What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5319489 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5319489?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5319489?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5319489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12575430-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5319489 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5319489?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5319489?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5319489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12575430-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5319489 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5319489 — net $1,500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess x2	$1,500.00	Insurance excess x2
Net award	$1,500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,500.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5319489 — net $1,500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess x2	$1,500.00	Insurance excess x2
Net award	$1,500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,500.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant/s and Landlord/s]’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s]’s application for a declaration that the 90-day termination notice is of no effect is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,500.00 from the bond ([Bond number suppressed]), calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted via teleconference.
[The tenant/s] attended the hearing.
[The property manager], the property manager, attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.

What does each party seek?

The tenant challenged the landlord’s 90-day termination notice issued on 24 July 2025 under section 51(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), claiming that it was a retaliatory notice and seeking a declaration under section 54 of the Act that the notice is of no effect.
The landlord filed a cross-application seeking compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
I will first address the landlord’s cross-application for compensation, as the parties reached an agreement on that matter before the hearing. I will then consider the tenant’s application for a declaration that the 90-day termination notice is of no effect.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B the Act.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B the Act applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) the Act.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) the Act.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) the Act.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damages to family room wall; b. Damage to dining/kitchen ceiling; c. Carpet stains bedroom 2; and d. Carpet stains bedroom 3.
Each instance of damage attracted an insurance excess of $750, bringing the total excess to $3,000.
During the hearing, [The tenant/s] accepted the landlord’s claims relating to the damages. [The property manager] confirmed that the landlord had agreed to accept $1,500 in full and final settlement of the insurance excess and that the landlord would adhere to the agreement made on 7 July 2025.
[The tenant/s] also acknowledged that the damage had occurred but said it was unintentional and largely caused by her children or the actions of a flatmate.
Accordingly, I record that the parties agreed that [The tenant/s] is to pay $1,500 to the landlord for the insurance excess.
The focus of the remainder of this judgment is therefore on whether the termination notice was retaliatory within the meaning of section 54 of the Act.

Was the termination notice retaliatory?

On 24 July 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 23 October 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory. The law
Section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may declare a termination notice to be retaliatory, and of no effect, if: [I]n giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercised by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
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 s 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A the Act).
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 s 109(3) the Act).
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with s 51 the Act? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? If not, are there grounds to extend the notice period under s 96(2) RTA? In Realty House Whakatane Limited v Eschbank [2020] NZDC 16081, the District Court held that the time limit for filing an application is mandatory but may be extended in limited circumstances. c. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
The Tribunal has held that the term motivate has the ordinary dictionary meaning “to give impetus to ... to impel”. Usually there will be little direct evidence about the landlord’s intent in giving a termination notice. Therefore, the Tribunal must consider what inferences, if any, can be drawn from the timing and sequence of events.
Where there is a short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord serving a notice, this may lead to a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights. In this situation, the evidential onus shifts to the landlord to show that there was a legitimate reason for the notice. [The tenant/s]’s submissions
[The tenant/s] submitted that the notice was issued soon after she disputed several insurance claims lodged by the property manager, concerning minor damage to the property. [The tenant/s] stated that she had already remedied the alleged damage before the claims were made and had provided email evidence and photographs to demonstrate that the damage was minimal and had been addressed. She said she was surprised that the property manager proceeded to make insurance claims without first giving her an opportunity to repair the damage herself, as she believed was required under normal tenancy practice.
[The tenant/s] said that after she questioned the insurance claims and sought clarification on the costs and responsibility for the damage, communication from [The property manager] ceased for approximately three weeks. Then, without further warning, the 90-day termination notice was issued. She believed this timing showed that the notice was given because she had exercised her right to dispute the insurance claims and to seek clarification about repair costs.
She further explained that there had been no mention of the property being placed on the market before the dispute arose. According to her, the first reference to selling the property came only after the notice was issued, and she considered that explanation to be an afterthought designed to justify a retaliatory decision.
[The tenant/s] also referred to the tone of [The property manager]’s later email correspondence, saying that one message was written entirely in capital letters and felt aggressive and intimidating. She said this behaviour supported her belief that the notice was issued out of frustration and as a response to her standing up for her tenancy rights.
Finally, [The tenant/s] maintained that she had been a reliable tenant, had always paid rent on time, and had generally maintained a positive relationship with [The property manager] before the insurance dispute arose. She believed that had she not challenged the claims, the notice to terminate would not have been issued. [The property manager]’s submissions
[The property manager] denied that the 90-day notice was retaliatory. She submitted that the damage to the property was first identified during a routine inspection conducted on 12 March 2025. The owner was subsequently informed of the damage and instructed that the matter be referred to the insurer.
[The property manager] said in her evidence that the tenant had not initially reported the damage, and the landlord therefore followed the usual procedure by notifying the insurance company. The insurer assessed the damage and issued four separate claim numbers, each attracting an excess of $750. The total excess was therefore $3,000.
[The property manager] said that [The tenant/s] had agreed to pay $1,500 in full and final settlement of the excess, and that this agreement was made on 7 July 2025. She said the landlord agreed to this reduced amount in good faith. The insurance claims were later settled and repairs were completed.
After these matters had been resolved, the owner decided to sell the property and instructed her to issue a 90-day termination notice under section 51(1) of the Act to obtain vacant possession. [The property manager] said the notice was issued for that reason only and had no connection to the tenant’s earlier correspondence about the insurance claims.
[The property manager] further submitted that the property was an investment property and not the landlord’s main residence. Therefore, a 42-day notice under section 51(2) of the Act could not have been issued. [The property manager] emphasised that she had been a property manager for over 20 years and was familiar with the statutory requirements for valid termination notices.
[The property manager] also stated that the timing of the notice was coincidental and reflected the landlord’s genuine decision to sell the house rather than any retaliatory motive. She said that if the notice had been retaliatory, she would not have continued to correspond professionally with the tenant or agreed to a reduced settlement on the insurance excess. Analysis
Section 54 of the Act gives me jurisdiction to declare a termination notice of no effect if I am satisfied that the notice was given wholly or partly in retaliation for the tenant exercising, or proposing to exercise, any right, power, or remedy under the Act. The purpose of this provision is to protect tenants from being penalised for asserting their statutory rights.
There is no dispute that the 90-day termination notice issued on 24 July 2025 satisfies the formal requirements of section 51(3) of the Act. It was given in writing, stated the correct notice period, and included the intended vacate date.
The tenant filed her application challenging the termination notice within 28 working days of receiving it on 11 August 2025. Accordingly, the application was filed within time, and it is unnecessary to consider whether an extension under section 96(2) would have been justified.
In terms of motivation, [The tenant/s] argued that the termination notice was retaliatory and arose from her decision to dispute the landlord’s insurance claims. She submitted that after she challenged the claims, communication from the property manager ceased for several weeks, and that the termination notice followed shortly thereafter.
[The property manager] denied this and stated that the landlord decided to sell the property after the insurance issues had been settled. She referred me to the email chain showing that the parties had agreed on 7 July 2025 that the tenant would pay $1,500 to settle the insurance excess. [The property manager] said that her client instructed her to issue a 90-day notice for vacant possession to enable the sale. On 24 July 2025, the 90-day termination notice was issued.
In my view, the proximity in timing between the settlement of the insurance excess on 7 July 2025 and the issuance of the 90-day termination notice on 24 July 2025 raises a question as to motive, at least in part.
However, timing alone does not establish retaliation. It is merely one factor from which an inference may be drawn. In this case, [The tenant/s] must satisfy me, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord’s decision to terminate the tenancy was impelled or given impetus by her disputing the insurance excess.
I note that the 90-day termination notice was issued after the parties had already reached an agreement on the amount of compensation payable for the insurance excess. This timing somewhat weakens [The tenant/s]’s argument that the earlier dispute prompted the termination notice.
Nevertheless, [The tenant/s] has raised a plausible inference of retaliation. At this point, the evidential burden shifts to the landlord to demonstrate that the notice was given for a legitimate reason.
I acknowledge that there is no direct or documentary evidence supporting [The property manager]’s explanation that her client’s decision to sell the property was made only after the insurance claims were resolved. The evidence, however, indicates that the landlord had no ongoing dispute with the tenant at that stage, except that the tenant had not yet paid the agreed insurance excess of $1,500. By that point, non-payment of the agreed excess was no longer a tenancy issue but rather a matter of debt recovery.
Another factor that persuades me that the 90-day termination notice was not retaliatory in nature is that [The property manager]’s evidence was coherent and credible. She has over 20 years of experience in the property management industry and understands the correct procedure for issuing a termination notice. There was nothing in her conduct or submissions suggesting hostility or retribution toward the tenant because of the dispute over the damage or the insurance excess.
In fact, [The tenant/s] was the beneficiary of a misunderstanding regarding the total insurance excess. [The property manager] explained that although the total excess across the four claims was $3,000, she had earlier informed [The tenant/s] that the total amount payable would be $1,500. When she later learned from the insurer that each damage incident attracted a separate $750 excess, she discussed the matter with the landlord. [The property manager] said she advised the landlord not to retract the earlier agreement for two key reasons: a. She considered it fair and appropriate to honour the agreement already reached with the tenant. [The tenant/s] had relied on the $1,500 figure and had agreed to pay it. Retracting that agreement after the fact would have been unfair and inconsistent with the principle of good faith that underpins the relationship between landlords and tenants. b. She believed it was better to accept $1,500 as a practical resolution rather than reopen the issue when [The tenant/s] disputed the insurance excess, as doing so could have risked further disagreement or delay.
Accordingly, I accept that the landlord issued the 90-day termination notice for a legitimate reason. That is to obtain a vacant possession for sale.
My assessment of [The tenant/s]’s evidence is that her perception that the notice was retaliatory stems primarily from its timing and from her frustration with how the insurance matter was handled. While her feelings are understandable, the objective evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord’s motive was wholly or partly retaliatory.
Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that [The tenant/s] has met the burden of proof to establish that the termination notice was wholly or partly motivated by her disputing the insurance excess. In my view, there is no nexus between [The tenant/s]’s conduct and the landlord’s decision to terminate the tenancy.
Given the finding above, it is unnecessary to determine whether [The tenant/s]’s complaints were frivolous or vexatious. However, for completeness, I note that her initial dispute of the insurance claim was not frivolous. She was entitled to question the extent of the claimed damage and the insurance process. Nonetheless, that dispute had been resolved well before the termination notice was issued. Conclusion
Taking all the evidence into account, I am satisfied that the termination notice complies with section 51 of the Act, that the tenant’s application was filed within time, and that the tenant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the landlord was motivated, wholly or partly, by retaliation when issuing the notice.
There is no credible evidence to support the contention that the notice was motivated, even in part, by [The tenant/s]’s earlier dispute regarding the insurance excess or the condition of the property.
The evidence indicates that the landlord issued the notice to obtain vacant possession, thereby enabling the sale of the property. The timing of the notice alone is insufficient to establish retaliatory intent.
Accordingly, I find that the termination notice issued on 24 July 2025 is not retaliatory within the meaning of section 54 of the Act and remains valid and effective. Filing fee
Costs are to lie where they fall. This is because the parties reached an agreement on the amount of compensation payable, and the tenant was unsuccessful in her application. Name suppressions
Although [The tenant/s] has not succeeded in her application, I consider that there is no public interest in publishing her name or identifying particulars. My reasons are as follows: a. The rent was kept up to date throughout the tenancy, and there is no suggestion that the tenant was ever in arrears. b. The damage that occurred during the tenancy was not intentional. c. [The tenant/s] was entitled, as a matter of legal right, to bring an application to the Tribunal to determine whether the termination notice was retaliatory. d. Publication of [The tenant/s]’s name would likely have an adverse impact on her ability to obtain future accommodation, which outweighs any public interest in identifying her.
Accordingly, on my own initiative, I order the suppression of [The tenant/s]’s name and any identifying particulars. See section 95A(4) of the Act.
Because [The respondent/s] has wholly succeeded in the proceedings, I also order the suppression of the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5319489 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5319489 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What does each party seek?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the termination notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What does each party seek?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the termination notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions