What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5191800 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5191800?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191800?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191800?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11644481-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5191800 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5191800?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191800?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191800?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11644481-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5191800 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference. The owner joined the hearing for a short period of time. The applicant had a support person present (remotely).

The applicant had sought a notice to terminate, served by the landlord on 28 February 2025, be deemed retaliatory, seeking an order it be set aside. Exemplary damages were also sought. By the time if the hearing, the tenant has found a new home and served her own notice to terminate. The request for setting aside the prior landlord notice was withdrawn at the hearing.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. 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. 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.”

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Retaliatory notice

Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may declare a termination notice to be retaliatory, and of no effect, if: [I]n giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercised by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.

Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00 (see s 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA).

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 s 109(3) RTA).

There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? If not, are there grounds to extend the notice period under s 96(2) RTA? In Realty House Whakatane Limited v Eschbank [2020] NZDC 16081, the District Court held that the time limit for filing an application is mandatory but may be extended in limited circumstances. c. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?

The Tribunal has held that the term motivate has the ordinary dictionary meaning “to give impetus to ... to impel”. Usually there will be little direct evidence about the landlord’s intent in giving a termination notice. Therefore, the Tribunal must consider what inferences, if any, can be drawn from the timing and sequence of events. Discussion

The termination notice served on 28 February 2025 complied with s 51 RTA and the application was made within 28 working days of the notice being served.

The key determination is whether the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising her right(s) under the tenancy agreement, or by any complaint against the landlord.

This tenancy commenced 5 August 2023.

The tenancy is managed under agency. While there is a family relationship between the agent and owner, communication between them during the tenancy, as presented, was professional and “arm’s-length”. I have no concerns regarding the arrangement.

The tenant and agent had a dispute regarding some damage to the wall (during the last half of 2024). The tenant’s view is that it may be fair wear/tear or at least could wait until the end of the tenancy. The damage does not appear significant but that can be determined, along with liability, if need be, via future application(s). The key point, as it pertains to this application, appears to be that the agent had adopted what I consider an improper stance regarding the damage, effectively threatening to have the repairs carried out at the tenant’s expense. This intention was finally signalled in an email dated 12 December 2024. However, the landlord’s change in stance (appropriately in my view) was advised via a further email sent on 16 December 2024. This revised position stated the repairs could wait until the end of the tenancy.

There was a follow-up visit to the premises in February 2025 to check a suspected water leak and to change a water filter. It appears completion was delayed after previous inspections (owners email dated 7 February 2025).

On 28 February 2025 the tenant received the notice to terminate. No reason was provided (s 55(1) RTA was amended effective 30 January 2025 to allow “without cause” termination notices). Understandably the tenant was concerned and asked why. The agent advised no reason had been given.

The proximity of the last tenant maintenance requests and the notice to terminate is not as close as one would typically expect but the history of some prior disagreement between the agent and tenant regarding a few matters, and the subsequent amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that gave landlords an ability to terminate without a reason, means I gave some consideration to whether historic issues influenced the owner to give the instruction to terminate, about one month after the applicable RTA amendment came into force.

The owner appeared. She explained the background and reason for the instruction to terminate. This was to assist a friend who had an adult child (and partner) in need of a premises. They had some special needs and were struggling to find a suitable rental. The solution was to offer them this premises. She gave the agent an instruction to issue the termination notice. The emails evidence this, as well as subsequent engagement regarding tenancy arrangements for the new tenancy.

I accept the basis of the notice was the owner desire to vacate the premises so a new tenancy could be offered to the friend’s adult child and partner. The impact on the tenant was obvious but fortunately she has since found a new home and given her own notice. She questioned the moral obligation of the landlord and claimed a lack of empathy. Unfortunately for her, this application relies on statutory obligations and any potential breaches.

I have considered the submissions and written evidence.

I do not find the landlord notice to terminate, dated 28 February 2025, is retaliatory and it stands, albeit now somewhat moot. Consequently, no exemplary or compensation orders will follow.

Given the determination above, I need not consider any possible justification due to the tenant’s issue or complaint being frivolous or vexatious. However, for the record, I do not consider the tenant was frivolous or vexatious prior to, or at the time of this application. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The tenant requested suppression in her application. As she has not been successful in this application, suppression is not ordered as of right. However, I consider the application had some justification based on historic comments and more recent maintenance activity. I have also considered the “transition” from the previously need to provide a reason for termination to the current statutory requirement. Although she has already sourced a new tenancy, she remains a tenant and I consider her interests in suppression outweigh any public interest. I note the landlord was supportive of this view. I equally suppress the landlord details at its request. It was the respondent to an unsuccessful application. I consider it fair to extend the suppression order.

I order suppression of the names and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference. The owner joined the hearing for a short period of time. The applicant had a support person present (remotely).

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Retaliatory notice

Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00 (see s 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA).

The termination notice served on 28 February 2025 complied with s 51 RTA and the application was made within 28 working days of the notice being served.

The key determination is whether the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising her right(s) under the tenancy agreement, or by any complaint against the landlord.

This tenancy commenced 5 August 2023.

I have considered the submissions and written evidence.

I do not find the landlord notice to terminate, dated 28 February 2025, is retaliatory and it stands, albeit now somewhat moot. Consequently, no exemplary or compensation orders will follow.

I order suppression of the names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191800 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191800 — 14-day notice

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