asked to comply and refused to be an aggravating factor.

Should the landlord have appointed an agent sooner?

The tenants claim the landlord was overseas for longer than the Act permits without appointing an agent. A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure they have an agent in New Zealand. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500. See section 16A(1), (6) and Schedule 1A RTA.
I can see from the emails I have been provided with that the landlord was out of New Zealand for more than a year before he appointed an agent. He did so after the tenants filed their application with the Tribunal. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. The same considerations for exemplary damages apply.
The landlords are deemed to know the requirements of the RTA when they operate a tenancy business. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The effect for the tenants of not having an agent is that communication was unnecessarily difficult. There was a time difference and the landlord delayed fixing things until he was back in the New Zealand. The tenants said they were sure the healthy homes breaches would have been dealt with sooner if the landlord had been at the house to see the issues first hand. It is in tenants interests that landlords are available and there is public interest that landlords are penalised when they breach the RTA.
I allow $500 which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord.

Were there breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards?

The tenants claim that the landlord breached his obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the RTA which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). They consider the landlord failed to comply with the HHS ventilation and draught stopping standards. The compliance date for this tenancy was 29 July 2023 - 120 days after the tenancy started.
The ventilation standard requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. The tenancy agreement did not contain any information about HHS compliance. The tenants were cold and worried about mould, so they paid for an HHS assessment to be carried out in August 2023. The report identified that the kitchen and the ensuite lacked extractor fans. The tenants asked the landlord to remedy this breach. Initially he refused because this was not a “standard” tenancy. He eventually arranged for the missing extractors to be installed, after the tenants filed their application. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
The draught stopping standard requires that residential premises be free from unreasonable gaps and holes that are not an intentional part of the building, which allow draughts to arise. The HHS report identified unreasonable draughts around the kitchen window, and the front and back doors. The tenants notified the landlord. He said that draughts are standard in Wellington houses and that any property from the same era would be the same. Draught stopping was eventually arranged at the end of June 2024, after the tenants’ application was filed. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
Breaching the HHS obligation is an unlawful act, for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $7,200. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The same considerations apply. The landlord should have known considered the HHS when he put his house up for rent. He was on notice after the tenants had the independent HHS assessment done, and he still took around 10 months to arrange tradespeople. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The tenants – who are new to renting – found the landlord’s denials of responsibility especially challenging to deal with. The house was hard to heat. The draughts were also noisy because wind whistled through the gaps. There was mould in the ensuite and in the adjoining bedroom. The cooking smells went through the whole house. The tenants and flatmates were unwell. There is public interest that tenants live in warm, dry houses, and that landlords pay when they ignore the HHS.
I allow $2000 in exemplary damages. This is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of similar orders against the landlord.
I also order that the landlord pay the cost of the HHS report because this is information that should have been disclosed in the tenancy agreement before the tenancy started.
I do not make orders for compensation for the high costs of heating because I have not been provided with any supporting documentation. This claim is dismissed.

Were there breaches in the tenancy agreement?

The landlord initially provided a one page tenancy agreement and provided page two in January. There are many errors and omissions in the agreement and the tenants have claimed exemplary damages for some of these.
Section 13 requires the landlord to include certain information in the tenancy agreement. The only information missing was an address for service, and this did not prevent the tenants from filing their claim. I find there was insufficient breach here to order exemplary damages.
Under section 13(1CA) RTA landlords must include HHS information in the tenancy agreement. The landlord commits an unlawful act if they fail to include the information and the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $750 for the breach. See section 13A(1F) and schedule 1 RTA.
There was no HHS information in the tenancy agreement. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. Again, the landlord is deemed to know the law. The effect on the tenant was they paid for their own report because they did not know their rights. There is public interest in landlords disclosing HHS information before the start of the tenancy so tenants can make an informed choice about tenancy premises. There is public interest in this landlord paying exemplary damages.
I allow $250 because I am not aware of similar orders against the landlord.
Finally, the tenants allege that the landlord required them to make an agreement which was contrary to their rights under the RTA. No person may enter into any transaction, contract or arrangement, or do anything that contravenes, or will contravene, any provision of the RTA. See section 137(1) RTA.
The tenants drew my attention to the clause in the agreement which states that the landlord can end the tenancy by giving four weeks notice to the tenants. This is a breach, but it is better remedied by considering the claim for giving notice without grounds. I decline to order exemplary damages here.

Were the tenants given a retaliatory notice?

Section 54 of the RTA provides that the Tribunal may declare a termination notice to be retaliatory, and of no effect, if the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or the RTA. The first issue to consider is does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?
The tenant provided me with copies of emails and text messages where the landlord attempted to end the tenancy by giving four weeks notice, which was a breach of section 51 RTA. He also attempted to end the tenancy at the end of the fixed term, which was a breach of section 60A RTA because fixed term tenancies become periodic when they ‘roll over’ the end date. This means the notices given were not valid, and the claim for retaliatory notice must fail.

Did the landlord give notice to end the tenancy without grounds?

Since 11 February 2021 landlords cannot give or purport to give a termination notice without a valid reason under s 51(1) or (2) RTA. It is an unlawful act for a landlord to give a termination notice to a tenant knowing they are not entitled to give the notice. Exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
On 16 January 2024 the landlord sent a text message stating that the guarantor had been rude and he was giving four weeks notice to end the tenancy from that day. On 22 January he sent an email stating that he was giving formal notice the fixed term tenancy would not be renewed past the 1 April end date. Neither notice complies with sections 51 or 60A RTA. I find the landlord committed an unlawful act.
The same considerations apply. I find the landlord acted intentionally because he failed to educate himself on the ways tenancies can end. The effect for the tenants was extreme uncertainty because they were not sure what their rights were. This caused stress and strife amongst those living at the house. It is in tenants interests that landlords do not make uninformed threats about ending tenancies, and there is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages when they breach tenants’ rights.
I order the landlord to pay $2,000. I am not aware of similar orders and the tenants stayed in the tenancy until they gave a 28 day notice in June, which is a mitigating factor. Other orders
Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party. The landlord’s name is published because there is public interest in names when landlords have to pay exemplary damages.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4905893 — Exemplary damages at 25 Tukanae Street, Strathmore Park, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4905893 — Exemplary damages at 25 Tukanae Street, Strathmore Park, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was this a real tenancy?

Should I allow an adjournment?

What orders should be made for the bond?

Should the landlord have appointed an agent sooner?

Were there breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Were there breaches in the tenancy agreement?

Were the tenants given a retaliatory notice?

Did the landlord give notice to end the tenancy without grounds?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was this a real tenancy?

Should I allow an adjournment?

What orders should be made for the bond?

Should the landlord have appointed an agent sooner?

Were there breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards?

Were there breaches in the tenancy agreement?

Were the tenants given a retaliatory notice?

Did the landlord give notice to end the tenancy without grounds?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions