What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335403 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5335403?

Property Damage: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335403?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335403?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12615941-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5335403 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5335403?

Property Damage: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5335403?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5335403?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12615941-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 14 Goring Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5335403 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5335403 — net $3,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages for giving invalid notice to terminate	$3,500.00	Exemplary damages for giving invalid notice to terminate
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,528.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
David Anderson must pay [The tenant/s] $3,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 22 October 2025.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
Under Section 60AA RTA 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 $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord on 6 July 2025 gave 42 days’ notice to the tenant to end the periodic tenancy on 17 August 2025 for the following reason: The landlord customarily uses the premises, or has acquired the premises, for occupation by employees of the landlord or by contractors under contracts for services with the landlord. That fact is clearly stated in the tenancy agreement, and the premises are required for that use.
The landlord acknowledged at the hearing that the stated ground of termination is untrue. The landlord does not customarily use the premises for occupation by employees of the landlord or by contractors under contracts for services with the landlord. Nothing is stated in the tenancy agreement to reflect that, and the premises are not required for that use at all.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful 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 section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord explained that he made a mistake in ticking the second check box on the boilerplate termination letter that he downloaded from the Tenancy Services website. The landlord contends that the first check box on the standard letter better reflects his reasons for giving the 42 days notice, ie., the owner of the premises requires the premises within 90 days after the termination date (as above) as the principal place of residence (for at least 90 days) for the owner or a member of the owner’s family.
The landlord maintains that he had intended to move back into the premises at the material time of issuance of the notice.
I do not accept the landlord’s explanations.
The onus remains on the landlord to ensure that he has proper grounds to give a 42 days’ notice to terminate the periodic tenancy. The landlord could have given 90 days’ notice to end the periodic tenancy without giving any reason to the tenant.
The giving of 90 days’ notice without cause would have provided the tenant with more time to find accommodation elsewhere.
By choosing to give only 42 days’ notice, the landlord binds himself to the stated reasons, provided they are true and accurate.
The tenant was, understandably, under stress to move out quickly. She was overseas at the material time attending to family illness. So, it is understandable that the tenant would been pressured to make alternative arrangements to relocate within half the time as a 90 days’ notice would have afforded the tenant.
3 days after the expiry of the landlord’s notice, the landlord placed an advertisement for the premises to be relet.
The landlord never moved back into the premises, this time citing a new job opportunity in Northland as the reason for the change in personal circumstance.
I do not accept the landlord’s explanation here either.
If the landlord had indeed harboured a genuine reason to end the tenancy, namely, to move back into the premises and use it as his principal place of residence, but circumstances changed midway, the landlord ought to have informed his tenant right away that he no longer requires the premises to move back into and quickly offer to retract the termination notice.
If the tenant has not found another place to move to, and is happy to stay on, then there would be no need for the landlord to readvertise the premises. The tenant would likely have acceded to the landlord withdrawing his 42 days’ notice (which was invalid in the first instance).
Of course, the tenant may have since made other plans to relocate on the expiry of the landlord’s 42 days’ notice and reject the landlord’s withdrawal of the initial notice. If that were the case, then it would have been in order for the landlord to readvertise the premises for relet, without penalty or repercussion.
For the above reasons, I do not accept that the landlord has provided reasonable excuse for giving an invalid notice to terminate the tenancy.
Weighing the stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenant, the public interest that landlord must give valid notices when terminating tenancies, and having regard to the above factors, I find it just to award exemplary damages of $3,500.00 in favour of the tenant for the landlord’s breach of his obligations under section 60AA RTA.
The tenant is wholly successful in this claim. I direct reimbursement of the filing fee by the landlord and order suppression of the tenant’s name accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5335403 — net $3,528.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages for giving invalid notice to terminate	$3,500.00	Exemplary damages for giving invalid notice to terminate
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,528.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
David Anderson must pay [The tenant/s] $3,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 22 October 2025.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).
Under Section 60AA RTA 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 $6,500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord on 6 July 2025 gave 42 days’ notice to the tenant to end the periodic tenancy on 17 August 2025 for the following reason: The landlord customarily uses the premises, or has acquired the premises, for occupation by employees of the landlord or by contractors under contracts for services with the landlord. That fact is clearly stated in the tenancy agreement, and the premises are required for that use.
The landlord acknowledged at the hearing that the stated ground of termination is untrue. The landlord does not customarily use the premises for occupation by employees of the landlord or by contractors under contracts for services with the landlord. Nothing is stated in the tenancy agreement to reflect that, and the premises are not required for that use at all.
I find the landlord has committed an unlawful 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 section 109(3) RTA.
The landlord explained that he made a mistake in ticking the second check box on the boilerplate termination letter that he downloaded from the Tenancy Services website. The landlord contends that the first check box on the standard letter better reflects his reasons for giving the 42 days notice, ie., the owner of the premises requires the premises within 90 days after the termination date (as above) as the principal place of residence (for at least 90 days) for the owner or a member of the owner’s family.
The landlord maintains that he had intended to move back into the premises at the material time of issuance of the notice.
I do not accept the landlord’s explanations.
The onus remains on the landlord to ensure that he has proper grounds to give a 42 days’ notice to terminate the periodic tenancy. The landlord could have given 90 days’ notice to end the periodic tenancy without giving any reason to the tenant.
The giving of 90 days’ notice without cause would have provided the tenant with more time to find accommodation elsewhere.
By choosing to give only 42 days’ notice, the landlord binds himself to the stated reasons, provided they are true and accurate.
The tenant was, understandably, under stress to move out quickly. She was overseas at the material time attending to family illness. So, it is understandable that the tenant would been pressured to make alternative arrangements to relocate within half the time as a 90 days’ notice would have afforded the tenant.
3 days after the expiry of the landlord’s notice, the landlord placed an advertisement for the premises to be relet.
The landlord never moved back into the premises, this time citing a new job opportunity in Northland as the reason for the change in personal circumstance.
I do not accept the landlord’s explanation here either.
If the landlord had indeed harboured a genuine reason to end the tenancy, namely, to move back into the premises and use it as his principal place of residence, but circumstances changed midway, the landlord ought to have informed his tenant right away that he no longer requires the premises to move back into and quickly offer to retract the termination notice.
If the tenant has not found another place to move to, and is happy to stay on, then there would be no need for the landlord to readvertise the premises. The tenant would likely have acceded to the landlord withdrawing his 42 days’ notice (which was invalid in the first instance).
Of course, the tenant may have since made other plans to relocate on the expiry of the landlord’s 42 days’ notice and reject the landlord’s withdrawal of the initial notice. If that were the case, then it would have been in order for the landlord to readvertise the premises for relet, without penalty or repercussion.
For the above reasons, I do not accept that the landlord has provided reasonable excuse for giving an invalid notice to terminate the tenancy.
Weighing the stress and inconvenience suffered by the tenant, the public interest that landlord must give valid notices when terminating tenancies, and having regard to the above factors, I find it just to award exemplary damages of $3,500.00 in favour of the tenant for the landlord’s breach of his obligations under section 60AA RTA.
The tenant is wholly successful in this claim. I direct reimbursement of the filing fee by the landlord and order suppression of the tenant’s name accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335403 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 5, 14 Goring Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5335403 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 5, 14 Goring Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions