What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5205811?

The tribunal order states: The application by Alicia Rees to declare the 28 days notice retaliatory is

How much money was awarded in case 5205811?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5205811?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5205811?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11669639-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5205811?

The tribunal order states: The application by Alicia Rees to declare the 28 days notice retaliatory is

How much money was awarded in case 5205811?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5205811?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5205811?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11669639-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 523, 110 Grafton Road, Grafton, Auckland 1010, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5205811 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.

The tenant claims the 28 day notice of 13/3/2025 to end the tenancy on 10/4/2025 is retaliatory.

The tenancy is a boarding house tenancy which commenced on 29/7/2023 at $295.00 per week rent.

The premises have 300 tenants and a comprehensive set of rules.

Was the notice to terminate the tenancy valid?

The tenant believed the notice to terminate the tenancy dated 13/3/2025 was retaliatory because she received the notice the day after a verbal altercation between herself and the property manager.

Based on what had happened during the altercation the tenant believed it was unfair of the landlord to end her tenancy.

On the other hand, the landlord submitted the reason for giving the tenant notice was her breach of the house rules and lack of apology, 24 hours after the incident.

Under section 66U(1)(d) a landlord may terminate a boarding house tenancy without reason by giving at least 28 days notice.

Section 66U(2) sets out the requirements of the notice.

I find the notice of 13/3/2025 is valid and meets all the necessary requirements.

Was the notice retaliatory?

From 30 January 2025 for a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove: a. that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right, power, authority, or remedy under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord relating to the tenancy: b. that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise or performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises See section 54(2)(a)&(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant must make the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice and may apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect.

Under subsection (5) the Tribunal need not declare a notice retaliatory if satisfied that the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority or remedy or the making by the tenant of any such complaint was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving 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 section 54(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

What is at issue here is whether the notice was of any effect because in giving the notice the landlord was motivated either wholly or in part by the exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority or remedy conferred by the tenancy agreement or Act.

There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with s 66U 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?

As mentioned above the notice does comply with section 66U.

The application by the tenant was made on 20/3/2025, seven days after the notice to terminate was issued.

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.

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.

His Honour Judge Ongley found in Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua M.A. 244/88 3 November 1988 that a notice was not retaliatory if it was given for genuine and fair reasons.

The position of the tenant is understandable, especially considering the very short space of time between the altercation and the landlord issuing the notice.

However, and unfortunate as it may be for the tenant the evidence does not prove that the landlord was motivated by the tenant exercising any right, power, authority, or remedy under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord relating to the tenancy:

The landlord was clear that he issued the notice because the tenant breached the house rules relating to swearing and had failed to apologise. He believed the conduct was unacceptable in terms of the large number and different ethnicities of tenants in the premises.

I am persuaded by the evidence of the landlord that the notice terminating the tenancy was given for fair and genuine reasons and was not retaliatory.

The application by the tenant fails and the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

For the avoidance of doubt the end date of the tenancy in terms of the 28 day notice is 10 April 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.

The tenant claims the 28 day notice of 13/3/2025 to end the tenancy on 10/4/2025 is retaliatory.

The tenancy is a boarding house tenancy which commenced on 29/7/2023 at $295.00 per week rent.

The premises have 300 tenants and a comprehensive set of rules.

Was the notice to terminate the tenancy valid?

The tenant believed the notice to terminate the tenancy dated 13/3/2025 was retaliatory because she received the notice the day after a verbal altercation between herself and the property manager.

Based on what had happened during the altercation the tenant believed it was unfair of the landlord to end her tenancy.

On the other hand, the landlord submitted the reason for giving the tenant notice was her breach of the house rules and lack of apology, 24 hours after the incident.

Under section 66U(1)(d) a landlord may terminate a boarding house tenancy without reason by giving at least 28 days notice.

Section 66U(2) sets out the requirements of the notice.

I find the notice of 13/3/2025 is valid and meets all the necessary requirements.

Was the notice retaliatory?

The tenant must make the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice and may apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect.

As mentioned above the notice does comply with section 66U.

The application by the tenant was made on 20/3/2025, seven days after the notice to terminate was issued.

His Honour Judge Ongley found in Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua M.A. 244/88 3 November 1988 that a notice was not retaliatory if it was given for genuine and fair reasons.

The position of the tenant is understandable, especially considering the very short space of time between the altercation and the landlord issuing the notice.

I am persuaded by the evidence of the landlord that the notice terminating the tenancy was given for fair and genuine reasons and was not retaliatory.

The application by the tenant fails and the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.

For the avoidance of doubt the end date of the tenancy in terms of the 28 day notice is 10 April 2025.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5205811 — Exemplary damages at Room 523, 110 Grafton Road, Grafton, Auckland 1010,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5205811 — Exemplary damages at Room 523, 110 Grafton Road, Grafton, Auckland 1010,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the notice to terminate the tenancy valid?

Was the notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the notice to terminate the tenancy valid?

Was the notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions