What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4952176 about?

The tribunal order states: No suppression order applies to the publication of order.

How much money was awarded in case 4952176?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4952176?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4952176?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11078614-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4952176 about?

The tribunal order states: No suppression order applies to the publication of order.

How much money was awarded in case 4952176?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4952176?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4952176?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11078614-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Glasgow Street, Hawera, South Taranaki 4610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4952176 — State of repair

Order

No suppression order applies to the publication of order.
The landlord’s application for possession and exemplary damages for the tenant’s failure to quit is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application for compensation relating to power and exemplary damages for termination of a tenancy on invalid grounds is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was 10 minutes late, so the start of the hearing was delayed.
The names of the parties involved were amended to reflect the legal name of the landlord and reflect that the claim bought by the tenant is against that entity.
The landlord’s application for possession and exemplary damages for the tenant’s failure to quit is withdrawn as they now have possession of the premises.
The tenant’s application is for compensation relating to power and exemplary damages for termination of a tenancy on invalid grounds. Burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove that their version of events took place on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, where Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Tenant’s claim for compensation – power
The tenant seeks $500 as compensation for power costs. She says additional costs were incurred because of a hot water cylinder bursting.
There must be a basis upon which compensation can be claimed (such as a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). Under s 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. A tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
I heard that the tenant notified the landlord of the problem on 7 January 2024 and the issue was attended to the following day.
I find there is insufficient evidence to establish that the landlord has breached their obligations to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair in relation to the hot water cylinder/pipes. The response was prompt and reasonable and there was insufficient evidence to establish that this was a problem the landlord should have been aware of earlier.
Therefore, the tenant’s claim for compensation is therefore dismissed. Tenant’s claim for exemplary damages – Invalid notices to terminate
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 51(2) provides the circumstances under which a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days notice.
The tenant was given notice of the property being put on the market during the course of the tenancy in February 2024. The property remains on the market today.
Subsequently, on 9 July 2024 the tenant was given notice to terminate the tenancy on the basis of s51(2)(b) RTA namely that the owner is required, under an unconditional agreement for the sale of the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession. The tenant says this was incorrect as there had been no sale. The landlord should not have given this notice.
The landlord agrees that property had in fact not been sold as at the date of the notice and was still for sale. However, the landlord wanted vacant possession to sell the property and to conduct open homes.
The landlord says the reason put on the notice was a mistake and a result of a miscommunication with the agent selling the property. The mistake was bought to the landlord’s attention when the tenant questioned its validity when she was asked about more open homes.
I heard how, once alerted to the mistake, the landlord withdrew the notice and issued a new one on 25 July 2024. This notice was based on s51(2)(a) RTA which provides for notice to be given where 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.
The tenant also says that the second notice also did not reveal a valid ground for termination because the property was already on the market.
Under section 47 RTA if at any time after entering into a tenancy agreement a landlord puts the premises on the market for the sale or other disposition, the landlord must, as soon as practicable give written notice to a tenant of that fact. The landlord had an obligation to advise the tenant that the premises were going on the market and gave notice to that effect.
I find that the notice of 9 July 2024 was not valid because the ground relied upon was baseless.
The second notice was given on the basis that the property is going to be put on the market by the owner. The property was put on the market and remains on the market. Therefore, it has in fact been put on the market within 90 days of the termination date. There is nothing in the subsection to prevent the premises being marketed before the termination date. It must simply be marketed before that period. This was done.
The tenant referred to the email which had given her notice of the property being put on the market as this referred to the potential for notice to be given pursuant to s51(2)(b) rather than s 51(2)(a) but I find this submission does not carry any weight regarding the validity of the second notice. That part of the email was simply informing the tenant of what may happen in the future.
I find the second notice to be valid and lawfully given.
Although the first notice is invalid, I do not consider that the landlord gave the notice knowing that they were not entitled. I find that the landlord made a genuine mistake about the position given the fact the property was on the market already. I therefore find that no unlawful act has been committed. In any event, even if I am wrong in this and an unlawful act has been committed, I would not award exemplary damages as I do not consider that the landlord had the necessary intention which is required under section 109 RTA to commit this act. I also would not consider it just to do so because the landlord withdrew the first notice and gave a new notice with a new termination date upon discovery of its mistake and did not seek to rely on that notice. The landlord could have given a valid notice based on s51(2)(a) at the time the mistaken notice was given.
This part of the application is dismissed. Suppression
Neither party sought suppression of their identifying details, so I have not ordered this.

Order

No suppression order applies to the publication of order.
The landlord’s application for possession and exemplary damages for the tenant’s failure to quit is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application for compensation relating to power and exemplary damages for termination of a tenancy on invalid grounds is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was 10 minutes late, so the start of the hearing was delayed.
The names of the parties involved were amended to reflect the legal name of the landlord and reflect that the claim bought by the tenant is against that entity.
The landlord’s application for possession and exemplary damages for the tenant’s failure to quit is withdrawn as they now have possession of the premises.
The tenant’s application is for compensation relating to power and exemplary damages for termination of a tenancy on invalid grounds. Burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove that their version of events took place on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, where Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Tenant’s claim for compensation – power
The tenant seeks $500 as compensation for power costs. She says additional costs were incurred because of a hot water cylinder bursting.
There must be a basis upon which compensation can be claimed (such as a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). Under s 45 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under s45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. A tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so.
I heard that the tenant notified the landlord of the problem on 7 January 2024 and the issue was attended to the following day.
I find there is insufficient evidence to establish that the landlord has breached their obligations to provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair in relation to the hot water cylinder/pipes. The response was prompt and reasonable and there was insufficient evidence to establish that this was a problem the landlord should have been aware of earlier.
Therefore, the tenant’s claim for compensation is therefore dismissed. Tenant’s claim for exemplary damages – Invalid notices to terminate
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 51(2) provides the circumstances under which a landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days notice.
The tenant was given notice of the property being put on the market during the course of the tenancy in February 2024. The property remains on the market today.
Subsequently, on 9 July 2024 the tenant was given notice to terminate the tenancy on the basis of s51(2)(b) RTA namely that the owner is required, under an unconditional agreement for the sale of the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession. The tenant says this was incorrect as there had been no sale. The landlord should not have given this notice.
The landlord agrees that property had in fact not been sold as at the date of the notice and was still for sale. However, the landlord wanted vacant possession to sell the property and to conduct open homes.
The landlord says the reason put on the notice was a mistake and a result of a miscommunication with the agent selling the property. The mistake was bought to the landlord’s attention when the tenant questioned its validity when she was asked about more open homes.
I heard how, once alerted to the mistake, the landlord withdrew the notice and issued a new one on 25 July 2024. This notice was based on s51(2)(a) RTA which provides for notice to be given where 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.
The tenant also says that the second notice also did not reveal a valid ground for termination because the property was already on the market.
Under section 47 RTA if at any time after entering into a tenancy agreement a landlord puts the premises on the market for the sale or other disposition, the landlord must, as soon as practicable give written notice to a tenant of that fact. The landlord had an obligation to advise the tenant that the premises were going on the market and gave notice to that effect.
I find that the notice of 9 July 2024 was not valid because the ground relied upon was baseless.
The second notice was given on the basis that the property is going to be put on the market by the owner. The property was put on the market and remains on the market. Therefore, it has in fact been put on the market within 90 days of the termination date. There is nothing in the subsection to prevent the premises being marketed before the termination date. It must simply be marketed before that period. This was done.
The tenant referred to the email which had given her notice of the property being put on the market as this referred to the potential for notice to be given pursuant to s51(2)(b) rather than s 51(2)(a) but I find this submission does not carry any weight regarding the validity of the second notice. That part of the email was simply informing the tenant of what may happen in the future.
I find the second notice to be valid and lawfully given.
Although the first notice is invalid, I do not consider that the landlord gave the notice knowing that they were not entitled. I find that the landlord made a genuine mistake about the position given the fact the property was on the market already. I therefore find that no unlawful act has been committed. In any event, even if I am wrong in this and an unlawful act has been committed, I would not award exemplary damages as I do not consider that the landlord had the necessary intention which is required under section 109 RTA to commit this act. I also would not consider it just to do so because the landlord withdrew the first notice and gave a new notice with a new termination date upon discovery of its mistake and did not seek to rely on that notice. The landlord could have given a valid notice based on s51(2)(a) at the time the mistaken notice was given.
This part of the application is dismissed. Suppression
Neither party sought suppression of their identifying details, so I have not ordered this.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4952176 — State of repair at 10 Glasgow Street, Hawera, South Taranaki 4610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4952176 — State of repair at 10 Glasgow Street, Hawera, South Taranaki 4610

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