What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5206331 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for the notice of termination to be declared retaliatory and for an

How much money was awarded in case 5206331?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5206331?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5206331?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11663788-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5206331 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for the notice of termination to be declared retaliatory and for an

How much money was awarded in case 5206331?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5206331?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5206331?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11663788-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 16, 34 Bay Street, Petone, Lower Hutt 5012, Bay Tenancy Tribunal Case 5206331 — 14-day notice

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.

The tenant has applied to the Tribunal to make a declaration that the notice of termination of his tenancy dated 19 March 2025 was retaliatory and for an award of exemplary damages.

In support of his claim the tenant provided evidence of a 14 day notice issued to him on 21 February 2025 requiring him to cease ‘interfering’ with the internet connection. He states that he was within his rights to re-set the wifi extender, which he did several times, so that he could access the 5G network.

He also stated that the other tenants got together and requested that the landlord evict him and that he has been subjected to ongoing harassment by another tenant.

For a notice to be declared 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. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

As an applicant, the tenant is required to prove his case “on the balance of probabilities”. That is, that more likely than not, the landlord was motivated, either wholly or in part, to terminate his tenancy, because he exercised his right to re-set the wifi.

On the evidence available to me, the applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that that his tenancy was terminated because of his exercise of this right.

I make this finding for reasons that include: (a) I accept the landlord’s evidence that on the same day as giving the 14 day notice to remedy, she concluded that the tenant was not responsible for the wifi issue; and (b) She then sent out a general letter to all tenants re the wifi; and (c) On 26 February 2025 a technician came and fixed the wifi issue; and (d) Although she did not then retract her 14 day notice to the tenant, I accept that she no longer regarded this as a particular issue for which the tenant was responsible.

Having made these findings, the notice to terminate cannot then have been motivated, either wholly or in part, by the tenant’s exercise of his rights to re-set the wifi.

I accept that the notice to terminate was motivated by other tenants wanting the landlord to evict him. Acting on other tenants’ wishes cannot be considered to be terminating a tenancy because the tenant was acting on a right extended to him by the agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

For these reasons I find that the notice to terminate was not retaliatory.

Having made this finding there will be no award of exemplary damages.

Further to this, the tenant was not successful with his claim and so he is to bear his own cost of filing this application. C ter Haar 02 April 2025

Order

The application for the notice of termination to be declared retaliatory and for an award of exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
The tenant has applied to the Tribunal to make a declaration that the notice of termination of his tenancy dated 19 March 2025 was retaliatory and for an award of exemplary damages.
In support of his claim the tenant provided evidence of a 14 day notice issued to him on 21 February 2025 requiring him to cease ‘interfering’ with the internet connection. He states that he was within his rights to re-set the wifi extender, which he did several times, so that he could access the 5G network.
He also stated that the other tenants got together and requested that the landlord evict him and that he has been subjected to ongoing harassment by another tenant.
For a notice to be declared 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. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
As an applicant, the tenant is required to prove his case “on the balance of probabilities”. That is, that more likely than not, the landlord was motivated, either wholly or in part, to terminate his tenancy, because he exercised his right to re-set the wifi.
On the evidence available to me, the applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that that his tenancy was terminated because of his exercise of this right.
I make this finding for reasons that include: (a) I accept the landlord’s evidence that on the same day as giving the 14 day notice to remedy, she concluded that the tenant was not responsible for the wifi issue; and (b) She then sent out a general letter to all tenants re the wifi; and (c) On 26 February 2025 a technician came and fixed the wifi issue; and (d) Although she did not then retract her 14 day notice to the tenant, I accept that she no longer regarded this as a particular issue for which the tenant was responsible.
Having made these findings, the notice to terminate cannot then have been motivated, either wholly or in part, by the tenant’s exercise of his rights to re-set the wifi.
I accept that the notice to terminate was motivated by other tenants wanting the landlord to evict him. Acting on other tenants’ wishes cannot be considered to be terminating a tenancy because the tenant was acting on a right extended to him by the agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
For these reasons I find that the notice to terminate was not retaliatory.
Having made this finding there will be no award of exemplary damages.
Further to this, the tenant was not successful with his claim and so he is to bear his own cost of filing this application. C ter Haar 02 April 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5206331 — 14-day notice at Room 16, 34 Bay Street, Petone, Lower Hutt 5012, Bay

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5206331 — 14-day notice at Room 16, 34 Bay Street, Petone, Lower Hutt 5012, Bay

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions