What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5018608 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 5018608?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5018608?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5018608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11348116-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5018608 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 5018608?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5018608?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5018608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11348116-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20A Fleming Road, Hamurana, RD 2, Hamurana 3072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5018608 — Smoke alarms

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Ila Reardon must pay [The tenant/s] $0.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate a tenancy knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching this obligation 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.
The facts are not disputed. The tenant shifted into the property on 3 September 2022. Ms Reardon confirms the tenant’s submission that she gave 7 days’ notice to end the tenancy on 3 September 2024.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. There is simply no provision in the Act for a landlord to give only 7 days’ notice under any circumstance.
While a landlord can issue breach notices and apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating a tenancy, they simply cannot take the law into their own hands and issue an immediate 7 days’ notice.
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 freely admits that she knew she was not able to give only 7 days’ notice. Ordinarily that deliberate intention, and the clear public interest in sending definitive messages to landlord’s that deliberately flout the law, would justify an award closer to the maximum amount than I have ordered.
The effects on the tenant of the 7-day notice have been considerable. At extremely short notice, she needed to rent a caravan and stay with her daughter. When that relationship broke down, partly due to stress, she shifted to a decrepit house bus and lived on the property of her other daughter. In short, she was essentially homeless for more than 3 months, before finding a suitable rental property, shortly prior to Christmas. Her doctor has confirmed the considerable stress and anxiety all of this caused.
The primary reason for reducing the amount ordered from the maximum is that I am satisfied that the [medical condition] the landlord had suffered, shortly before issuing the notice, may have impaired her judgement in this regard. She appeared to completely fail to understand the reasons that a tenant, particularly in a well-documented housing crisis, might need some additional time to find alternative suitable accommodation. Her view that because the tenant, who had previously lived at the same property, had left that earlier tenancy, with 3 days’ notice (although she had paid a week’s rent) is simply not relevant. The landlord could have pursued the additional 2 weeks rent she was entitled to at that time, (as a tenant was then required to give 21 days’ notice). What she could not do was determine that this was somehow sufficient reason to then give the tenant 7 days’ notice to vacate. Her view that the law, in this regard, is flawed is simply not relevant. From the inception of the RTA a tenant has always been required to give less notice to end a tenancy than a landlord. At the time this tenancy ended a landlord could not end a tenancy without notice at all, and even with a valid or lawful reason was required to give a minimum of 63 or 90 days’ notice (depending on the reasons provided for giving the notice). None of the statutory reasons to end a tenancy include a tenant breaching their obligations under the RTA. Alleged breaches require a different process of issuing 14-day notices and then a Tribunal application to end the tenancy if the breach is not remedied.
The rent was $250 per week (plus 3 hours gardening the tenant was required to do). The landlord’s submission that the property was not rented for profit is not accepted. Even at the minimum wage the gardening was an additional $69.45 per week, meaning the rental returned $16,614 for the landlord per annum.
The damages awarded are therefore less than a third of the annual rental the tenant paid, and for all of the reasons provided are considered fair in the circumstances. Balance of claims withdrawn or dismissed.
The tenants claim for repairs to a TV aerial was withdrawn.
The request for reimbursement of the cost of chip/gravel that the tenant had paid for to reduce dust on the driveway/in the garage is also dismissed.
The landlord advised, when asked, that she would not pay for the gravel/chip as she did not consider it necessary, and the tenant said she was happy to pay for it herself.
Having come to that clear agreement, the Tribunal will not retrospectively intervene and overrule it. The landlord’s dissatisfaction with the material the tenant used is also relevant.
I have also dismissed the claim for compensation as the fireplace was not working for about 6 weeks last winter. The landlord acted promptly to have it fixed and the delay was because of needing to make a customised part for the wetback attached to the fire. There is no unreasonable delay or culpable behaviour on the landlord’s part. It is also relevant that the landlord offered to install a heat pump, but the tenant wanted the fireplace fixed (as she enjoyed the benefit of lower power bills).
The claim for breach of Healthy Homes Regulations was also not pursued. No evidence was provided by the tenant.
The landlord was advised during the hearing, regarding the requirement to have a written tenancy agreement that includes disclosures regarding Healthy Homes compliance, landlord insurance cover and excess, and smoke alarm requirements. Filing fee and name suppression
As the tenant’s claim is substantially successful, she is entitled to name suppression and the landlord is to pay the filing fee the tenant paid when lodging the application.
The public interest requires that the landlord’s name is published. For privacy reasons the details of the medical condition the landlord suffered is to be supressed in the published order. Section 95A (4) enables the Tribunal to order that part of an order not be published, if there are good reasons for that direction.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Ila Reardon must pay [The tenant/s] $0.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate a tenancy knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching this obligation 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.
The facts are not disputed. The tenant shifted into the property on 3 September 2022. Ms Reardon confirms the tenant’s submission that she gave 7 days’ notice to end the tenancy on 3 September 2024.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. There is simply no provision in the Act for a landlord to give only 7 days’ notice under any circumstance.
While a landlord can issue breach notices and apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating a tenancy, they simply cannot take the law into their own hands and issue an immediate 7 days’ notice.
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 freely admits that she knew she was not able to give only 7 days’ notice. Ordinarily that deliberate intention, and the clear public interest in sending definitive messages to landlord’s that deliberately flout the law, would justify an award closer to the maximum amount than I have ordered.
The effects on the tenant of the 7-day notice have been considerable. At extremely short notice, she needed to rent a caravan and stay with her daughter. When that relationship broke down, partly due to stress, she shifted to a decrepit house bus and lived on the property of her other daughter. In short, she was essentially homeless for more than 3 months, before finding a suitable rental property, shortly prior to Christmas. Her doctor has confirmed the considerable stress and anxiety all of this caused.
The primary reason for reducing the amount ordered from the maximum is that I am satisfied that the [medical condition] the landlord had suffered, shortly before issuing the notice, may have impaired her judgement in this regard. She appeared to completely fail to understand the reasons that a tenant, particularly in a well-documented housing crisis, might need some additional time to find alternative suitable accommodation. Her view that because the tenant, who had previously lived at the same property, had left that earlier tenancy, with 3 days’ notice (although she had paid a week’s rent) is simply not relevant. The landlord could have pursued the additional 2 weeks rent she was entitled to at that time, (as a tenant was then required to give 21 days’ notice). What she could not do was determine that this was somehow sufficient reason to then give the tenant 7 days’ notice to vacate. Her view that the law, in this regard, is flawed is simply not relevant. From the inception of the RTA a tenant has always been required to give less notice to end a tenancy than a landlord. At the time this tenancy ended a landlord could not end a tenancy without notice at all, and even with a valid or lawful reason was required to give a minimum of 63 or 90 days’ notice (depending on the reasons provided for giving the notice). None of the statutory reasons to end a tenancy include a tenant breaching their obligations under the RTA. Alleged breaches require a different process of issuing 14-day notices and then a Tribunal application to end the tenancy if the breach is not remedied.
The rent was $250 per week (plus 3 hours gardening the tenant was required to do). The landlord’s submission that the property was not rented for profit is not accepted. Even at the minimum wage the gardening was an additional $69.45 per week, meaning the rental returned $16,614 for the landlord per annum.
The damages awarded are therefore less than a third of the annual rental the tenant paid, and for all of the reasons provided are considered fair in the circumstances. Balance of claims withdrawn or dismissed.
The tenants claim for repairs to a TV aerial was withdrawn.
The request for reimbursement of the cost of chip/gravel that the tenant had paid for to reduce dust on the driveway/in the garage is also dismissed.
The landlord advised, when asked, that she would not pay for the gravel/chip as she did not consider it necessary, and the tenant said she was happy to pay for it herself.
Having come to that clear agreement, the Tribunal will not retrospectively intervene and overrule it. The landlord’s dissatisfaction with the material the tenant used is also relevant.
I have also dismissed the claim for compensation as the fireplace was not working for about 6 weeks last winter. The landlord acted promptly to have it fixed and the delay was because of needing to make a customised part for the wetback attached to the fire. There is no unreasonable delay or culpable behaviour on the landlord’s part. It is also relevant that the landlord offered to install a heat pump, but the tenant wanted the fireplace fixed (as she enjoyed the benefit of lower power bills).
The claim for breach of Healthy Homes Regulations was also not pursued. No evidence was provided by the tenant.
The landlord was advised during the hearing, regarding the requirement to have a written tenancy agreement that includes disclosures regarding Healthy Homes compliance, landlord insurance cover and excess, and smoke alarm requirements. Filing fee and name suppression
As the tenant’s claim is substantially successful, she is entitled to name suppression and the landlord is to pay the filing fee the tenant paid when lodging the application.
The public interest requires that the landlord’s name is published. For privacy reasons the details of the medical condition the landlord suffered is to be supressed in the published order. Section 95A (4) enables the Tribunal to order that part of an order not be published, if there are good reasons for that direction.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5018608 — Smoke alarms at 20A Fleming Road, Hamurana, RD 2, Hamurana 3072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5018608 — Smoke alarms at 20A Fleming Road, Hamurana, RD 2, Hamurana 3072

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