What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5431297 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 5431297?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431297?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431297?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13864032-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5431297 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 5431297?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431297?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431297?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13864032-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

53 Gregg Street, Dannevirke, Dannevirke 4930, House Tenancy Tribunal Case 5431297 — Healthy homes

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s termination notice is retaliatory and is of no effect.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $0.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearing.
On 28 May 2026 the landlord gave the tenant a 90-day notice ending the tenancy on 2 September 2026. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
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. See section 54(1) RTA.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with section 51 RTA? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? 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 termination notice complies with the formal requirements of section 51(3) RTA: the notice was in writing, identifies the premises, specifies the end date and is signed by the landlord.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal by email on 4 June 2026 asking that this claim be added to her application. Her application was therefore made within 28 working days of the termination notice being served.
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 filed her application with the Tribunal on 23 January 2026. Hearings have been held on 21 April and 27 May 2026. The landlord issued the termination notice the day after the last hearing in this matter. At the date of the last hearing the tenant’s application had not been fully determined. The landlord had accepted that the bond had not been paid to the Bond Centre as required by section 19 RTA and had received a report that the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. The tenant’s application remained open.
The landlord’s explanation for issuing the notice was that he was “looking at other plans for the property” and was considering selling it or having a property manager look after the property. He advised that he may obtain a valuation and may sell the property. If he made that decision, he did not want to put the tenant to the inconvenience of having open homes and real estate agents visiting. He had only intended that the tenant rent the premises for a year and the termination date under his notice coincided with a year having passed.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is satisfied that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant’s exercising her rights under the RTA by bringing her application to the Tribunal. The tenant’s application remained open and the premises remained noncompliant with the Healthy Homes Regulations.
The landlord has not discharged the evidential onus in proving there was a legitimate reason for issuing the termination notice. The landlord’s evidence did not disclose any firm plans to sell the premises that may justify issuing the notice, indeed the landlord confirmed that he had not made up his mind yet. The fact that the landlord was considering appointing a property manager to manage the tenancy indicates that this tenancy could have continued.
As the landlord’s notice was retaliatory, the Tribunal declares that the notice was of no effect. Further, the landlord has committed an unlawful act in issuing a retaliatory termination notice.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) RTA.
The tenant gave evidence of the effect of receiving the termination notice. She lives in an area where there is a shortage of rental accommodation and she suffers from a debilitating medical condition. It is in the public interest that landlords be dissuaded from issuing retaliatory notices. It is therefore appropriate that the landlord pay the tenant $2,000.00 in exemplary damages which is slightly less than one third of the maximum available.
As discussed at the hearing, as soon as the landlord has received the Healthy Homes Compliance Certificate, he is to email a copy to the Tribunal and to the tenant. The Tribunal will then be able to complete its determination of the tenant’s claims.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s termination notice is retaliatory and is of no effect.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $0.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the telephone hearing.
On 28 May 2026 the landlord gave the tenant a 90-day notice ending the tenancy on 2 September 2026. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
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. See section 54(1) RTA.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with section 51 RTA? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? 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 termination notice complies with the formal requirements of section 51(3) RTA: the notice was in writing, identifies the premises, specifies the end date and is signed by the landlord.
The tenant applied to the Tribunal by email on 4 June 2026 asking that this claim be added to her application. Her application was therefore made within 28 working days of the termination notice being served.
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 filed her application with the Tribunal on 23 January 2026. Hearings have been held on 21 April and 27 May 2026. The landlord issued the termination notice the day after the last hearing in this matter. At the date of the last hearing the tenant’s application had not been fully determined. The landlord had accepted that the bond had not been paid to the Bond Centre as required by section 19 RTA and had received a report that the premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. The tenant’s application remained open.
The landlord’s explanation for issuing the notice was that he was “looking at other plans for the property” and was considering selling it or having a property manager look after the property. He advised that he may obtain a valuation and may sell the property. If he made that decision, he did not want to put the tenant to the inconvenience of having open homes and real estate agents visiting. He had only intended that the tenant rent the premises for a year and the termination date under his notice coincided with a year having passed.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is satisfied that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant’s exercising her rights under the RTA by bringing her application to the Tribunal. The tenant’s application remained open and the premises remained noncompliant with the Healthy Homes Regulations.
The landlord has not discharged the evidential onus in proving there was a legitimate reason for issuing the termination notice. The landlord’s evidence did not disclose any firm plans to sell the premises that may justify issuing the notice, indeed the landlord confirmed that he had not made up his mind yet. The fact that the landlord was considering appointing a property manager to manage the tenancy indicates that this tenancy could have continued.
As the landlord’s notice was retaliatory, the Tribunal declares that the notice was of no effect. Further, the landlord has committed an unlawful act in issuing a retaliatory termination notice.
Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) RTA.
The tenant gave evidence of the effect of receiving the termination notice. She lives in an area where there is a shortage of rental accommodation and she suffers from a debilitating medical condition. It is in the public interest that landlords be dissuaded from issuing retaliatory notices. It is therefore appropriate that the landlord pay the tenant $2,000.00 in exemplary damages which is slightly less than one third of the maximum available.
As discussed at the hearing, as soon as the landlord has received the Healthy Homes Compliance Certificate, he is to email a copy to the Tribunal and to the tenant. The Tribunal will then be able to complete its determination of the tenant’s claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431297 — Healthy homes at 53 Gregg Street, Dannevirke, Dannevirke 4930, House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431297 — Healthy homes at 53 Gregg Street, Dannevirke, Dannevirke 4930, House

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions