What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5194912 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5194912?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5194912?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5194912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11983282-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5194912 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5194912?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5194912?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5194912?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11983282-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3B Hillside Terrace, Witherlea, Blenheim 7201 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5194912 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing. Jo Bisley represented the landlord who is overseas.
The tenants applied for orders claiming the landlord acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds.
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.
The applicant claimed a notice to terminate the tenancy, served on 10 October 2024 and citing the grounds of s 51(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), was invalid as neither the owner, nor a family member, took up residence. The premises were relet some 6-7 weeks later, under a new agency. Background
This was a one-year fixed-term tenancy, from 15 December 2023 to 16 December 2024.
On 4 October 2024 the owner instructed the property manager to serve a notice of termination at the end of the fixed-term.
This was served on 10 October 2024 and the notice conformed to the legal requirements for such notices.
There was an extension of the tenancy granted by the landlord, after a tenant request, to 31 January 2025 but in the end the tenants left on the originally stated end date.
In earlier 2025 the tenant noticed the premises was readvertised for let. It is not disputed the owner, or any family member had moved in.
The tenant application was lodged on 11 March 2025.

Was there an invalid reason for notice?

From 11 February 2021, landlords could not give a 63-day or 90-day termination notice without a valid reason under s 51(1) or (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. This provision was in force at the time of the notice being served. Such a requirement for a valid reason has since been repealed from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 51(1)(a) RTA at that time provided the owner may give a notice to terminate if they require the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to give a termination notice to a tenant knowing they are not entitled to give the notice (s 60AA RTA). Exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00 (s 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA).
I heard the owner was back in New Zealand prior to the notice. He had come to the premises on 2 October 2024 to retrieve some equipment from storage. He was upset at the condition of the garden and some visible rubbish.
He raised this with his agent via email on 2 October 2024. In that email he stated if the condition was not improved, he would “put his son in there”.
The notice was requested 4 October 2025.
Later, on 8 October, in a further email, the owner confirmed to the agent he would be “moving my son in when they leave”.
The owner referred to his son moving in. There was some confusion regarding this given the son was understood to be 17 years old at the time. The owner provided a written statement with supporting evidence. Ms Bisley was able to provide some further context to the owner’s circumstances and his intent to reside as planned at that time, but with continued periods overseas for work. Any legal impediment to such a plan involving his son’s occupancy was not apparent.
By early December the plan had changed and the owner left for work overseas. Nothing was communicated to the tenants at the time but given their imminent exit, no reason or benefit of such a communication was apparent (apart from possibly avoiding this application)..
The relevant time for determining the landlord’s intention is when the notice is given. For the notice to be a valid the landlord should genuinely intend to carry out the stated objective.
Having considered the evidence and submissions I accept the intention of the owner was more than likely to set his son up in the premises, with his own residence for extended periods.
Given this, I do not consider the termination grounds were invalid at the time of the notice and I dismiss the claim. Retaliatory notice
Given the owner’s responses to the condition of the premises and communication to his agent just prior to the termination notice, the tenants claimed at the hearing a retaliatory motivation in such a step. This was not a specific claim in the application and no appropriate challenge to the notice was made at the time.
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.
Where there is a short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord serving a notice, this may lead to a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights. In this situation, the evidential onus shifts to the landlord to show that there was a legitimate reason for the notice. Again, in the absence of any such claim I do not need to consider this. I address section 54 mostly for the benefit of the tenants.
Given the tenants have not been able to establish the notice to terminate of 10 October 2024 was without grounds, the application must be dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing. Jo Bisley represented the landlord who is overseas.
The tenants applied for orders claiming the landlord acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds.
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.
The applicant claimed a notice to terminate the tenancy, served on 10 October 2024 and citing the grounds of s 51(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), was invalid as neither the owner, nor a family member, took up residence. The premises were relet some 6-7 weeks later, under a new agency. Background
This was a one-year fixed-term tenancy, from 15 December 2023 to 16 December 2024.
On 4 October 2024 the owner instructed the property manager to serve a notice of termination at the end of the fixed-term.
This was served on 10 October 2024 and the notice conformed to the legal requirements for such notices.
There was an extension of the tenancy granted by the landlord, after a tenant request, to 31 January 2025 but in the end the tenants left on the originally stated end date.
In earlier 2025 the tenant noticed the premises was readvertised for let. It is not disputed the owner, or any family member had moved in.
The tenant application was lodged on 11 March 2025.

Was there an invalid reason for notice?

From 11 February 2021, landlords could not give a 63-day or 90-day termination notice without a valid reason under s 51(1) or (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. This provision was in force at the time of the notice being served. Such a requirement for a valid reason has since been repealed from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 51(1)(a) RTA at that time provided the owner may give a notice to terminate if they require the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family.
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to give a termination notice to a tenant knowing they are not entitled to give the notice (s 60AA RTA). Exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00 (s 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA).
I heard the owner was back in New Zealand prior to the notice. He had come to the premises on 2 October 2024 to retrieve some equipment from storage. He was upset at the condition of the garden and some visible rubbish.
He raised this with his agent via email on 2 October 2024. In that email he stated if the condition was not improved, he would “put his son in there”.
The notice was requested 4 October 2025.
Later, on 8 October, in a further email, the owner confirmed to the agent he would be “moving my son in when they leave”.
The owner referred to his son moving in. There was some confusion regarding this given the son was understood to be 17 years old at the time. The owner provided a written statement with supporting evidence. Ms Bisley was able to provide some further context to the owner’s circumstances and his intent to reside as planned at that time, but with continued periods overseas for work. Any legal impediment to such a plan involving his son’s occupancy was not apparent.
By early December the plan had changed and the owner left for work overseas. Nothing was communicated to the tenants at the time but given their imminent exit, no reason or benefit of such a communication was apparent (apart from possibly avoiding this application)..
The relevant time for determining the landlord’s intention is when the notice is given. For the notice to be a valid the landlord should genuinely intend to carry out the stated objective.
Having considered the evidence and submissions I accept the intention of the owner was more than likely to set his son up in the premises, with his own residence for extended periods.
Given this, I do not consider the termination grounds were invalid at the time of the notice and I dismiss the claim. Retaliatory notice
Given the owner’s responses to the condition of the premises and communication to his agent just prior to the termination notice, the tenants claimed at the hearing a retaliatory motivation in such a step. This was not a specific claim in the application and no appropriate challenge to the notice was made at the time.
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.
Where there is a short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord serving a notice, this may lead to a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights. In this situation, the evidential onus shifts to the landlord to show that there was a legitimate reason for the notice. Again, in the absence of any such claim I do not need to consider this. I address section 54 mostly for the benefit of the tenants.
Given the tenants have not been able to establish the notice to terminate of 10 October 2024 was without grounds, the application must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5194912 — Exemplary damages at 3B Hillside Terrace, Witherlea, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5194912 — Exemplary damages at 3B Hillside Terrace, Witherlea, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there an invalid reason for notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there an invalid reason for notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions