What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5231154 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both

How much money was awarded in case 5231154?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5231154?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5231154?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12043566-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5231154 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both

How much money was awarded in case 5231154?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5231154?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5231154?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12043566-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5231154 — Exemplary damages

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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 section 109(3) RTA.
The tenancy was from 3 August 2024 and ended on 15 March 2025.
The tenant had rented a room for $250.00 per week. One of the landlord’s sons was occupying another room at the same address.
As a member of the landlord’s family had been using the premises as a primary place of residence, the landlord would have been entitled to sign the tenant up as a boarder instead of a proper tenant under section 5(1)(n) RTA.
However, the parties had signed a formal tenancy agreement and effectively opted in to the RTA under section 8 RTA.
The tenant had been verbally promised a “long term tenancy” but the parties signed up only to a periodic tenancy. Therefore, the verbal promise holds no legal effect.
The landlord issued the tenant a 28-day written notice for termination on 24 January 2025. The tenant responded that she needed to abide by the signed tenancy agreement. The landlord re-issued a 63-day notice with the final date of the tenancy being 27 March 2025.
The reason the landlord gave for the termination was that her other son was going to be using the premises as his principal place of residence.
The tenant managed to find another address and vacated the premises on 15 March 2025.
However, instead of the landlord’s son moving in as indicated in the written termination notice, the premises was listed for rent on 27 March 2025 at $860.00 per week.
At the hearing, the landlord provided an explanation regarding the 28-day termination notice and having the premises listed for rent from 27 March 2025.
The landlord had given 28-day termination notice on the advice of two lawyer friends. Although their advice was not entirely wrong, the parties had opted into the RTA and therefore the landlord was correct to rectify the termination notice with a 63-day timeframe.
The landlord had planned for her other son to rent the premises with a couple and one other as flatmates. Unfortunately, there was a falling out between the proposed flatmates, and at the same one of them lost their job also. They were unable to become tenants at the premises.
The landlord provided text message screenshots to prove that the intended moving in by the son and the flatmates was genuine.
The landlord needed money to support her husband who was hospitalised and had to find tenants again once the tenant moved out and her son could not move in.
Therefore, the premises was listed online for renting.
By renting the whole house out when her son could not move in together with flatmates, the landlord was able to get more than twice the rent that she was getting when it was the tenant and her son living there as tenants.
Having heard the explanation with supporting evidence, I do not find that the landlord tried to have the tenancy terminated without grounds.
I dismiss the tenant’s application.
As I have found that this situation was a misunderstanding between the parties, I see no public interest in the names being published. Therefore, I suppress the details of both parties.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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 section 109(3) RTA.
The tenancy was from 3 August 2024 and ended on 15 March 2025.
The tenant had rented a room for $250.00 per week. One of the landlord’s sons was occupying another room at the same address.
As a member of the landlord’s family had been using the premises as a primary place of residence, the landlord would have been entitled to sign the tenant up as a boarder instead of a proper tenant under section 5(1)(n) RTA.
However, the parties had signed a formal tenancy agreement and effectively opted in to the RTA under section 8 RTA.
The tenant had been verbally promised a “long term tenancy” but the parties signed up only to a periodic tenancy. Therefore, the verbal promise holds no legal effect.
The landlord issued the tenant a 28-day written notice for termination on 24 January 2025. The tenant responded that she needed to abide by the signed tenancy agreement. The landlord re-issued a 63-day notice with the final date of the tenancy being 27 March 2025.
The reason the landlord gave for the termination was that her other son was going to be using the premises as his principal place of residence.
The tenant managed to find another address and vacated the premises on 15 March 2025.
However, instead of the landlord’s son moving in as indicated in the written termination notice, the premises was listed for rent on 27 March 2025 at $860.00 per week.
At the hearing, the landlord provided an explanation regarding the 28-day termination notice and having the premises listed for rent from 27 March 2025.
The landlord had given 28-day termination notice on the advice of two lawyer friends. Although their advice was not entirely wrong, the parties had opted into the RTA and therefore the landlord was correct to rectify the termination notice with a 63-day timeframe.
The landlord had planned for her other son to rent the premises with a couple and one other as flatmates. Unfortunately, there was a falling out between the proposed flatmates, and at the same one of them lost their job also. They were unable to become tenants at the premises.
The landlord provided text message screenshots to prove that the intended moving in by the son and the flatmates was genuine.
The landlord needed money to support her husband who was hospitalised and had to find tenants again once the tenant moved out and her son could not move in.
Therefore, the premises was listed online for renting.
By renting the whole house out when her son could not move in together with flatmates, the landlord was able to get more than twice the rent that she was getting when it was the tenant and her son living there as tenants.
Having heard the explanation with supporting evidence, I do not find that the landlord tried to have the tenancy terminated without grounds.
I dismiss the tenant’s application.
As I have found that this situation was a misunderstanding between the parties, I see no public interest in the names being published. Therefore, I suppress the details of both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5231154 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5231154 — Exemplary damages

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