What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5203935 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 5203935?

On Of The Tenancy And Possession To…: $4,527.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5203935?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5203935?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11957498-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5203935 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 5203935?

On Of The Tenancy And Possession To…: $4,527.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5203935?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5203935?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11957498-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5203935 — 14-day notice

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5203935. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
on of the tenancy and possession to the landlord will be Friday, 27 June 2025. 4. Precision Property Management Limited	$4,527.00		on of the tenancy and possession to the landlord will be Friday, 27 June 2025. 4. Precision Property Management Limited

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5203935. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
on of the tenancy and possession to the landlord will be Friday, 27 June 2025. 4. Precision Property Management Limited	$4,527.00		on of the tenancy and possession to the landlord will be Friday, 27 June 2025. 4. Precision Property Management Limited

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The termination notice issued by Precision Property Management Limited is not retaliatory.
The parties agreed that if the Tribunal’s decision is the termination notice was not retaliatory, the date for termination of the tenancy and possession to the landlord will be Friday, 27 June 2025.
Precision Property Management Limited is to pay $4,527.00 to the tenant immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the teleconference hearing.
The tenant has applied to the Tribunal for orders: a. declaring that the landlord’s 90 day termination notice was retaliatory and b. that the landlord failed to comply with Healthy Homes Standards. Was the landlord’s 90 day termination notice retaliatory?
Section 54(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that for the Tribunal to declare a notice to be retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord.
The tenant has submitted that the landlord was motivated to terminate the tenancy, either wholly or in part because he challenged the landlord’s 14 day notice requiring him to remove a dog from the property.
It is an interesting point as to whether a landlord’s 14 day notice to a tenant regarding a breach of their tenancy agreement followed by the tenant contesting the 14 day notice fits within the meaning of; “the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord.” The tenant’s’ submission is that his challenge to the 14 day notice is a right tenants have under the RTA. My initial view is that the tenant’s challenge to a 14 day notice is always an option available however it is not a right that arises specifically form the tenancy agreement or the RTA. Nor would I describe the tenant’s disagreement with the landlord’s 14 day notice to be what was understood by “a complaint against the landlord”. I would find it necessary to address this point more fully if I decided that the termination notice was the result of the tenant contesting the 14 day notice.
The tenancy began on 10 July 2020. The tenancy agreement included the following: “The Tenant agrees not to keep or feed or allow or permit any other person to keep or feed or allow any pet or other animal on or about the Property unless the Landlord agrees otherwise and modifies this agreement in writing to reflect Landlord's permission.”
In September 2023 the tenant became the owner of a dog and kept it at the premises without the consent of the landlord. The landlord got wind of this around May 2024 and issued a 14 day notice on 8 May 2024 for the tenant to remove the dog. The tenant denied having a dog at the property. The landlord did not take the matter further.
On 24 February 2025 the landlord emailed the tenant stating that it was clear from social media that he had a dog at the premises. “We will be required to issue you with a 14 day notice for the dog”. On the same day the landlord emailed a 14 day notice for the tenant to remove the dog and not bring it back. The email stated that the landlord could apply to the tenancy tribunal to end the tenant’s tenancy if the dog was not removed by 11 March.
On 25 February the tenant emailed the landlord setting out reasons why he believed the 14 day notice was unfair. He sought clarification regarding the legal basis for the 14 day notice, asked why the landlord had ignored his request to allow a dog at the premises and asked why the presence of a dog had not been raised at inspections.
On 3 March the landlord responded to the tenant’s email. In summary the landlord’s email stated that the tenant’s requests for a dog had been responded to, that he had been taken at his word about not having a dog and the owners did not want dogs because dog in such a confined area, given that there are 3 other units and multiple units around the tenant’s unit.
On 8 March the tenant emailed the property manager thanking her for responding and raising those points and concluded, “However, since the owner has made their final decision, further discussion would be unnecessary at this point as my position remains the same. I will await the next step.”
On 14 March the landlord issued a 90 day termination notice. In the email the landlord stated that, “The reason for this notice is because the owner is needing to complete extensive repairs inside the property.”
The tenant believes that the short time between him disputing the 14 day notice and the receipt of a 90 day notice proves that the notice was retaliatory.
On the face of it, the six day period between the tenant’s refusal to accept the landlord request and the issuing of the termination notice does suggest retaliation on the part of the landlord.
Where there is such a short time period between a tenant’s challenge and a landlord’s termination notice, the onus of proof shifts from the tenant to the landlord. In other words, the tenant has proved a strong possibility of retaliation and so the landlord must show that there was a legitimate reason for the termination notice. I therefore have set out the landlord’s account of events leading to the termination notice.
The landlord said that while it may appear that the termination notice was retaliatory, the termination notice came about because of events and instructions from the owner happening in the background at the time.
The respondent has been the property manager for the owner of the tenanted premises for several years. The owner owns multiple blocks of units, including the 4 units that the tenant’s unit is attached to. Last year the 86 year old owner became unwell and unable to deal with issues relating to the multiple tenancies. The landlord provided a copy of the Enduring Power of Attorney for the daughter, Loretta, to take over the owner’s financial affairs. The property manager said that this set off a chain of events for all the owner’s tenants because every unit is to be sold and the money used for the care of the owner. At the time of the hearing there were 19 units left to be sold. In preparation for the sale, money from the sale of units is used to upgrade and redecorate units to be sold and to carry out any other work at the properties.
The EPA is dated 6 December 2024. The landlord said that Loretta (hereafter, “the owner”) began managing day to day matters of all the units in January. In February the owner requested an inspection of the tenant’s premises so she could see what work was needed there. The landlord sent an inspection notice on 18 February. The inspection took place on 20 February with the landlord, the owner and her husband present. The landlord said that on the same day they all meet at her office. They discussed the work that was required at the property. The owner and her husband voiced concern about how long it would take once the bathroom upgrade commenced. The landlord said that the owner also talked about the amount of electrical equipment in the unit and the concerns about dust and working around very expensive equipment. The owner said at that meeting that she would like the landlord to issue a termination notice for that work to be carried out. But notice would not be issued until the sale of units gave the owner funds to do the work.
It was after this but before the 14 day breach notice to the tenant about the dog that another property manager was taking photos of the driveways so the owner could organise driveway maintenance. It is clear that work was planned at the properties.
On 27 February one of the owner’s properties sold by auction.
The landlord said that the owner came into the office on 12 March and requested that the termination notice be issued for the tenant’s unit. I asked the landlord why it took from 20 February to 14 March to issue the termination notice if the decision had been made to end the tenancy. She said that the owner had to wait until the sale of one of the properties to have the funds and then work out a “plan of attack”.
The landlord said that the reason given for termination in the termination email was correct. The unit does need the work. It is the unit that needs the most work so will be done first. It will then be the show unit for other units. It will not be rented again by the owner before it is sold.
The landlord said that when she started working with the owner in January, there was one block of units that she knew was going to get sold. It has been a developing thing for the owner. Now that the owner has sold one lot of units she's put two more on the market and is now getting ready to sell the blocks of units. That has only come about since March. The landlord said that owner confirmed for her in March that she needed to sell all the units to be able to pay for her mother’s care.
Although the parties were very clear in their presentations at the hearing, I decided to listen to the recording of the hearing again before making the decision about retaliatory notice. My reason for doing so was to completely understand what had been said at the hearing by the landlord about the reason for the termination.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that there was a concurrence of events. Those events were the discovery of a dog at the premises and an owner in the process of assessing the state of properties with a view to selling them to pay for her mother’s care. I am satisfied that while the termination gave the appearance of being retaliatory, it was decided by the owner after the visit to the premises and before the dog was discovered four days later.
The claim that the termination notice was retaliatory has not been proved.
As stated in the order above, the parties agreed that if the Tribunal’s decision is the termination notice was not retaliatory, the date for termination of the tenancy and possession to the landlord will be Friday, 27 June 2025. My apologies to the tenant that the decision could not be issued sooner to give more time for the tenant to arrange a move.

Did the owner breach Healthy Home Standards?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must comply with Healthy Homes Standards (s.45(1)(bb)) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy that began in July 2020 was for a fixed term ending on 9 July 2021. The parties agreed to a further fixed term tenancy ending on 9 July 2022. The landlord’s obligation following the start of the second tenancy was to have the premises comply with Healthy Homes Standards within 90 days of signing the fixed term agreement. I am satisfied that this did not happen because on 22 April 2022 a Healthy Homes assessment showed that the premises failed in the following ways: ceiling insulation, draught stopping, ventilation and heating.
I am satisfied that from October 2021 to the date of the hearing, the premises remains uncompliant regarding heating and some other areas.
I find that the owner/landlord has committed an unlawful act.
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 section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord stated that she informed the owner (before the EPA) of the work necessary for compliance, but the owner did not carry out all the work required. The landlord said that she suggested to the tenant that he issue a 14 day notice to the landlord to install a heat pump. This was to try force the owner’s hand. I am satisfied that the unlawful act of not having the premises meet Healthy Homes standards was committed intentionally by the owner at the time.
The effect of the non-compliance was that the tenant did not have the benefit of living in premises that met the standards. He had to use his own heating to supplement what was in the unit and pay for power that he would not have had to pay for if a heat pump had been installed. This happened from October 2021. The owner had the benefit of not having to spend money on the unit for over three and a half years.
It is in the public interest that rental properties are healthy for tenants and that landlords do not intentionally breach Healthy Homes Standards. For these reasons I have ordered compensation and exemplary damages of $4,500.00. Filing Fee
Because the tenant has been partly successful with the claim the filing fee of $27.00 is ordered to be paid by the landlord. Suppression
Although the tenant was not substantially successful with all of the matters raised in his application I have ordered name suppression.
The Tribunal may, 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. (s.95A(4).
I am satisfied that there is no public interest in his name being published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5203935 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5203935 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the owner breach Healthy Home Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the owner breach Healthy Home Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions