What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5114974 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 5114974?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5114974?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5114974?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11393364-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5114974 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 5114974?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5114974?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5114974?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11393364-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5114974 — Healthy homes

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed. By declaration, the termination notice dated 29 September 2024 is of no effect.
must pay [The tenant/s] immediately, being the filing fee for the tenant’s application.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 2 October 2014.
Ms Loane described the property as Kaumatua housing. The rent is $120.00 per week.
On 29 September 2024, Ray White (on behalf of the owner) issued a notice to terminate the tenancy on 31 December 2024. The stated grounds for termination is that the landlord intended to carry out extensive repairs / refurbishment.
On 19 December 2024, the tenant filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal seeking “an Order compelling the lessor and/or realtor to provide a statutory declaration detailing the proposed works to be undertaken at my residential premises”.
On 8 January 2025 the landlord filed an application seeking an order for possession.
The hearing took place in [event location suppressed] on 4 February 2025. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Edwards and Ms Loane represented the landlord. [The tenant/s] was assisted by her daughter [redacted]. Findings
A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving 90-days’ notice if: 1 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.
There are several important points to note in respect of the wording of this section: a. The landlord does not need to explain or justify the work. They do not have to show that the work needs to be done. It is enough if the work is going to be done. b. The proposed work must be “extensive”. c. The scope and impact of the work must be such that it is not “reasonably practicable” for the tenant to remain while the work is done. This is mostly an objective consideration, but it is also relevant to consider factors that are particular to the circumstances – how flexible the tenant is, the tenant’s personal circumstances, what options for alternative accommodation are available, etc.
[The tenant/s] was not given any information about the proposed work on her flat. At the hearing, Ms Loane and Ms Edwards said that: a. All of the Kaumatua housing flats are being upgraded over time. b. The owner has received funding for the work, which must be completed within a certain timeframe. c. The flat is going to be re-decorated / refurbished, in particular the bathroom. 1 Section 51(2)(f) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), as at September 2024 d. There is some rot around the windows.
[The tenant/s] said that: a. The flat was re-decorated approximately 2-3 years ago. It was completely re-painted inside, and re-carpeted. The kitchen was upgraded, with an island bench added. b. There is no rot in the window frames but there are gaps around the windows and doors. c. The bathroom is aged but functional.
I was not provided with any photographs or inspection reports. I was not provided with a detailed scope of works. The landlord has not obtained any quotes for the proposed work.
On the evidence available to me, the only repair / upgrading work that needs to be done is: a. Addressing the draughts around the windows and doors. This could be as simple as adding draught stopping strips, or it may require replacement of some or all of the windows. The landlord has not provided any evidence about the extent of the problem with the windows or what work is required. Ms Loane said that they have had difficulty with gaining access to the property to assess the windows. [The tenant/s] acknowledged that she declined access after she filed her Tenancy Tribunal application (in December 2024), but this does not explain why the landlord could not have assessed the windows any time prior, in particular before issuing the termination notice in September. b. Installing an extraction fan in the bathroom. This seems to be the only work required to bring the property to healthy homes compliance. The compliance date for this tenancy is 1 July 2025.
The only renovation work that seems to be necessary is upgrading of the bathroom. Again, the landlord provided absolutely no information about the proposed work. I do not know whether the landlord intends to ‘gut’ the bathroom and put in a new shower (etc.) or whether they intend to carry out cosmetic work.
I noted above that the landlord does not need to justify the ‘extensive work’ or show that it is necessary. However, if a landlord gives notice on the grounds that they intend to do renovation work when there is no reasonable basis for thinking that renovation is necessary, this is a reason to carefully scrutinise the genuineness of the landlord’s stated intention. Presumably the owner has to justify how it spent the grant money, and it may have difficulty justifying the replacement of carpet that is only 2 or 3 years old.
[The tenant/s]submitted that the landlord has other motivations for terminating her tenancy. There have been on-going issues with the way that [The tenant/s] uses the property. On 28 August 2023, Ray White sent [The tenant/s]a breach notice alleging that she was sub-letting the premises.
[The tenant/s] denied that she sub-let the premises. She acknowledged that she sometimes spends time away from the premises and that her daughter stayed at the property for a long period during the pandemic.
Ms Loane commented that the owner intends to re-let the premises after the upgrading work, but not to [The tenant/s]. Ms Loane said that there is a wait list of people who need the housing. The fact that the landlord is adamant that [The tenant/s]must not return the property, even though she is eligible to live there, tends to support [The tenant/s]’s suspicion that the landlord’s main motivation is to end her tenancy, and the reason of “extensive repairs / redevelopment” is a convenient vehicle to achieve that.
The landlord cannot use the possibility of future work as a reason for terminating a tenancy. When notice is given, there must be a sufficiently clear plan that shows a genuine intention to carry out work that meets the criteria for termination – extensive work that cannot be reasonably carried out with the tenant in situ.
In this instance there was no such plan when the landlord gave notice and still no such plan to this date. The landlord’s information about the proposed work is hazy and unsupported by any evidence.
Therefore, I find that: a. The termination notice dated 29 September 2024 is invalid and of no effect. b. The tenancy did not terminate on 31 December 2024. c. The landlord is not entitled to an order for termination.
The landlord’s application is dismissed. The tenant has been successful in the proceedings. The tenant is entitled to recover the filing fee for their application. 2 Name suppression is granted to the tenant. 3 N Blake, 04 February 2025 2 Section 102(4)(a) RTA 3 Section 95A(1) RTA

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed. By declaration, the termination notice dated 29 September 2024 is of no effect.
must pay [The tenant/s] immediately, being the filing fee for the tenant’s application.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 2 October 2014.
Ms Loane described the property as Kaumatua housing. The rent is $120.00 per week.
On 29 September 2024, Ray White (on behalf of the owner) issued a notice to terminate the tenancy on 31 December 2024. The stated grounds for termination is that the landlord intended to carry out extensive repairs / refurbishment.
On 19 December 2024, the tenant filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal seeking “an Order compelling the lessor and/or realtor to provide a statutory declaration detailing the proposed works to be undertaken at my residential premises”.
On 8 January 2025 the landlord filed an application seeking an order for possession.
The hearing took place in [event location suppressed] on 4 February 2025. Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Edwards and Ms Loane represented the landlord. [The tenant/s] was assisted by her daughter [redacted]. Findings
A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving 90-days’ notice if: 1 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.
There are several important points to note in respect of the wording of this section: a. The landlord does not need to explain or justify the work. They do not have to show that the work needs to be done. It is enough if the work is going to be done. b. The proposed work must be “extensive”. c. The scope and impact of the work must be such that it is not “reasonably practicable” for the tenant to remain while the work is done. This is mostly an objective consideration, but it is also relevant to consider factors that are particular to the circumstances – how flexible the tenant is, the tenant’s personal circumstances, what options for alternative accommodation are available, etc.
[The tenant/s] was not given any information about the proposed work on her flat. At the hearing, Ms Loane and Ms Edwards said that: a. All of the Kaumatua housing flats are being upgraded over time. b. The owner has received funding for the work, which must be completed within a certain timeframe. c. The flat is going to be re-decorated / refurbished, in particular the bathroom. 1 Section 51(2)(f) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), as at September 2024 d. There is some rot around the windows.
[The tenant/s] said that: a. The flat was re-decorated approximately 2-3 years ago. It was completely re-painted inside, and re-carpeted. The kitchen was upgraded, with an island bench added. b. There is no rot in the window frames but there are gaps around the windows and doors. c. The bathroom is aged but functional.
I was not provided with any photographs or inspection reports. I was not provided with a detailed scope of works. The landlord has not obtained any quotes for the proposed work.
On the evidence available to me, the only repair / upgrading work that needs to be done is: a. Addressing the draughts around the windows and doors. This could be as simple as adding draught stopping strips, or it may require replacement of some or all of the windows. The landlord has not provided any evidence about the extent of the problem with the windows or what work is required. Ms Loane said that they have had difficulty with gaining access to the property to assess the windows. [The tenant/s] acknowledged that she declined access after she filed her Tenancy Tribunal application (in December 2024), but this does not explain why the landlord could not have assessed the windows any time prior, in particular before issuing the termination notice in September. b. Installing an extraction fan in the bathroom. This seems to be the only work required to bring the property to healthy homes compliance. The compliance date for this tenancy is 1 July 2025.
The only renovation work that seems to be necessary is upgrading of the bathroom. Again, the landlord provided absolutely no information about the proposed work. I do not know whether the landlord intends to ‘gut’ the bathroom and put in a new shower (etc.) or whether they intend to carry out cosmetic work.
I noted above that the landlord does not need to justify the ‘extensive work’ or show that it is necessary. However, if a landlord gives notice on the grounds that they intend to do renovation work when there is no reasonable basis for thinking that renovation is necessary, this is a reason to carefully scrutinise the genuineness of the landlord’s stated intention. Presumably the owner has to justify how it spent the grant money, and it may have difficulty justifying the replacement of carpet that is only 2 or 3 years old.
[The tenant/s]submitted that the landlord has other motivations for terminating her tenancy. There have been on-going issues with the way that [The tenant/s] uses the property. On 28 August 2023, Ray White sent [The tenant/s]a breach notice alleging that she was sub-letting the premises.
[The tenant/s] denied that she sub-let the premises. She acknowledged that she sometimes spends time away from the premises and that her daughter stayed at the property for a long period during the pandemic.
Ms Loane commented that the owner intends to re-let the premises after the upgrading work, but not to [The tenant/s]. Ms Loane said that there is a wait list of people who need the housing. The fact that the landlord is adamant that [The tenant/s]must not return the property, even though she is eligible to live there, tends to support [The tenant/s]’s suspicion that the landlord’s main motivation is to end her tenancy, and the reason of “extensive repairs / redevelopment” is a convenient vehicle to achieve that.
The landlord cannot use the possibility of future work as a reason for terminating a tenancy. When notice is given, there must be a sufficiently clear plan that shows a genuine intention to carry out work that meets the criteria for termination – extensive work that cannot be reasonably carried out with the tenant in situ.
In this instance there was no such plan when the landlord gave notice and still no such plan to this date. The landlord’s information about the proposed work is hazy and unsupported by any evidence.
Therefore, I find that: a. The termination notice dated 29 September 2024 is invalid and of no effect. b. The tenancy did not terminate on 31 December 2024. c. The landlord is not entitled to an order for termination.
The landlord’s application is dismissed. The tenant has been successful in the proceedings. The tenant is entitled to recover the filing fee for their application. 2 Name suppression is granted to the tenant. 3 N Blake, 04 February 2025 2 Section 102(4)(a) RTA 3 Section 95A(1) RTA

Tenancy Tribunal case 5114974 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5114974 — Healthy homes

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