How much money was awarded in case 5278680?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5278680?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5278680?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12472757-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5278680?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5278680?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5278680?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12472757-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5278680 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5278680 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

Priya Sudhakar and Elac Sudhakar’s application is dismissed.

[The tenant/s] cross application is dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

This matter concerns a residential tenancy which commenced on 21 August 2023. Ms The rent was $790.00 per week with a bond of $3,160.00. [The tenant/s] was the tenant (“the tenant”) and Mr and Mrs Sudhakar were the landlords (“the landlord”). The tenancy was managed by 360 Property Management Ltd.

On 24 April 2025, the landlord, through their property manager, issued a 42-day termination notice pursuant to section 51(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), on the basis that the owner or a member of their family required the property for use as their principal place of residence.

The tenant replied on 28 April 2025 to ask whether the landlord would consider some flexibility in the move-out date and proposed an extension to 90 days, with the option of giving 21 days’ notice once a new rental property was secured. That same day, the landlord, through the property manager, responded affirmatively, stating: “Absolutely the landlord is happy to be flexible with your time of moving out... They do really appreciate you and regret having to make the decision they have made.”

Between 13 May and 26 May 2025, the tenant communicated with the property manager and advised they had not yet secured a new tenancy. On 27 May 2025, the tenant confirmed they had secured a new rental and notified a move-out date of 13 June 2025, which was later adjusted to 12 June at the landlord’s request. The tenant vacated the premises on 12 June 2025. The Parties’ Applications

The landlord seeks compensation of $3,350.00, comprised of a $350.00 claim for an additional month of storage and $3,000.00 for stress and inconvenience said to have resulted from the tenant’s failure to vacate on time (being the purported end date of 5 June 2025). The landlord also seeks refund of the bond.

The tenant opposes the landlord’s claim and seeks return of the full bond. The tenant also files a cross-application for $2,000.00 in compensation for emotional distress, time lost, and stress caused by the landlord’s late change in position and initiation of these proceedings. Analysis

Section 51(3) RTA sets out the legal requirements for a landlord’s notice to terminate a periodic tenancy. It provides that: A notice to terminate a tenancy must— (a) be in writing; and (b) identify the premises to which it relates; and (c) specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises; and (d) be signed by the party giving the notice.

In this case, the landlord’s notice dated 24 April 2025 is purportedly given under section 51(2)(a), which allows landlords to give 42 days’ notice if the owner or a family member requires the premises for personal use.

However, the notice did not specify a termination date, such as “the tenancy is to end on 5 June 2025.” Although the landlord later referred to 5 June as the intended vacate date, there is no evidence that this was included in the actual written notice. The tenant has expressly disputed that 5 June was ever accepted or agreed as the end date.

The absence of a stated termination date is a fundamental flaw in the notice. Under section 51(3)(c), the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises must be stated in the notice. A notice that does not meet this requirement is ineffective and invalid. This is a mandatory statutory requirement, not a mere formality.

Accordingly, I find that the landlord’s 42-day notice was invalid, and did not bring the tenancy to an end on 5 June 2025. Therefore, the tenant was not in breach for remaining in the premises until 12 June 2025.

This also defeats the foundation of the landlord’s claim for compensation, which is based on the assumption that the tenancy ended on 5 June 2025 and that the tenant overstayed. As the tenancy was not lawfully terminated, the landlord cannot rely on that date to establish loss or default.

Moreover, the landlord’s subsequent correspondence on 28 April 2025 expressly confirmed a willingness to be flexible with the tenant’s move-out date. The tenant reasonably relied on this assurance and acted in good faith to secure alternative accommodation. Once this was achieved, the tenant informed the landlord and offered to vacate on 13 June 2025, later agreeing to shift the date forward to 12 June. The Tribunal finds the tenant acted responsibly and consistently communicated their intentions.

The tenant seeks $2,000.00 in compensation for stress, emotional impact, and inconvenience arising from the landlord’s subsequent change in position. While the Tribunal accepts the tenant may have been caused some distress and confusion, the landlord did not proceed to forcibly remove the tenant and instead initiated proceedings through proper legal channels. The threshold for awarding compensation for emotional distress is high. In this case, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord’s conduct amounts to a breach of the RTA sufficient to warrant a compensatory award. Conclusion

The landlord’s termination notice was invalid. The tenant was not in breach by vacating on 12 June 2025. The landlord’s claim for compensation and refund of the bond is dismissed. The tenant’s application for compensation is also dismissed. The tenancy has ended, and the tenant is entitled to the full return of the bond. Filing fee and suppression order

Both parties have filed applications in this matter. The landlord’s primary claim has been dismissed, and the tenant’s cross-application for compensation has also been dismissed. In these circumstances, each party has been partially unsuccessful. The Tribunal therefore makes no order for either party to reimburse the other for the filing fee under section 102(2) RTA.

Although the tenant has not been awarded compensation, she has successfully defended the landlord’s principal claim. The Tribunal accepts that publication of her name and identifying details in these circumstances would cause her undue hardship and is not necessary for the public interest. Under section 95A RTA, suppression may be granted where a party has been wholly or substantially successful or where publication would otherwise cause unfairness. On that basis, the tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed.

By contrast, the landlord’s claim was not successful, and there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that publication of the landlord’s name would cause hardship or unfairness. Further, there is a legitimate public interest in the publication of Tribunal orders where claims by landlords have been dismissed. The landlord does not therefore meet the criteria for suppression under section 95A, and no order for suppression of the landlord’s name is made.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

Priya Sudhakar and Elac Sudhakar’s application is dismissed.

[The tenant/s] cross application is dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Tenancy Tribunal case 5278680 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5278680 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions