What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4919134 about?

The tribunal order states: Padas Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,180.44

How much money was awarded in case 4919134?

Property Damage: $2,160.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4919134?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4919134?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10950820-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4919134 about?

The tribunal order states: Padas Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,180.44

How much money was awarded in case 4919134?

Property Damage: $2,160.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4919134?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4919134?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10950820-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 80 Hobson Street, Thorndon, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4919134 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4919134 — net $2,180.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: notice given without grounds	$2,160.00	13. I order the landlord to pay $2160 which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,180.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,180.44

Order

Padas Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,180.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 60AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). They lived at the tenancy premises from May 2021 and were given notice to terminate the tenancy on 27 November 2023 because the landlord was carrying out exterior painting and maybe selling after the work was completed. The tenants moved and filed this application after they saw the house advertised for rent.
Under Section 60AA 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 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The rules relating to terminating tenancies changed in February 2021. Landlords can only end a tenancy when they have one of the reasons set out in section 51(1) and (2) RTA. Here the reasons given were extensive work and a possible sale.
The time for deciding if there is an intention to sell is when the notice was 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. I have been provided with emails from the owner to the property manager. One email states “...It is almost certain we will sell the house after it has been painted and made presentable. We may buy another stand alone rental, but want to exit Body Corporate membership...”.
The house has not been put on the market for sale and it is more than 90 days since the notice was given to the tenants. It seems most likely to me there was no clear intention to sell when the notice was given, and a sale was just one option at the time.
Section 51(2)(f) RTA states the landlord may terminate giving 90 days notice if: extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and— (i)it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken; and (ii)the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date;
The extensive work carried out was exterior painting that required scaffolding because the house is a two storey town house. I can see from the emails that the work was booked to start on 18 March and the invoice for the completed work is dated 28 March 2024. The landlord submitted that the scaffolding prevented access to the garage, meaning the only access to the back of the house for painting was through the inside. This would make it “not reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation” during the work. The tenant at the hearing replied that the scaffolders painted the other four town houses with people living in them. The scaffolders had previously advised the tenants they would access the back of the house over the garage roof. Alternatively it seems likely the painters could arrange the scaffolding to allow access through the garage to the back of the house.
Garden work was also carried out but it I have not been given any reason why the tenants would have to move out for gardening work to be done.
I am not persuaded the tenants could not remain in the house while 10 days of outside painting work was completed. It seems most likely to me the landlord used the painting work as a reason to end the tenancy. This is a breach of section 60AA 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.
All tenancies come to an end and landlords are required to know the law. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The effect on the tenants was extreme stress because it coincided with a young baby having to be fed hourly using a feeding tube. It was the busy time of the year for the rental market. The tenants had asked if they could have a periodic tenancy from February to allow them to better manage their next move with a baby. Instead they were given the 90 day notice. It is in tenants’ interests that they can settle into tenancy premises and not be removed on a whim. There is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages when there are breaches of the RTA.
I order the landlord to pay $2160 which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord. 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 they are the most successful party. There is public interest in landlords being named when there is an order to pay exemplary damages. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4919134 — net $2,180.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: notice given without grounds	$2,160.00	13. I order the landlord to pay $2160 which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,180.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,180.44

Order

Padas Property Management Limited must pay [The tenant/s] $2,180.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 60AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). They lived at the tenancy premises from May 2021 and were given notice to terminate the tenancy on 27 November 2023 because the landlord was carrying out exterior painting and maybe selling after the work was completed. The tenants moved and filed this application after they saw the house advertised for rent.
Under Section 60AA 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 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The rules relating to terminating tenancies changed in February 2021. Landlords can only end a tenancy when they have one of the reasons set out in section 51(1) and (2) RTA. Here the reasons given were extensive work and a possible sale.
The time for deciding if there is an intention to sell is when the notice was 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. I have been provided with emails from the owner to the property manager. One email states “...It is almost certain we will sell the house after it has been painted and made presentable. We may buy another stand alone rental, but want to exit Body Corporate membership...”.
The house has not been put on the market for sale and it is more than 90 days since the notice was given to the tenants. It seems most likely to me there was no clear intention to sell when the notice was given, and a sale was just one option at the time.
Section 51(2)(f) RTA states the landlord may terminate giving 90 days notice if: extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and— (i)it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken; and (ii)the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date;
The extensive work carried out was exterior painting that required scaffolding because the house is a two storey town house. I can see from the emails that the work was booked to start on 18 March and the invoice for the completed work is dated 28 March 2024. The landlord submitted that the scaffolding prevented access to the garage, meaning the only access to the back of the house for painting was through the inside. This would make it “not reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation” during the work. The tenant at the hearing replied that the scaffolders painted the other four town houses with people living in them. The scaffolders had previously advised the tenants they would access the back of the house over the garage roof. Alternatively it seems likely the painters could arrange the scaffolding to allow access through the garage to the back of the house.
Garden work was also carried out but it I have not been given any reason why the tenants would have to move out for gardening work to be done.
I am not persuaded the tenants could not remain in the house while 10 days of outside painting work was completed. It seems most likely to me the landlord used the painting work as a reason to end the tenancy. This is a breach of section 60AA 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.
All tenancies come to an end and landlords are required to know the law. I find the landlord acted intentionally. The effect on the tenants was extreme stress because it coincided with a young baby having to be fed hourly using a feeding tube. It was the busy time of the year for the rental market. The tenants had asked if they could have a periodic tenancy from February to allow them to better manage their next move with a baby. Instead they were given the 90 day notice. It is in tenants’ interests that they can settle into tenancy premises and not be removed on a whim. There is public interest in landlords paying exemplary damages when there are breaches of the RTA.
I order the landlord to pay $2160 which is at the lower end of the scale because I am not aware of any similar orders against the landlord. 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 they are the most successful party. There is public interest in landlords being named when there is an order to pay exemplary damages. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4919134 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 5, 80 Hobson Street, Thorndon, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4919134 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 5, 80 Hobson Street, Thorndon, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions