What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4910413 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 4910413?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4910413?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4910413?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10620854-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4910413 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 4910413?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4910413?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4910413?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10620854-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

33 Redmill Road, Redwood Valley, RD 1, Richmond 7081 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4910413 — Exemplary damages

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 tenancy agreement between [The tenant/s] and Rodney Jean Fromont and Michelle Ann Fromont at 33 Redmill Road, Redwood Valley, RD 1, Richmond 7081 is a one year, fixed-term tenancy agreement.
The termination notice given by Rodney Jean Fromont and Michelle Ann Fromont to [The tenant/s] is unlawful.
Rodney Jean Fromont and Michelle Ann Fromont must pay [The tenant/s] $770.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Both Mr and Ms Fromont appeared as the landlord and both provided information during the hearing. [The tenant/s] appeared as the tenant.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA of the RTA, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section the RTA section 60AA and Schedule 1A.
This dispute is over whether or not a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy, given by the landlord is lawful. The determination of this issue turns solely on whether the tenancy agreement was for a fixed-term of one year, or whether it was periodic.
Both parties agree that at the beginning of the tenancy they completed the first of two pages of the tenancy agreement, but nothing was written on the second page of the tenancy agreement.
The RTA imposes an obligation on a landlord to ensure a tenancy agreement is in writing, to sign it and to provide a copy to the tenant, see section 13(1) and (2) respectively. To fail to comply with these subsections is an unlawful act on the part of the landlord.
As well as the landlord’s signature, a tenancy agreement must also contain certain information including the date of the tenancy agreement and the date the tenancy begins, see the RTA, section 13A(1)(d) and (e) respectively. To fail to comply with these subsections is also an unlawful act on the part of the landlord.
The information not completed on page two of the tenancy agreement includes the landlord’s signature, the date of the tenancy agreement and the commencement date of the tenancy.
The landlord and the tenant provided different reasons for not completing the second page of the tenancy agreement: The landlord stated that they didn’t complete the second page of the tenancy agreement because they wanted more flexibility around the end date of the tenancy.
However, the landlord accepted that whilst on a walk the tenant proposed a tenancy for one year.
The tenant stated that the tenancy agreement was always intended to be a one- year fixed-term agreement and that because he needed stability for his family and certainty for his work he would never have agreed to a periodic tenancy.
The tenant stated he didn’t sign the agreement because he trusted the landlord and believed it was a gentleman’s agreement. On another occasion the tenant stated that he didn’t know why he didn’t complete and sign the second page of the agreement.
The different reasons given by the landlord and the tenant are not mutually exclusive.
On the information provided at today’s hearing, I am satisfied that the tenancy was proposed as a one-year fixed-term tenancy. I heard no information from either party to suggest that the tenancy was ever proposed to be a periodic tenancy. The landlord intentionally failed to sign and date the tenancy agreement and to state the date of the commencement of the tenancy agreement (all obligations that fall to them) because they wanted to have more flexibility around ending the tenancy, and they believed this was the way to achieve that end.
The landlord was at liberty to enshrine flexibility in the terms of the tenancy agreement by setting the tenancy out as a periodic tenancy, but they did not do this.
Because the intention for the tenancy agreement to be a fixed-term tenancy was raised and intentionally not negated by the landlord, I find that the best information before the Tribunal, in the absence of any written information, is that there was agreement between the parties that this should be a one-year fixed- term tenancy.
The landlord failed in their obligation to provide unambiguous information to the tenant regarding the tenancy, and failed to complete the formalities required of them under the RTA. I find they have 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s unlawful termination notice served on the tenant is only self- serving, as was the landlord’s failure to comply with the written requirements of the tenancy agreement. The tenant has business interests and two young children, and an agreement for a tenancy beginning elsewhere in September 2024. The tenant states that being given notice at this time has been disruptive and distressing to the whole family.
I make an award to the tenant of $750.00 exemplary damages for breaching the RTA section 60AA.
Because has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee of $20.44.

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 tenancy agreement between [The tenant/s] and Rodney Jean Fromont and Michelle Ann Fromont at 33 Redmill Road, Redwood Valley, RD 1, Richmond 7081 is a one year, fixed-term tenancy agreement.
The termination notice given by Rodney Jean Fromont and Michelle Ann Fromont to [The tenant/s] is unlawful.
Rodney Jean Fromont and Michelle Ann Fromont must pay [The tenant/s] $770.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Both Mr and Ms Fromont appeared as the landlord and both provided information during the hearing. [The tenant/s] appeared as the tenant.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA of the RTA, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section the RTA section 60AA and Schedule 1A.
This dispute is over whether or not a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy, given by the landlord is lawful. The determination of this issue turns solely on whether the tenancy agreement was for a fixed-term of one year, or whether it was periodic.
Both parties agree that at the beginning of the tenancy they completed the first of two pages of the tenancy agreement, but nothing was written on the second page of the tenancy agreement.
The RTA imposes an obligation on a landlord to ensure a tenancy agreement is in writing, to sign it and to provide a copy to the tenant, see section 13(1) and (2) respectively. To fail to comply with these subsections is an unlawful act on the part of the landlord.
As well as the landlord’s signature, a tenancy agreement must also contain certain information including the date of the tenancy agreement and the date the tenancy begins, see the RTA, section 13A(1)(d) and (e) respectively. To fail to comply with these subsections is also an unlawful act on the part of the landlord.
The information not completed on page two of the tenancy agreement includes the landlord’s signature, the date of the tenancy agreement and the commencement date of the tenancy.
The landlord and the tenant provided different reasons for not completing the second page of the tenancy agreement: The landlord stated that they didn’t complete the second page of the tenancy agreement because they wanted more flexibility around the end date of the tenancy.
However, the landlord accepted that whilst on a walk the tenant proposed a tenancy for one year.
The tenant stated that the tenancy agreement was always intended to be a one- year fixed-term agreement and that because he needed stability for his family and certainty for his work he would never have agreed to a periodic tenancy.
The tenant stated he didn’t sign the agreement because he trusted the landlord and believed it was a gentleman’s agreement. On another occasion the tenant stated that he didn’t know why he didn’t complete and sign the second page of the agreement.
The different reasons given by the landlord and the tenant are not mutually exclusive.
On the information provided at today’s hearing, I am satisfied that the tenancy was proposed as a one-year fixed-term tenancy. I heard no information from either party to suggest that the tenancy was ever proposed to be a periodic tenancy. The landlord intentionally failed to sign and date the tenancy agreement and to state the date of the commencement of the tenancy agreement (all obligations that fall to them) because they wanted to have more flexibility around ending the tenancy, and they believed this was the way to achieve that end.
The landlord was at liberty to enshrine flexibility in the terms of the tenancy agreement by setting the tenancy out as a periodic tenancy, but they did not do this.
Because the intention for the tenancy agreement to be a fixed-term tenancy was raised and intentionally not negated by the landlord, I find that the best information before the Tribunal, in the absence of any written information, is that there was agreement between the parties that this should be a one-year fixed- term tenancy.
The landlord failed in their obligation to provide unambiguous information to the tenant regarding the tenancy, and failed to complete the formalities required of them under the RTA. I find they have 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s unlawful termination notice served on the tenant is only self- serving, as was the landlord’s failure to comply with the written requirements of the tenancy agreement. The tenant has business interests and two young children, and an agreement for a tenancy beginning elsewhere in September 2024. The tenant states that being given notice at this time has been disruptive and distressing to the whole family.
I make an award to the tenant of $750.00 exemplary damages for breaching the RTA section 60AA.
Because has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee of $20.44.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4910413 — Exemplary damages at 33 Redmill Road, Redwood Valley, RD 1, Richmond 7081

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4910413 — Exemplary damages at 33 Redmill Road, Redwood Valley, RD 1, Richmond 7081

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