What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5195193 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name.

How much money was awarded in case 5195193?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5195193?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5195193?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11640592-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5195193 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name.

How much money was awarded in case 5195193?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5195193?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5195193?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11640592-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

252 Great South Road, Huntly, Huntly 3700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5195193 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant claimed a notice to terminate served by the landlord was retaliatory, seeking an order it be set aside.
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 5 March 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 was a long tenancy. It commenced 18 December 2020.
The premises presents as somewhat aged. The landlord provided a detailed list of maintenance tasks carried out during the tenancy. The list is reasonably long. The owner expressed early in the tenancy a desire to minimise maintenance costs, given the costs of ownership and keeping the rent low.
Despite that, there appears to have been responsiveness to requests from the tenant. Some flexibility was proven by the permission to allow the tenant to add a free-standing cabin.
In February (20 and 26) 2025, two maintenance tasks were requested and carried out. One involved a plumber attending and the other an electrician.
On 4 February 2025 the tenant reported a side fence had been broken, seeking its repair as others were using the lack of a fence to shortcut through the premises. The landlord stated it has been waiting for the photos of the damage to identify the area and arrange the repair.
On 5 February 2025 the landlord served a notice to terminate, with the tenancy to end 13 June 2025. While no reason is required for such a notice (since s 55 RTA was amended effective 30 January 2025), the landlord did advise in that notice that the owner wanted to carry out major repairs or refurbishment.
The landlord submitted the owner had previously indicated intentions to prepare and sell the premises, but these had been deferred. The owner in late February 2025 had another such discussion with the landlord/agent. I heard that owner said she could no longer afford the ongoing maintenance and considered it time to complete more significant work with a view to selling it. No written instruction was made.
The proximity of the last maintenance requests and the notice to terminate is obvious and lends itself to the tenant’s linking the two.
I have considered the submissions and limited evidence. I have concluded that the notice is not retaliatory. I make that determination after reviewing the history of the premises and maintenance tasks. The early desire of minimising maintenance costs, as expressed to the tenant, can be interpreted as confirming sides stance. The landlord has a history of being concerned about costs, the tenant could conclude that ongoing maintenance tasks as requested had prompted the landlord to seek to terminate the tenancy. I lean towards the owner perspective here as the rent has been left unchanged for a considerable time, even while the occupancy numbers increased with an additional room added via the cabin. Ongoing maintenance costs reduce the landlord income without any real capital improvement. The scope of works intended (as described by the landlord) is betterment with a view to maximising the return from a future sale. The work planned is significant and a vacated premises appears reasonable. As discussed, if the reality after this tenancy ends does not follow the intended path, a future revisiting via a further application to this Tribunal may be appropriate.
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, such as here, the evidential onus shifts to the landlord to show that there was a legitimate reason for the notice. I consider the landlord has done this.
I do not find the landlord notice to terminate, dated 5 March 2025 is retaliatory and it stands. The parties had an informal discussion on how a mutually agreeable earlier exit might be entered into. Anu such agreement should be in writing and clearly set out the terms of any such agreement.
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 acting frivolous or vexatious prior. 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 merit and was justified on historic comments and more recent maintenance requests. I consider the tenant’s pursuit of suppression is in her interest and, in this instance, outweighs any public interest. I note the landlord was supportive of this view.
I order suppression of the tenant’s name.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant claimed a notice to terminate served by the landlord was retaliatory, seeking an order it be set aside.
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 5 March 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 was a long tenancy. It commenced 18 December 2020.
The premises presents as somewhat aged. The landlord provided a detailed list of maintenance tasks carried out during the tenancy. The list is reasonably long. The owner expressed early in the tenancy a desire to minimise maintenance costs, given the costs of ownership and keeping the rent low.
Despite that, there appears to have been responsiveness to requests from the tenant. Some flexibility was proven by the permission to allow the tenant to add a free-standing cabin.
In February (20 and 26) 2025, two maintenance tasks were requested and carried out. One involved a plumber attending and the other an electrician.
On 4 February 2025 the tenant reported a side fence had been broken, seeking its repair as others were using the lack of a fence to shortcut through the premises. The landlord stated it has been waiting for the photos of the damage to identify the area and arrange the repair.
On 5 February 2025 the landlord served a notice to terminate, with the tenancy to end 13 June 2025. While no reason is required for such a notice (since s 55 RTA was amended effective 30 January 2025), the landlord did advise in that notice that the owner wanted to carry out major repairs or refurbishment.
The landlord submitted the owner had previously indicated intentions to prepare and sell the premises, but these had been deferred. The owner in late February 2025 had another such discussion with the landlord/agent. I heard that owner said she could no longer afford the ongoing maintenance and considered it time to complete more significant work with a view to selling it. No written instruction was made.
The proximity of the last maintenance requests and the notice to terminate is obvious and lends itself to the tenant’s linking the two.
I have considered the submissions and limited evidence. I have concluded that the notice is not retaliatory. I make that determination after reviewing the history of the premises and maintenance tasks. The early desire of minimising maintenance costs, as expressed to the tenant, can be interpreted as confirming sides stance. The landlord has a history of being concerned about costs, the tenant could conclude that ongoing maintenance tasks as requested had prompted the landlord to seek to terminate the tenancy. I lean towards the owner perspective here as the rent has been left unchanged for a considerable time, even while the occupancy numbers increased with an additional room added via the cabin. Ongoing maintenance costs reduce the landlord income without any real capital improvement. The scope of works intended (as described by the landlord) is betterment with a view to maximising the return from a future sale. The work planned is significant and a vacated premises appears reasonable. As discussed, if the reality after this tenancy ends does not follow the intended path, a future revisiting via a further application to this Tribunal may be appropriate.
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, such as here, the evidential onus shifts to the landlord to show that there was a legitimate reason for the notice. I consider the landlord has done this.
I do not find the landlord notice to terminate, dated 5 March 2025 is retaliatory and it stands. The parties had an informal discussion on how a mutually agreeable earlier exit might be entered into. Anu such agreement should be in writing and clearly set out the terms of any such agreement.
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 acting frivolous or vexatious prior. 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 merit and was justified on historic comments and more recent maintenance requests. I consider the tenant’s pursuit of suppression is in her interest and, in this instance, outweighs any public interest. I note the landlord was supportive of this view.
I order suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5195193 — 14-day notice at 252 Great South Road, Huntly, Huntly 3700

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5195193 — 14-day notice at 252 Great South Road, Huntly, Huntly 3700

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