What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426427 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5426427?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426427?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426427?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13408078-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5426427 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5426427?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426427?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426427?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13408078-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Victoria Terrace, Ohau, Ohau 5570 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5426427 — Exemplary damages

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s application was for compensation and exemplary damages under section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) for the landlord issuing a retaliatory notice.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint 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 section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the tenant’s claim, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that his claim is more likely than not. The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) RTA. Background
The tenant provided the following evidence: a. The tenant was employed by the landlord and arranged to rent one of the landlord’s properties from 16 June 2025. b. This was not a service tenancy as defined in section 2 RTA. c. The engine of a lawnmower provided with the premises seized and on 7 January 2026 the tenant emailed the landlord: “I am no expert however I believe that the motor on my lawnmower just seized? Have you got another one available?” d. The landlord responded by email on 12 January 2026: “As per the lease agreement, Gardens and Lawns are the responsibility of the tenant to maintain. The lawnmower that was there was an extra one that we did not need, that I told you could be used if you wanted to. We will not be providing another one.” e. On 15 January 2026 at 9.55 am the landlord issued a 90-day termination notice under section 51(1) RTA ending the tenancy on 16 April 2026. f. On 15 January 2026 at 11.08 am the tenant sent an email to his employer giving formal notice of a personal grievance claim. g. The tenant gave the landlord 21-days’ notice and the tenancy ended on 31 March 2026. h. The tenant claimed that the landlord’s termination notice was given in response to the tenant requesting another lawnmower.
The landlord gave the following evidence to the Tribunal: a. The landlord is a property development company that is involved in commercial and residential developments. As part of its usual business operations, it acquires a small number of residential properties for further development which it rents out from time to time, sometimes to employees. He estimated that the number fluctuates between five and eight tenanted properties. This property was one of those. b. He provided copies of: i. A Resource Consent granted on 5 July 2024. ii. An LT plan for the proposed subdivision. iii. An accepted quotation for work to complete the entranceway and remove a second entranceway dated 21 January 2026. iv. An accepted quotation for supplying an electricity connection to the boundary of the property dated 7 April 2024. c. The contractor started work on the entranceway on 1 April 2026, the day after the tenancy ended. d. The tenancy was ended because the landlord required access to the premises to complete the work required to prepare them for subdivision and sale. e. The lawnmower was not a chattel listed in the tenancy agreement and was left for the tenant because it was surplus to the landlord’s business requirements. As he had heard nothing further from the tenant, he believed that his email of 12 January 2026 accurately set out the legal position, that the tenant accepted this and that the issue was resolved.
In response, the tenant explained that he believed he was entitled to have been told by the landlord that the premises were to be developed. The tenant maintained that the termination notice was issued by the landlord in response to the tenant raising the issue of the lawnmower.
The landlord explained that all the properties rented out by it had been acquired for development and sale, and that the timing of their development and sale was decided by the company’s management and not by the manager employed by the company to manage its residential tenancies. Discussion and decision
As the tenant has vacated the premises and was not seeking an order that the notice was of no effect under section 54(3) RTA, there are two issues for the Tribunal to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with section 51 RTA? b. 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?
The termination notice complies with the requirements of section 51 RTA.
The Tribunal is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord was motivated wholly or partly in issuing its termination notice on the tenant’s raising the issue of the lawnmower for the following reasons: a. The lawnmower was not included as a chattel in the tenancy agreement. The obligation to mow the lawns under the tenancy agreement was the tenant’s. There is therefore no right under the RTA or the tenancy agreement to be exercised by the tenant in relation to a chattel which was not part of the tenancy. b. There was no right or outstanding issue between the parties when the landlord issued its notice. The landlord believed that it had correctly stated the legal situation in relation to the lawnmower and the landlord had no knowledge that the issue remained alive. Indeed, the tenant accepted that he understood the issue regarding the lawnmower had been resolved upon the exchange of emails between the parties. c. A short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord serving a notice 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 landlord’s evidence of why it issued its termination notice persuades the Tribunal that it was for its stated purpose of completing its contemplated subdivision and so fulfilling the business purpose for which the property was acquired. The fact that quotations were accepted and work started on the entranceway immediately the tenant had vacated, supports the landlord’s explanation for its motivation in issuing the notice. d. The tenant’s email regarding his personal grievance claim was sent on the same day but after the landlord’s termination notice. As it did not assert any of the tenant’s rights under the RTA or the tenancy agreement, it is not relevant to a consideration under section 54 RTA of whether the landlord’s notice was retaliatory. e. A landlord has no obligation to advise a tenant that a property is to be developed or subdivided. Section 47 RTA provides that: i. If the landlord puts the premises on the market for the purposes of sale or other disposition, the landlord must, as soon as practicable, give written notice of that fact to the tenant; and ii. When a landlord is offering residential premises as available for letting, the landlord shall inform prospective tenants if the premises are on the market for the purposes of sale or other disposition. f. The landlord’s evidence was not that the property was on or was being put on the market, but that the premises were being developed so that it could be subdivided and then put on the market. From its acquisition, the landlord always intended to sell the property, but there is no legal obligation on the landlord to inform the tenant of its intention, only an obligation to tell the tenant when it is put on the market.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s application was for compensation and exemplary damages under section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) for the landlord issuing a retaliatory notice.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint 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 section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the tenant’s claim, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the tenant must establish with evidence that his claim is more likely than not. The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) RTA. Background
The tenant provided the following evidence: a. The tenant was employed by the landlord and arranged to rent one of the landlord’s properties from 16 June 2025. b. This was not a service tenancy as defined in section 2 RTA. c. The engine of a lawnmower provided with the premises seized and on 7 January 2026 the tenant emailed the landlord: “I am no expert however I believe that the motor on my lawnmower just seized? Have you got another one available?” d. The landlord responded by email on 12 January 2026: “As per the lease agreement, Gardens and Lawns are the responsibility of the tenant to maintain. The lawnmower that was there was an extra one that we did not need, that I told you could be used if you wanted to. We will not be providing another one.” e. On 15 January 2026 at 9.55 am the landlord issued a 90-day termination notice under section 51(1) RTA ending the tenancy on 16 April 2026. f. On 15 January 2026 at 11.08 am the tenant sent an email to his employer giving formal notice of a personal grievance claim. g. The tenant gave the landlord 21-days’ notice and the tenancy ended on 31 March 2026. h. The tenant claimed that the landlord’s termination notice was given in response to the tenant requesting another lawnmower.
The landlord gave the following evidence to the Tribunal: a. The landlord is a property development company that is involved in commercial and residential developments. As part of its usual business operations, it acquires a small number of residential properties for further development which it rents out from time to time, sometimes to employees. He estimated that the number fluctuates between five and eight tenanted properties. This property was one of those. b. He provided copies of: i. A Resource Consent granted on 5 July 2024. ii. An LT plan for the proposed subdivision. iii. An accepted quotation for work to complete the entranceway and remove a second entranceway dated 21 January 2026. iv. An accepted quotation for supplying an electricity connection to the boundary of the property dated 7 April 2024. c. The contractor started work on the entranceway on 1 April 2026, the day after the tenancy ended. d. The tenancy was ended because the landlord required access to the premises to complete the work required to prepare them for subdivision and sale. e. The lawnmower was not a chattel listed in the tenancy agreement and was left for the tenant because it was surplus to the landlord’s business requirements. As he had heard nothing further from the tenant, he believed that his email of 12 January 2026 accurately set out the legal position, that the tenant accepted this and that the issue was resolved.
In response, the tenant explained that he believed he was entitled to have been told by the landlord that the premises were to be developed. The tenant maintained that the termination notice was issued by the landlord in response to the tenant raising the issue of the lawnmower.
The landlord explained that all the properties rented out by it had been acquired for development and sale, and that the timing of their development and sale was decided by the company’s management and not by the manager employed by the company to manage its residential tenancies. Discussion and decision
As the tenant has vacated the premises and was not seeking an order that the notice was of no effect under section 54(3) RTA, there are two issues for the Tribunal to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with section 51 RTA? b. 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?
The termination notice complies with the requirements of section 51 RTA.
The Tribunal is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the landlord was motivated wholly or partly in issuing its termination notice on the tenant’s raising the issue of the lawnmower for the following reasons: a. The lawnmower was not included as a chattel in the tenancy agreement. The obligation to mow the lawns under the tenancy agreement was the tenant’s. There is therefore no right under the RTA or the tenancy agreement to be exercised by the tenant in relation to a chattel which was not part of the tenancy. b. There was no right or outstanding issue between the parties when the landlord issued its notice. The landlord believed that it had correctly stated the legal situation in relation to the lawnmower and the landlord had no knowledge that the issue remained alive. Indeed, the tenant accepted that he understood the issue regarding the lawnmower had been resolved upon the exchange of emails between the parties. c. A short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord serving a notice 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 landlord’s evidence of why it issued its termination notice persuades the Tribunal that it was for its stated purpose of completing its contemplated subdivision and so fulfilling the business purpose for which the property was acquired. The fact that quotations were accepted and work started on the entranceway immediately the tenant had vacated, supports the landlord’s explanation for its motivation in issuing the notice. d. The tenant’s email regarding his personal grievance claim was sent on the same day but after the landlord’s termination notice. As it did not assert any of the tenant’s rights under the RTA or the tenancy agreement, it is not relevant to a consideration under section 54 RTA of whether the landlord’s notice was retaliatory. e. A landlord has no obligation to advise a tenant that a property is to be developed or subdivided. Section 47 RTA provides that: i. If the landlord puts the premises on the market for the purposes of sale or other disposition, the landlord must, as soon as practicable, give written notice of that fact to the tenant; and ii. When a landlord is offering residential premises as available for letting, the landlord shall inform prospective tenants if the premises are on the market for the purposes of sale or other disposition. f. The landlord’s evidence was not that the property was on or was being put on the market, but that the premises were being developed so that it could be subdivided and then put on the market. From its acquisition, the landlord always intended to sell the property, but there is no legal obligation on the landlord to inform the tenant of its intention, only an obligation to tell the tenant when it is put on the market.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426427 — Exemplary damages at 5 Victoria Terrace, Ohau, Ohau 5570

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426427 — Exemplary damages at 5 Victoria Terrace, Ohau, Ohau 5570

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions