What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344263 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5344263?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344263?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344263?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12516955-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344263 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5344263?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344263?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344263?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12516955-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5344263 — Exemplary damages

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
The notice terminating the tenancy is not a valid notice and is of no effect.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for an order declaring a notice to be of no effect, because the landlords were motivated to end the tenancy when they saw the tenant had cut down a tree and parked a caravan on the front lawn of the tenancy premises.
The tenant’s application was filed under section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Section 54 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.
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA? 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?

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

Section 51 sets out all the ways a tenancy can end by giving notice. The type of tenancy is relevant. The tenancy agreement signed by the parties is not clear whether the tenancy is periodic or for a fixed term. The agreement states:
It seems most likely to me there was a periodic tenancy. This is because a tenancy agreement for a fixed term must state the last day of the fixed term. A periodic tenancy runs week to week and can be terminated by either side giving the required notice. See section 13A(1)(p) RTA.
I accept the landlord was initially given advice by Tenancy Services about ending a fixed term tenancy. The first notice was effectively withdrawn after the tenant questioned the law.
The landlord then issued a second notice, on 12 September 2025, giving 42 days notice to end the tenancy. No reasons were given in the notice. On 1 October, prior to the hearing, the landlord submitted that the notice was given because the landlord has a family member returning from overseas who needs a place to live.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. He submitted that the 42 day notice did not set out the reasons. I note that giving reasons are a requirement of section 51(3)(ca) RTA which provides:
I find the 42 day notice given by the landlord did not specify that the premises would be needed for a family member and accordingly it is not a valid notice. This means the 42 day notice is of no effect, not because it was retaliatory but because the notice does not comply with section 51 RTA. This means the tenancy continues for now.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages. Exemplary damages cannot be ordered for a breach of section 51 RTA.
I note the landlords’ concern they were given the wrong advice by Tenancy Services does not affect my finding because I have only considered and applied the law to the second, 42 day, notice. Suppression
I have used my discretion and allowed suppression for both parties. It seems most likely to me that any public interest at this stage is in the law rather than the parties. See section 95A RTA.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
The notice terminating the tenancy is not a valid notice and is of no effect.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for an order declaring a notice to be of no effect, because the landlords were motivated to end the tenancy when they saw the tenant had cut down a tree and parked a caravan on the front lawn of the tenancy premises.
The tenant’s application was filed under section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Section 54 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.
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA? 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?

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

Section 51 sets out all the ways a tenancy can end by giving notice. The type of tenancy is relevant. The tenancy agreement signed by the parties is not clear whether the tenancy is periodic or for a fixed term. The agreement states:
It seems most likely to me there was a periodic tenancy. This is because a tenancy agreement for a fixed term must state the last day of the fixed term. A periodic tenancy runs week to week and can be terminated by either side giving the required notice. See section 13A(1)(p) RTA.
I accept the landlord was initially given advice by Tenancy Services about ending a fixed term tenancy. The first notice was effectively withdrawn after the tenant questioned the law.
The landlord then issued a second notice, on 12 September 2025, giving 42 days notice to end the tenancy. No reasons were given in the notice. On 1 October, prior to the hearing, the landlord submitted that the notice was given because the landlord has a family member returning from overseas who needs a place to live.
This is the tenant’s claim to prove. He submitted that the 42 day notice did not set out the reasons. I note that giving reasons are a requirement of section 51(3)(ca) RTA which provides:
I find the 42 day notice given by the landlord did not specify that the premises would be needed for a family member and accordingly it is not a valid notice. This means the 42 day notice is of no effect, not because it was retaliatory but because the notice does not comply with section 51 RTA. This means the tenancy continues for now.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages. Exemplary damages cannot be ordered for a breach of section 51 RTA.
I note the landlords’ concern they were given the wrong advice by Tenancy Services does not affect my finding because I have only considered and applied the law to the second, 42 day, notice. Suppression
I have used my discretion and allowed suppression for both parties. It seems most likely to me that any public interest at this stage is in the law rather than the parties. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344263 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344263 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the termination notice comply with s 51 RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions