What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5114529 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5114529?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5114529?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5114529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11366048-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5114529 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5114529?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5114529?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5114529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11366048-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

6B Seddon Street, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5114529 — Exemplary damages

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant was represented by an advocate from the local tenants’ union. The tenant herself did not attend the hearing.
The landlord was represented at the hearing by their professional property manager.
For simplicity’s sake, this order refers to each party as landlord and tenant as they were each represented at the hearing, although not present in person.
The landlord’s application was for: a. A refund of overpaid rent. b. Exemplary damages for the landlord disclosing notice of withdrawal and accompanying evidence under section 56B(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). See section 56E RTA. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that her claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be decided.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts, videos and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
It is for the tenant to provide the evidence necessary to prove her claims. If she fails to do so then her application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the tenant’s application with this requirement in mind. The tenant’s claim for rent
The tenant provided the following evidence: a. A tenancy agreement was entered into by the parties on 19 November 2024 recording that the tenancy was to start on 25 November 2024. b. The tenant did not receive the keys to the property until 3 December 2024. c. The tenant was only able to move into the premises on 4 December 2024 and that this was the correct start date of the tenancy. d. The tenant has therefore claimed a refund of the rent from 25 November 2024 until 3 December 2024 being a period of nine days.
The landlord provided the following evidence: a. The tenant did not pay the bond or two weeks rent in advance as required under the tenancy agreement, nor make any request for the keys earlier than 3 December 2024. b. The landlord issued a 14-day breach notice on 27 November 2024 for non- payment of the rent and bond.
The tenant is contractually liable for rent from the start date specified in the tenancy agreement. The tenant is unable to extend the start date unilaterally by not paying the rent and bond or not collecting the key.
The landlord is entitled to rent from the start date in the tenancy agreement and the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Tenant’s claim for exemplary damages
The tenant claimed exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of section 56E RTA which provides that a landlord must not disclose the whole or part of a notice of withdrawal under section 56B(1) RTA or any of the accompanying qualifying evidence, except, among other exemptions, with the consent of the tenant.
The tenant explained that the landlord telephoned her Emergency Contact (“EC”) and disclosed that the tenant had ended her tenancy under section 56B(1) RTA, that is, on the grounds that the tenant had been a victim of family violence.
The tenant claimed: a. The landlord telephoned the tenant’s EC and queried with him whether the tenant had in fact been the victim of family violence, thus disclosing that the tenancy had been ended by family violence. b. In that telephone discussion, the landlord queried the truthfulness of the tenant’s declaration that she had been a victim of family violence during the tenancy. c. In an email to the tenant on 10 December 2024, the landlord stated: “So, from my conversation with [the EC], I understand that there was no actual violence from any family members towards you during this tenancy.” The tenant claimed that this was clear evidence that the landlord had discussed family violence with the EC. d. The landlord had no reason to discuss the end of the tenancy with the EC and should have asked the EC to contact the tenant to get her to make contact with the landlord.
The landlord provided evidence as follows: a. The landlord had been engaged in ongoing discussions with the tenant and the EC’s mother about ending the tenancy because the tenant was concerned about the safety of the neighbourhood and her belief that family violence had occurred in the neighbouring property. b. The landlord received the paperwork about ending the tenancy because of family violence on 10 December 2024. c. While the landlord was concerned that the tenant simply wanted to end the tenancy and had used termination under section 56B RTA inappropriately, she was personally well acquainted with family violence and was concerned for the tenant’s wellbeing. For this reason, she telephoned the tenant who did not respond. She therefore telephoned the EC. d. The email from the landlord to the tenant on 10 December 2024 contains a “snippet” from the telephone conversation with the EC as follows: “START How is Natalya. Is everything ok? What happened over the WE? I was just worried about her (Natalya) and was ringing to check that she was ok. Yup, I believe so, once we get out of this house and away from all that. Away from what? I thought that something had happened to Natalya over the WE No just the fact it is a gang and p house.

So, Natalya is all ok- nothing has happened to her over the WE?

No nothing has happened, apart from having multiple panic attacks because of this house. I wish we hadn’t needed to go down this path. I don’t know what path you mean. How do you mean you don’t know what path I don’t know what you mean by that comment sorry. What path?

I wish you had tried to do right and fix this or met with my mum...rather than us having to go this path. What path – sorry I don’t know what you mean. What do you mean – this path? Rather than having to get out of there on a cause of domestic abuse But you just said to me that Natalya was fine and there was no domestic abuse this past weekend. No – I said that physically she is ok but mentally she is not. So, there hasn’t been any family abuse? Ahh not family abuse. Ahh domestic abuse From who – you just said to me...the neighbours? The PTSD of the domestic violence of just seeing the neighbours OK so nothing has happened to Natalya or yourself in terms of domestic or family abuse? No just the PTSD and the shock of it all.

END

e. She never mentioned family violence or domestic violence with the EC and the topic was brought up by him, not the landlord who still did not disclose that the tenancy had ended for this reason. f. The EC claimed at the end of the telephone call to have recorded it. g. The tenancy was ended on the basis of the tenant’s notice and in accordance with section 56B RTA. Discussion and decision

The only question for the determination of the Tribunal is whether the landlord disclosed the tenant’s notice of withdrawal and the supporting declaration to the EC.
On the evidence before it, the tenant has failed to persuade the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the landlord breached section 55E(1) RTA for the following reasons: a. The only evidence of the telephone discussion with the EC during which the disclosure was alleged to have occurred is that provided in the email of the landlord quoted above. While it is not conclusive, it is the best evidence available to the Tribunal and does not show that any disclosure was made by the landlord. b. The tenant herself did not give evidence regarding the contents of the telephone discussion. c. The recipient of the alleged disclosure, the EC, who could have given his version of the conversation and evidence of disclosure, did not give evidence regarding the contents of the telephone discussion, nor did he provide a copy of the recording of the conversation. d. The quotation from the conversation does not show that the landlord disclosed the notice of withdrawal or any supporting evidence. e. The statement in that email “So, from my conversation from [the EC], I understand that there was no actual violence from any family members towards you during this tenancy” does not support the tenant’s claim that it proves the landlord disclosed the notice of withdrawal or supporting evidence. It may equally refer to the comments made by the EC. It does not logically indicate nor prove that the landlord made any disclosure. f. The tenant has the burden of proving that the landlord disclosed the tenant’s notice of withdrawal for family violence. The tenant’s scant evidence, balanced against the landlord’s evidence, did not prove the tenant’s claim on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed. Jurisdiction
While the landlord’s contacting the EC was well intended, it was unwise and unnecessary. Provided the tenant’s notice complies with the formal requirements of section 56B RTA and is supported by qualifying evidence in the form of a declaration by one of the persons in Regulation 8, the landlord must accept the notice and the termination of the tenancy. The landlord has no ability under the RTA to challenge the veracity of such a notice because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider any such claim. See section 77(7B) RTA which provides: “The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine a dispute so far as it raises a question as to whether a tenant of premises who gave notice accompanied by qualifying evidence under section 56B was in fact a victim of family violence while a tenant of the premises.”

Tenancy Tribunal case 5114529 — Exemplary damages at 6B Seddon Street, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5114529 — Exemplary damages at 6B Seddon Street, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

So, Natalya is all ok- nothing has happened to her over the WE?

END

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

So, Natalya is all ok- nothing has happened to her over the WE?

END

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions