What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5051388 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlords’ names and identifying details, including the premises address,

How much money was awarded in case 5051388?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5051388?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5051388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11631051-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5051388 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlords’ names and identifying details, including the premises address,

How much money was awarded in case 5051388?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5051388?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5051388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11631051-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5051388 — Rent arrears

Order

The landlords’ names and identifying details, including the premises address, must not be published.
All claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The parties attended the hearing in person.
Joy Wang from Excel Property Management attended for the landlords. Samyna Tan attended as a Mandarin interpreter for the landlords.
Ms O’Neil claims the landlords terminated the premises without proper grounds. She seeks orders for exemplary damages and compensation.
The landlords claim the tenant owes rent arrears. Background
The tenancy began on 21 September 2021 and ended over three years later on 2 October 2024.
On 9 September 2024, Ms O’Neil emailed Ms Wang that mould at the premises was a “never ending problem”. He son “is always sick with a cough and chest infection” as a result. She suggested that the landlord have the roof assessed and meeting at the property, “to discuss to sort a solution”.
The next day, Ms Wang responded that the “owner thinks it will need a major maintenance and repairing of the house”. Her email went on to say: It is not possible to carry out the work while you are still living inside. So she asked me to give you 90 days’ notice to termination our tenancy agreement...Also, you are a great tenant, I am happy to be your referrer...I will do my best to help you.
The following day, on 11 September 2024, Ms O’Neill responded that she really did not want to move out and “I don’t think it’s a major repair” and: I would appreciate the owner reconsidering.
The very next day, however, the tenant emailed Ms Joy that she had found another home and asked to be released from the tenancy early, 20 days hence.
The landlords agreed to the tenant’s request to end the tenancy eight days early.
After the tenancy ended, the landlords had the garage roof replaced, the concrete tile roof of the main house water blasted, and the interior ceilings repainted.
The work took less than two weeks to complete, and the landlord readvertised the premises for rent on 14 October 2024, 12 days after the tenant moved out.

Did the landlords give the tenant notice knowing they were not entitled to?

The tenant believes the landlords’ grounds for issuing the notice were spurious.
Ms O’Neil could not identify the landlord’s motive for giving her notice, but there is a suspicion the landlords may have been annoyed by her complaints about the persistent mould issues at the house. Legal principles
Landlords 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. In this regard, s 60AA of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: 60AA Landlord acting to terminate tenancy without grounds A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application.
Breaching this provision without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. 1
A notice infected with a desire to “get back” at the tenant for exercising their rights against the landlord will be bad for being retaliatory. A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 2 Landlords’ response
One of the landlords told the Tribunal that she was in Japan when the landlord contacted her about the tenant’s email suggesting the roof should be assessed. She says that she advised Ms Wang to terminate the tenancy because she thought the roof would probably need significant work and she was concerned about the tenant’s son’s health. She was pleasantly surprised when her builder later advised that the roof only had to be water blasted.
The landlord says she was very happy with the tenant and would have rather not to have had to end the tenancy. Among other things, ending the tenancy would inevitably result in lost rental income while the premises was unoccupied. Indeed, the new tenancy after the work was completed, did not begin for over two months after the end of Ms O’Neil’s tenancy. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 60AA and Schedule 1A . 2 For example, in Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988, Judge Ongley upheld the Tribunal’s decision that a termination notice was not retaliatory. Judge Ongley was “quite satisfied that Mrs Woodman acted reasonably on the basis of the information known to her...I am not called upon to decide whether the complaints were justified, only to decide whether Mrs Woodman gave notice in retaliation or for genuine and fair reasons.” Discussion
The tenant bears the onus of proving that the landlords gave her notice knowing the grounds upon which it was given were invalid.
I found the landlords’ evidence for giving the 90-day notice plausible. Their narrative was rational and reasonable. They gave their evidence in a straightforward manner. They readily explained all of the circumstances that I sought clarification on.
The quick turn-around for the refurbishment work was explained by the unexpectedly smaller scope of the roof work.
There was no evidence that the landlords held any animus towards the tenant. They were very happy with her and would have preferred not to have ended the tenancy. They only did so because they thought the mould at the house could only be resolved by significant work.
On the other hand the evidence did not provide a credible narrative that the notice was given on spurious grounds. Both parties lost out. The tenant lost the house that she loved living in. The landlords lost a couple of months of rental income and a good tenant whom they liked.
Perhaps better communication might have resulted in a different outcome, as the landlords suggest. But that it is easy to speculate after the event.
Be that as it may, the tenant has not proved the facts upon which the claim depended on the balance of problem.
The outcome for this claim is that the Tribunal must dismiss it. The rent arrears claim
The landlords decided not to pursue their rent arrears claim in consideration of the tenant not removing pavers she installed in the garden.
This claim is also dismissed. Non-publication
The landlords ask the Tribunal to order non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlords substantially succeeded in the proceedings by defending the unlawful notice claim. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the landlords’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal grants the landlords’ application for non-publication.

Order

The landlords’ names and identifying details, including the premises address, must not be published.
All claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The parties attended the hearing in person.
Joy Wang from Excel Property Management attended for the landlords. Samyna Tan attended as a Mandarin interpreter for the landlords.
Ms O’Neil claims the landlords terminated the premises without proper grounds. She seeks orders for exemplary damages and compensation.
The landlords claim the tenant owes rent arrears. Background
The tenancy began on 21 September 2021 and ended over three years later on 2 October 2024.
On 9 September 2024, Ms O’Neil emailed Ms Wang that mould at the premises was a “never ending problem”. He son “is always sick with a cough and chest infection” as a result. She suggested that the landlord have the roof assessed and meeting at the property, “to discuss to sort a solution”.
The next day, Ms Wang responded that the “owner thinks it will need a major maintenance and repairing of the house”. Her email went on to say: It is not possible to carry out the work while you are still living inside. So she asked me to give you 90 days’ notice to termination our tenancy agreement...Also, you are a great tenant, I am happy to be your referrer...I will do my best to help you.
The following day, on 11 September 2024, Ms O’Neill responded that she really did not want to move out and “I don’t think it’s a major repair” and: I would appreciate the owner reconsidering.
The very next day, however, the tenant emailed Ms Joy that she had found another home and asked to be released from the tenancy early, 20 days hence.
The landlords agreed to the tenant’s request to end the tenancy eight days early.
After the tenancy ended, the landlords had the garage roof replaced, the concrete tile roof of the main house water blasted, and the interior ceilings repainted.
The work took less than two weeks to complete, and the landlord readvertised the premises for rent on 14 October 2024, 12 days after the tenant moved out.

Did the landlords give the tenant notice knowing they were not entitled to?

The tenant believes the landlords’ grounds for issuing the notice were spurious.
Ms O’Neil could not identify the landlord’s motive for giving her notice, but there is a suspicion the landlords may have been annoyed by her complaints about the persistent mould issues at the house. Legal principles
Landlords 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. In this regard, s 60AA of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: 60AA Landlord acting to terminate tenancy without grounds A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application.
Breaching this provision without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. 1
A notice infected with a desire to “get back” at the tenant for exercising their rights against the landlord will be bad for being retaliatory. A notice of termination given for only genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. 2 Landlords’ response
One of the landlords told the Tribunal that she was in Japan when the landlord contacted her about the tenant’s email suggesting the roof should be assessed. She says that she advised Ms Wang to terminate the tenancy because she thought the roof would probably need significant work and she was concerned about the tenant’s son’s health. She was pleasantly surprised when her builder later advised that the roof only had to be water blasted.
The landlord says she was very happy with the tenant and would have rather not to have had to end the tenancy. Among other things, ending the tenancy would inevitably result in lost rental income while the premises was unoccupied. Indeed, the new tenancy after the work was completed, did not begin for over two months after the end of Ms O’Neil’s tenancy. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 60AA and Schedule 1A . 2 For example, in Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA244/88, 3 November 1988, Judge Ongley upheld the Tribunal’s decision that a termination notice was not retaliatory. Judge Ongley was “quite satisfied that Mrs Woodman acted reasonably on the basis of the information known to her...I am not called upon to decide whether the complaints were justified, only to decide whether Mrs Woodman gave notice in retaliation or for genuine and fair reasons.” Discussion
The tenant bears the onus of proving that the landlords gave her notice knowing the grounds upon which it was given were invalid.
I found the landlords’ evidence for giving the 90-day notice plausible. Their narrative was rational and reasonable. They gave their evidence in a straightforward manner. They readily explained all of the circumstances that I sought clarification on.
The quick turn-around for the refurbishment work was explained by the unexpectedly smaller scope of the roof work.
There was no evidence that the landlords held any animus towards the tenant. They were very happy with her and would have preferred not to have ended the tenancy. They only did so because they thought the mould at the house could only be resolved by significant work.
On the other hand the evidence did not provide a credible narrative that the notice was given on spurious grounds. Both parties lost out. The tenant lost the house that she loved living in. The landlords lost a couple of months of rental income and a good tenant whom they liked.
Perhaps better communication might have resulted in a different outcome, as the landlords suggest. But that it is easy to speculate after the event.
Be that as it may, the tenant has not proved the facts upon which the claim depended on the balance of problem.
The outcome for this claim is that the Tribunal must dismiss it. The rent arrears claim
The landlords decided not to pursue their rent arrears claim in consideration of the tenant not removing pavers she installed in the garden.
This claim is also dismissed. Non-publication
The landlords ask the Tribunal to order non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlords substantially succeeded in the proceedings by defending the unlawful notice claim. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the landlords’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal grants the landlords’ application for non-publication.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5051388 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5051388 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords give the tenant notice knowing they were not entitled to?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlords give the tenant notice knowing they were not entitled to?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions