What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5282302 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5282302?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282302?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282302?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12165546-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5282302 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5282302?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282302?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282302?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12165546-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5282302 — Harassment

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s name and identifying details.

By way of declaration, the tenancy of [The respondent/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] ended on 9 June 2025.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has challenged the validity of the process followed in relation to a withdrawal for family violence given to the landlord by the tenants under s56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The tenants have made an application requesting that the bond be refunded to them, compensation for a light that was not working during the tenancy and exemplary damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment. Background

The fixed-term tenancy commenced on 9 December 2025 and was due to end on 5 January 2026. The two named tenants were the only tenants on the tenancy agreement.

In around April 2025 there were some discussions between the parties about whether the tenancy could change to a periodic tenancy. As a result of ensuing discussions, on 9 April 2025, the landlord provided the tenants copies of template documents relating to a withdrawal under s56B of the RTA.

From April 2025 the landlord was contacted to be a reference for the tenants in respect of other properties.

On 6 June 2025 the tenants provided a family violence withdrawal notice to the landlord. The notice recorded both named tenants would be withdrawing from the tenancy address due to family violence and the last day the tenancy was noted as 9 June 2025. This was provided together with a completed statutory declaration signed by both named tenants and stated that they; “solemnly and sincerely declare that I, or my child/dependent, have been a victim of family violence during my current tenancy”. The declaration was witnessed by a justice of the peace.

The landlord did not consider that she was able to contact the parties, due to being restricted by the ruling around privacy for victims of domestic violence and she was unable to determine who they deemed the withdrawing victim to be. Landlord’s claims

The landlord disputes that the correct process was followed in the s56B withdrawal for family violence. She says that the termination should be denied on the grounds that it does not meet the basic threshold required for a tenant to be released from his/her part of the ongoing lease. She also submitted that if tenants can withdrawal from tenancies in such circumstances or in this manner, then fixed term tenancies are only ever worth 48 hours’ notice.

The tenants say that they did what they need to, to protect their family, and that they did follow the correct process. The law

Section 56B of the RTA sets out the requirements for a withdrawal from a tenancy for family violence reasons. As follows: (1) A tenant under a fixed term or periodic tenancy may withdraw from the tenancy by giving at least 2 days’ notice to the landlord if – a. The notice is accompanied by qualifying evidence that either or both of the following apply: i. The tenant has been a victim of family violence while a tenant at the premises: ii. The tenant’s dependent has been a victim of family violence while residing at the premises with the tenant; and b. The notice is in the approved form and includes the prescribed information. (2) If there are no other tenants under the tenancy at the time of the withdrawal, the tenancy terminates. (8) In this section, - Qualifying evidence means – (a) a declaration in the approved form made by a person who is prescribed, or is of a class prescribed, for the purposes of this subsection; or (b) evidence, in the approved form, of a prescribed type.

Regulation 7 of the Residential Tenancies (Termination for Physical Assault by Tenant and Withdrawal Following Family Violence) Regulations 2022 (the Regulations) state that the only information that must be included in the withdrawal notice is: a. The name of the withdrawing tenant. b. The address of the premises to which the notice relates; and, c. The date when the withdrawal will take effect.

Regulation 8(a) states that the withdrawing tenant is a person who may make a declaration which can be accepted as qualifying evidence.

Pursuant to section 77(7B) of the RTA, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a tenant of premises who gave the notice accompanied by qualifying evidence under section 56B was in fact a victim of family violence while a tenant of the premises.

As such, the Tribunal cannot look behind a withdrawal from a tenancy based on family violence so long as it is given in the prescribed form and with qualifying evidence. As the Tribunal has no grounds to question the evidential bases for such a statement, it follows that a landlord has no grounds to question the evidential basis of a declaration made by someone under Regulation 8 of the Regulations. 1 1 Birgette McCarthy v Climber Property Limited as agent for Chunhui Lu Prashant Jett [2024] NZTT 4998168, 4999229, paragraph 21.

The introduction of s56B to the RTA by the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020 reflects the government’s response to calls for greater protection for victims of family violence. The purpose of s56B is to protect victims of family violence by allowing them to exit their tenancy obligations quickly and safely.

The plain language of s56B and the prescribed straightforward form, available for download on the Tenancy Services website, outlines the requirements for withdrawal in such circumstances. The specific wording recognises the challenges for the party experiencing family violence.

The provisions focus on procedural mechanisms, presumably to facilitate quick and effective withdrawal from tenancies, and are quite prescriptive. Precision is necessary because a 48-hour notice provision of this kind could potentially undermine the integrity of the legal framework governing the termination of residential tenancies if it were not strictly defined and therefore open to abuse. 2

The supporting evidence criteria are intended to ensure that the claims are credible and based on evidence, striking a fair balance between tenant safety, and a landlord’s certainty of tenure. The criteria are designed to ensure that only genuine cases of family violence are considered under s56B.

Accordingly, the Tribunal’s role under s56B is primarily to verify that the tenant’s notice and accompanying evidence meet the formal requirements outlined in statute and prescribed forms. The level of prescription means that the Tribunal is not required to enquire into the merits of a tenant’s claim, or to determine who the victim and/or perpetrator is. Discussion

In applying the above to the tenants’ situation: a. The tenants complied with Regulation 7 as the notice they provided contained the required information. b. The statutory declaration provided and signed by the tenants met Regulation 8.

There is no direction in the RTA about assessment of any surrounding circumstances, or consideration of whether the tenants had been applying for other properties or had other motives. Presumably this is because the effects of family violence are not always straight forward. It does however make sense that the tenants would want to secure somewhere to live, especially with children involved, prior to giving notice.

The landlord submitted that if the tenants knew they were going to withdraw for family violence reasons, they could have given notice earlier and just put “date 2 None v None [2025] NZTT 5065674, paragraph 20. pending” while they found another property. I consider that this is misguided. If the tenants had done so, their notice would have potentially failed to comply with Regulation 7, as the date the withdrawal was to take effect would have been excluded.

I am satisfied that the notice and qualifying evidence related to both tenants and that this is possible under the RTA. Although the Regulations only refer to tenant in the singular, this is true of all clauses in the RTA that equally apply and are interpreted to mean multiple tenants, or as many are relevant in particular circumstances.

The statutory declaration also must be taken at face value. Making a false representation can be a criminal offence pursuant to section 240 of the Crimes Act 1961 which is punishable upon conviction to a maximum term of three years imprisonment. Accordingly, any suggestion of deception by the tenants would not be taken lightly, and without any evidence to the contrary I accept the statutory declaration for what it purports to be.

It is not immediately apparent why the landlord felt she couldn’t communicate with the tenants after receiving notice. The notice and supporting evidence clearly included both named tenants, and although there are clear restrictions on disclosing those notices or information (see section 56E of the RTA) there are no restrictions on the landlord communicating with both withdrawing tenants.

Accordingly, the tenants met the prescribed requirements of section 56B of the RTA to withdraw from the tenancy. Therefore, their tenancy ended as per the notice.

Accordingly, by way of declaration I confirm that termination. Rent

The landlord advised that the rent was paid to date up to the vacate date of 9 June 2025 but sought further rent.

Under s56B(5) of the RTA there is a calculation for rent reduction following the date of withdrawal, however, this only applies when there are remaining tenant(s) and the rent is reduced for a period of two weeks for those remaining tenants.

However, as I have determined that the tenancy terminated on 9 June 2025 and there were no remaining tenants, this calculation is irrelevant, and no further rent is owed. Tenants’ claims Bond refund

The tenants have requested that the bond be refunded to them.

The landlord seeks $1,820.00 from the bond for damage to the carpet.

However, although the landlord gave submissions at the hearing and has provided an invoice and a summary on costs sought, they have not included a formal claim to the bond in their application or filed a cross application against the bond, in response to the tenant’s application seeking refund of the bond.

Therefore pursuant to section 22B(2) of the RTA, I must direct that the bond refunded to the tenant.

As I have not considered these claims there is nothing preventing the landlord from filing a new claim for vacated damages in the Tribunal, however, this claim will not be able to draw on the bond amount. Compensation

The tenants sought compensation for difficulties in using one of the bedrooms, due to the light not working. The bedroom was described as particularly dark, and one of the tenants detailed mental health difficulties with dark spaces.

The tenants had believed, based on external advice, that there were issues with the wiring and had requested that the landlord repair the wiring.

The tenant claims that they were unable to use the bedroom as a result.

It appears from correspondence that the issue was originally notified in April 2025, and the landlord did try to repair the issue twice, but the timing did not suit the tenants. Eventually, the issue was resolved once they had left the property, and it simply required a replacement light bulb.

Although I accept that the tenants relied on advice around wiring and that it created difficulties for the tenants, I do not think any compensation is justified or fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

This claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages

The tenant seeks exemplary damages against the landlord for breach of quiet enjoyment. She says that the landlord actively prevented the tenants from finding a new property, despite being aware of their circumstances, by advising prospective landlords or property managers that they were in a fixed term tenancy and would not be released.

Section 38 of the RTA entitles the tenant to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord. Contravention of this clause in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant can be declared to be an unlawful act.

The landlord says that when she was being phoned for references, she had not yet been provided with the completed s56B forms. Although she had provided the tenant with templates, she believed that until she received official notice, there was still a fixed term tenancy in place, and she was at risk of breaching her obligations to say otherwise.

I accept this submission. The landlord was under no obligation to release them from a fixed term tenancy at this time. Although I accept it could have made things more difficult for the tenants in finding a different property, I do think it was a reasonable response by the landlord.

Accordingly, I do not think that these actions breached the tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment.

This claim is dismissed. Other matters

I am required by s95A(1A) of the RTA to order name suppression and the suppression of any identifying details.

I have not reimbursed the filing fees to either party. These costs should lie where they fall. R Harvey-Lane 24 July 2025

Order