What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4915795?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4915795?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4915795?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4915795?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11121085-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4915795?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4915795?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4915795?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4915795?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11121085-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

106 Friedlanders Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4915795 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims the landlord committed an unlawful act by terminating the tenancy without grounds. The tenant seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
As the applicant, the tenant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Background
The tenancy began on 21 August 2018.
On 13 November 2023, the landlord sent the tenant a notice terminating the tenancy pursuant to section 51(2)(g) RTA. This section states that a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if the premises are to be demolished and the demolition is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date.
The tenant served a counter notice on 22 December 2023 terminating the tenancy. The end date in this notice was 18 January 2024. The tenant vacated the property on 24 January 2024 and paid rent up to this date.
New tenants moved into the property on 25 January 2024. The property was never demolished.

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?

The law

A landlord must not give notice to terminate a tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The time for deciding if there was an intention by the landlord to demolish the premises is when the notice was given. For the notice to be valid the landlord must have genuinely intended to carry out the stated objective. It is not enough that it was a mere possibility or one of a range of options available. Tenant’s submissions
The tenant claims that the landlord never intended to demolish the premises when they served the tenant with a notice to terminate under section 51(2)(g) RTA. The tenant suspects that the real reason the landlord terminated their tenancy because they wanted to increase the rent. In support of their claim, the tenant relies on the following evidence: a. The house was never demolished; b. New tenants began renting the property on 25 November 2024, one day after they moved out of the property. The tenant claims these people were related to the landlord and were their brother-in-law’s family; and c. The new tenants who moved into the property on 25 November 2024 paid around $700.00 per week in rent. The tenant paid $610.00 per week in rent.
The tenant was upset to learn that the property was never demolished. They state that it was very difficult to find a new property that fit their needs and budget. The tenant has a little dog and claims that finding a property with a landlord who is prepared to accept a dog is very difficult. Although the tenant has found a new property, they state that it is not big enough for their needs. They are locked into a fixed-term tenancy and cannot look for a more suitable property until the end of the fixed-term without incurring early-release costs. The tenant also states that they had to find money for a new bond and rent in advance at short notice. It was also a significant effort to move their belongings and it took them over one week.
The tenant also states that they lived at the tenancy address for five years and the notice to terminate arrived on Diwali, which is a very important celebration in their culture. The tenant states it was even more upsetting to receive the notice on this date. Landlord’s submissions
The landlord accepts that the property was never demolished but states that they had every intention to demolish and develop the premises when they sent the notice on 13 November 2023.
The landlord claims that they intended to demolish the property and build four new terraced homes on the section. To fund this, the landlord intended to enter into a joint-venture with their ex-husband who is a qualified builder. The landlord states that it was intended that their ex-husband would contribute financially to the joint-venture and would benefit from the fact that his business would carry out the construction. The project was to be funded in part by the landlord personally, the landlord’s ex-husband and a loan from the bank. The landlord states that the development did not go ahead, because her ex-husband changed his mind when he discovered his new partner was pregnant.
The landlord submitted the following evidence in support of their claim that they intended to demolish and develop the property at the time they served the notice to terminate: a. Resource consent for the development of the site and construction of four terraced homes; b. Approval from Westpac for a loan, which was granted on 6 December 2023; c. Documentation providing the landlord’s ex-husband’s trade qualifications; and d. A copy of the Dissolution Order regarding the landlord’s divorce from her ex-husband, which was granted this year.
The landlord states that by the time her ex-husband withdrew his offer of funding, the tenants had already served their counter-notice and found a new property.
The landlord denies that the people who moved into the property on 25 November 2024 were their brother-in-law’s family. The landlord states that they were family friends. The landlord claims the tenant did not vacate the property on the end date in their counter-notice, namely 18 January 2024. The landlord states that she paid to house her family friends in alternative accommodation until the property was ready for them to move into on 25 November 2024 and provided a receipt for this. Analysis
The issue I must determine is whether I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities the landlord intended to demolish the premises when they served the tenant with a termination notice on 23 November 2023. For the following reasons, I am: a. The landlord produced evidence of having taken significant steps towards preparing and planning for the development of the section. They provided a copy of the resource consent permitting them to build four terraced homes on the section. This resource consent pre-dates the notice to terminate given by the landlord. They also provided a copy of their approval for a bank loan of $450,000.00, which pre-dates the notice to terminate. The landlord did not rely on a bare assertion of their intention but provided additional evidence to support their claim. b. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the reason the development did not proceed was because of an unforeseen change in circumstances regarding the withdrawal of funding by the landlord’s ex-husband. The landlord did not submit additional evidence to support this claim however, I found the landlord’s oral evidence to be credible. The landlord answered questions openly throughout the hearing, even when the answers did not serve the landlord’s own interests. For example, in response to a question from the Tribunal, the landlord accepted that the rent charged to the new tenants who moved into the property on 25 November 2024 was higher than the rent charged to the tenants who brought this application. This evidence tended to support the tenant’s case however, it was offered freely by the landlord.
For the above reasons, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the landlord never intended to demolish the premises when they gave the tenant notice to terminate the tenancy on 23 November 2023. My finding would have been different if the landlord was unable to produce any supporting evidence of steps taken towards demolition and development.
The tenant’s application for compensation and exemplary damages is dismissed.
As the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. See section 102(4) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4915795 — Exemplary damages at 106 Friedlanders Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4915795 — Exemplary damages at 106 Friedlanders Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions