What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5442008 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 5442008?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5442008?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5442008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13228017-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5442008 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 5442008?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5442008?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5442008?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13228017-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5442008 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm 27 March 2026.
The hearing of the tenant’s claims are adjourned as set out in my adjournment order 3 March 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The relevant background of this matter is as follows: a. the tenancy commenced on 13 February 2025, with a fixed term expiring on 30 November 2025. b. Throughout the course of the tenancy there were a number of complaints about maintenance issues, which the tenancy required the landlord’s attention. There were a number of visits, meetings, and trades attending relating to these. These are the subject of applications which are still to be heard so I do no more than note that these issues had been raised and responded to, I make no comment on the validity of the concerns or the sufficiency of the response. c. On 27 August 2025, The tenant emailed the landlord with eight points relating to maintenance work responding to previous messages from the landlord. The following day landlord email back with responses. This exchange contained the following: Tenant: My patience has been exhausted... Your failure to comply with your obligations as a landlord is absolutely unacceptable. As tenants, it is our right have these issues resolved by you in a timely manner. You have categorically found in this regard. While none of these issues are such an urgent nature that they demand an immediate response, you cannot continue to delay. Landlord: we know how you feel, we are exhausted trying to help you. ... Tenant: Dealing with you has become frustrating and exhausting, because you repeatedly failed to do what you say you will do. Landlord: We know how you feel, we are exhausted trying to help you. d. On 9 October 2025, the property manager gave notice that landlord would not be extending the fixed term lease and the tenancy would end on 24 November 2025. e. On 10 October 2025, the tenant challenged the validity of the termination notice on the basis that it was retaliatory notice. Correspondence relating to this followed. On the same day the tenant also issued a 14 day notice relating to a number of the maintenance issues. f. I note that the initial notice was in part time to allow for tradesmen to attend the property to deal with some of the issues raised by the tenant. When the termination did not go ahead rent reduction was allowed for a period during which tradesmen are working on the property. g. On 7 November 2025, the landlord advised that the date on the notice of 9 October 2025 was incorrect, and it should have been 30 November 2025 as stated on the lease. The early notice was revoked, and the date purportedly changed citing S 51 RTA. h. On 8 November 2025, the tenant responded advising that he did not consent to the revocation of the notice. i. On 10 November 2025, the landlord’s responded as follows: Okay no problem. In that case we are not renewing your tenancy and it now becomes periodic. I am giving you 90 days notice to terminate the tenancy. That means your tenancy will end on 7 February 2026. Issues
To resolve this application, I must consider: a. was the earlier notice legitimately revoked? b. Was the second notice valid? c. Was either the earlier or second notice retaliatory? The earlier notice
The tenant has argued that the earlier notice was not legitimately revoked, and therefore must be evaluated for validity rather than the later notice. This is based on S51(6) RTA: (6) A party who has given an effective notice to terminate a tenancy— (a) may, at any time before the expiry of the period of notice, revoke the notice with the consent of the other party; but (b) may give a further notice to terminate the tenancy only if the prior notice is revoked.
The argument is that S51(6)(a) and (b) RTA mean that the earlier notice could only be revoked with the consent of the tenant. However, this argument ignores the requirement that “effective notice” is required. The earlier notice cited the incorrect date. Moreover, the earlier notice was not a notice of termination. Rather, it was a notice under S60A(2)(c) notifying of the intention not continue with the tenancy. S51(6) sits within the context of the “termination by notice” provisions of S51. I do not read S51(6) as having relevance to notices made under S60A.
I conclude that it was open to the landlord to revoke the earlier notice, and no consent was necessary. The second notice
The second notice as a notice under S 51 (2) RTA: 51 Termination by notice (1) A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days’ notice.
In this instance notice was given in on 10 November 2025 with a final date of 7 February 2026, this is 92 day’s notice.
While when the notice was given on 10 November 2025, the tenancy was not periodic, the section does not specify that the tenancy must be periodic when notice is given.
I conclude that the second notice was valid.

Retaliatory notice?

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The tenant says in this instance that the landlord was motivated by the number of complaints that the tenant had made about the addition of the property. The tenant cites the exchange of emails referred to at paragraph [2] c. above which occurred on 27 and 28 August.
The landlord says that the earlier notice was given with the motivation of conducting the remedial works after the tenancy had ended. This was because there is a history of the tenant finding disturbances caused by tradespeople unsatisfactory. That the lease continued past the end of the fixed term meant that this work was done while the tenant was still living at the premises.
I note: a. The relationship between the parties had become fractious, the correspondence shows that there were differing views on both sides. These frustrations came from the behaviours of both parties judging by the correspondence. b. The August email exchange occurred approximately six weeks before the earlier notice was given, and over 10 weeks before the second notice was given. During this period there were discussions about the remedial works, and the landlord met the tenant on-site to discuss a healthy homes issues. c. The landlord says that the meeting and much of the correspondence occurred before he was aware of the tenant’s application to the Tribunal. d. I cannot read any of the correspondence as giving a reason for the 90 day notice. S 51(1) RTA does not require any reasons for a 90 day notice.
The tenant has asked me to infer motivation from the circumstances. This request is problematic, inferences are only legitimate when there is material to support that the inferred fact has arisen on the balance of probabilities. Where other explanations are equally likely on the evidence and inference cannot meet that standard. In this case the main fact from which the landlord’s intention is said to be inferred as the poor relationship between the parties. The Tribunal must act cautiously in such situations as otherwise tenancies could never be terminated when a fractious relationship has arisen. In this instance is important that I consider not just the motivation of the second notice but also the earlier notice. I am satisfied that the earlier notice was given the motivation of the tenancy being empty when the re repairs were done. I am not satisfied that the evidence supports a finding that the landlord was motivated by the complaints the tenant had made, or the exercise of rights under the RTA.
I find that the termination was valid. During the hearing we discussed what a reasonable date would be for the tenancy to end. The landlord suggested three weeks, the tenant 28 days. I conclude that it is reasonable that see end on 27 March 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The relevant background of this matter is as follows: a. the tenancy commenced on 13 February 2025, with a fixed term expiring on 30 November 2025. b. Throughout the course of the tenancy there were a number of complaints about maintenance issues, which the tenancy required the landlord’s attention. There were a number of visits, meetings, and trades attending relating to these. These are the subject of applications which are still to be heard so I do no more than note that these issues had been raised and responded to, I make no comment on the validity of the concerns or the sufficiency of the response. c. On 27 August 2025, The tenant emailed the landlord with eight points relating to maintenance work responding to previous messages from the landlord. The following day landlord email back with responses. This exchange contained the following: Tenant: My patience has been exhausted... Your failure to comply with your obligations as a landlord is absolutely unacceptable. As tenants, it is our right have these issues resolved by you in a timely manner. You have categorically found in this regard. While none of these issues are such an urgent nature that they demand an immediate response, you cannot continue to delay. Landlord: we know how you feel, we are exhausted trying to help you. ... Tenant: Dealing with you has become frustrating and exhausting, because you repeatedly failed to do what you say you will do. Landlord: We know how you feel, we are exhausted trying to help you. d. On 9 October 2025, the property manager gave notice that landlord would not be extending the fixed term lease and the tenancy would end on 24 November 2025. e. On 10 October 2025, the tenant challenged the validity of the termination notice on the basis that it was retaliatory notice. Correspondence relating to this followed. On the same day the tenant also issued a 14 day notice relating to a number of the maintenance issues. f. I note that the initial notice was in part time to allow for tradesmen to attend the property to deal with some of the issues raised by the tenant. When the termination did not go ahead rent reduction was allowed for a period during which tradesmen are working on the property. g. On 7 November 2025, the landlord advised that the date on the notice of 9 October 2025 was incorrect, and it should have been 30 November 2025 as stated on the lease. The early notice was revoked, and the date purportedly changed citing S 51 RTA. h. On 8 November 2025, the tenant responded advising that he did not consent to the revocation of the notice. i. On 10 November 2025, the landlord’s responded as follows: Okay no problem. In that case we are not renewing your tenancy and it now becomes periodic. I am giving you 90 days notice to terminate the tenancy. That means your tenancy will end on 7 February 2026. Issues

To resolve this application, I must consider: a. was the earlier notice legitimately revoked? b. Was the second notice valid? c. Was either the earlier or second notice retaliatory? The earlier notice

The tenant has argued that the earlier notice was not legitimately revoked, and therefore must be evaluated for validity rather than the later notice. This is based on S51(6) RTA: (6) A party who has given an effective notice to terminate a tenancy— (a) may, at any time before the expiry of the period of notice, revoke the notice with the consent of the other party; but (b) may give a further notice to terminate the tenancy only if the prior notice is revoked.

The argument is that S51(6)(a) and (b) RTA mean that the earlier notice could only be revoked with the consent of the tenant. However, this argument ignores the requirement that “effective notice” is required. The earlier notice cited the incorrect date. Moreover, the earlier notice was not a notice of termination. Rather, it was a notice under S60A(2)(c) notifying of the intention not continue with the tenancy. S51(6) sits within the context of the “termination by notice” provisions of S51. I do not read S51(6) as having relevance to notices made under S60A.

I conclude that it was open to the landlord to revoke the earlier notice, and no consent was necessary. The second notice

The second notice as a notice under S 51 (2) RTA: 51 Termination by notice (1) A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days’ notice.

In this instance notice was given in on 10 November 2025 with a final date of 7 February 2026, this is 92 day’s notice.

While when the notice was given on 10 November 2025, the tenancy was not periodic, the section does not specify that the tenancy must be periodic when notice is given.

I conclude that the second notice was valid.

Retaliatory notice?

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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.

The tenant says in this instance that the landlord was motivated by the number of complaints that the tenant had made about the addition of the property. The tenant cites the exchange of emails referred to at paragraph [2] c. above which occurred on 27 and 28 August.

The landlord says that the earlier notice was given with the motivation of conducting the remedial works after the tenancy had ended. This was because there is a history of the tenant finding disturbances caused by tradespeople unsatisfactory. That the lease continued past the end of the fixed term meant that this work was done while the tenant was still living at the premises.

I note: a. The relationship between the parties had become fractious, the correspondence shows that there were differing views on both sides. These frustrations came from the behaviours of both parties judging by the correspondence. b. The August email exchange occurred approximately six weeks before the earlier notice was given, and over 10 weeks before the second notice was given. During this period there were discussions about the remedial works, and the landlord met the tenant on-site to discuss a healthy homes issues. c. The landlord says that the meeting and much of the correspondence occurred before he was aware of the tenant’s application to the Tribunal. d. I cannot read any of the correspondence as giving a reason for the 90 day notice. S 51(1) RTA does not require any reasons for a 90 day notice.

The tenant has asked me to infer motivation from the circumstances. This request is problematic, inferences are only legitimate when there is material to support that the inferred fact has arisen on the balance of probabilities. Where other explanations are equally likely on the evidence and inference cannot meet that standard. In this case the main fact from which the landlord’s intention is said to be inferred as the poor relationship between the parties. The Tribunal must act cautiously in such situations as otherwise tenancies could never be terminated when a fractious relationship has arisen. In this instance is important that I consider not just the motivation of the second notice but also the earlier notice. I am satisfied that the earlier notice was given the motivation of the tenancy being empty when the re repairs were done. I am not satisfied that the evidence supports a finding that the landlord was motivated by the complaints the tenant had made, or the exercise of rights under the RTA.

I find that the termination was valid. During the hearing we discussed what a reasonable date would be for the tenancy to end. The landlord suggested three weeks, the tenant 28 days. I conclude that it is reasonable that see end on 27 March 2026.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5442008 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5442008 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Retaliatory notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Retaliatory notice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions