How much money was awarded in case 5224013?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5224013?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5224013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11924739-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5224013?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5224013?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5224013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11924739-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 704, 36 Eden Crescent, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5224013 — Harassment

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5224013 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal, on its own initiative, orders suppression of the tenant’s name and

Order

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details given the surrounding circumstances of the tenant and the lack of public interest in the tenant’s name being published.

The application is dismissed. The termination notice dated 6 March 2025 stands.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 28 May 2023.

On 6 March 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 6 June 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.

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.

The landlord explained that the tenancy was being terminated due to the tenant incurring fines from the Body Corporate and that the landlord had no choice but to terminate the tenancy due to the deteriorated relationship between the tenant and the Body Corporate.

The tenant had been living at the address since November 2021 without any issue. The tenant had glowing references from neighbours also.

Issues only arose when a new Body Corporate took over the management of the building and had the tenant’s scooter towed from the stairwell. Unbeknown to the new Body Corporate building management company, the tenant had been given permission by the previous building manager to park his scooter where it was parked.

During a building warrant of fitness inspection by the Auckland Council, the Body Corporate was told to have the scooter removed due to it being a fire hazard.

It does not seem that the building manager did much to identify the owner of the scooter but he had the scooter towed and the scooter was eventually disposed of by the towing company. The tenant was aggrieved by the scooter being towed away, having not been asked to have it moved. The tenant had also been given the okay by the fire department during their inspections. As a result of the scooter being towed away and the way it happened, the relationship between him and the Body Corporate deteriorated.

The Body Corporate took exception to the way the tenant spoke to the building manager about asking for compensation for the scooter and had issued fines against the landlord for the tenant’s behaviour. It got to a point where the Body Corporate was warning the landlord that they will engage in security to escort the building manager when entering the building and charge the landlord for costs.

The landlord could not afford to have this continue at the landlord’s expense and issued a 90 days’ termination notice for the tenant.

Although the new building manager came to the Tribunal and gave evidence, I do not find that the tenant was aggressive or threatening as claimed.

There were at least some fines issued that seem difficult to prove against the landlord.

However, those are matters that the landlord needs to raise with the Body Corporate.

Regardless of my finding that the tenant was not aggressive or threatening to the extent of requiring security, I do not find that the landlord’s termination notice was retaliatory. The landlord was also in a difficult situation having to manage the tenant and the Body Corporate.

Therefore, the termination notice issued by the landlord stands and the tenancy will terminate on 6 June 2025 as explained at the hearing in person.

Given the unfortunate circumstances leading to the tenant’s termination, I see no public interest in publishing the tenant’s name. There is interest in the tenant’s name being supressed in the circumstances.

Order

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details given the surrounding circumstances of the tenant and the lack of public interest in the tenant’s name being published.
The application is dismissed. The termination notice dated 6 March 2025 stands.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 28 May 2023.
On 6 March 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 6 June 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
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.
The landlord explained that the tenancy was being terminated due to the tenant incurring fines from the Body Corporate and that the landlord had no choice but to terminate the tenancy due to the deteriorated relationship between the tenant and the Body Corporate.
The tenant had been living at the address since November 2021 without any issue. The tenant had glowing references from neighbours also.
Issues only arose when a new Body Corporate took over the management of the building and had the tenant’s scooter towed from the stairwell. Unbeknown to the new Body Corporate building management company, the tenant had been given permission by the previous building manager to park his scooter where it was parked.
During a building warrant of fitness inspection by the Auckland Council, the Body Corporate was told to have the scooter removed due to it being a fire hazard.
It does not seem that the building manager did much to identify the owner of the scooter but he had the scooter towed and the scooter was eventually disposed of by the towing company. The tenant was aggrieved by the scooter being towed away, having not been asked to have it moved. The tenant had also been given the okay by the fire department during their inspections. As a result of the scooter being towed away and the way it happened, the relationship between him and the Body Corporate deteriorated.
The Body Corporate took exception to the way the tenant spoke to the building manager about asking for compensation for the scooter and had issued fines against the landlord for the tenant’s behaviour. It got to a point where the Body Corporate was warning the landlord that they will engage in security to escort the building manager when entering the building and charge the landlord for costs.
The landlord could not afford to have this continue at the landlord’s expense and issued a 90 days’ termination notice for the tenant.
Although the new building manager came to the Tribunal and gave evidence, I do not find that the tenant was aggressive or threatening as claimed.
There were at least some fines issued that seem difficult to prove against the landlord.
However, those are matters that the landlord needs to raise with the Body Corporate.
Regardless of my finding that the tenant was not aggressive or threatening to the extent of requiring security, I do not find that the landlord’s termination notice was retaliatory. The landlord was also in a difficult situation having to manage the tenant and the Body Corporate.
Therefore, the termination notice issued by the landlord stands and the tenancy will terminate on 6 June 2025 as explained at the hearing in person.
Given the unfortunate circumstances leading to the tenant’s termination, I see no public interest in publishing the tenant’s name. There is interest in the tenant’s name being supressed in the circumstances.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5224013 — Harassment at Room 704, 36 Eden Crescent, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5224013 — Harassment at Room 704, 36 Eden Crescent, Auckland Central, Auckland

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