What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5453999 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 5453999?

Property Damage: $2,166.67 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $812.50 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5453999?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5453999?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13430468-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5453999 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 5453999?

Property Damage: $2,166.67 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $812.50 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5453999?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5453999?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13430468-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5453999 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5453999 — net $2,979.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Termination without grounds	$812.50	Termination without grounds
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice	$2,166.67	Retaliatory notice
Net award	$2,979.17
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,979.17

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5453999 — net $2,979.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Termination without grounds	$812.50	Termination without grounds
Exemplary damages: Retaliatory notice	$2,166.67	Retaliatory notice
Net award	$2,979.17
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$2,979.17

Order

AND DIRECTIONS SETTING DOWN THE REMAINDER OF THE

TENANTS SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS FOR HEARING

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details. A. ORDERS-CLAIMS
Shaina Ayseen must pay [The tenants] $2,979.17 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:

The hearing on 8 April 2026 was adjourned part heard as insufficient time was scheduled to hear all the tenants’ substantive claims.
The 8 April 2026 scheduled hearing was set down to: a. Hear the tenants’ retaliatory notice and termination notice without ground claims; and b. To conduct a case management conference for the remainer of the tenants’ substantive claims, as the tenants’ claims required clarification before being set down for hearing because there was insufficient clarity and evidence provided to enable the schedulers to assess the amount of time required to hear the remainder of the tenants’ claims.
The matter should be set down for a 7-hour (420 minute) face to face hearing before me at [Event location suppressed] on the next available hearing date.
If either party intends to produce any videos, photographs and/or other documents/evidence that they are going to rely on to support their claims or in defence to the other party’s claims at the next hearing, they must file and serve copies of those videos, photographs or documents by: a. Filing the evidence in the Tribunal by email to aucklandmetrotenancy@justice.govt.nz and serving the evidence on each other: i. By the tenants emailing the landlord at [redacted] no later than Friday 8 May 2026; and ii. The landlord emailing any evidence in response to the tenants at [redacted] and [redacted] no later than Friday 15 May 2026.
Photographs should be numbered and captioned for ease of reference during the next hearing.
All evidence filed by email in the Tribunal must have application number 5453999 inserted into the email subject line, so the registry knows where to file that evidence.
Any witnesses called must attend the hearing in person to be cross examined or may provide witness statements and make themselves available to the Tribunal by phone for cross examination. Contact details for these remote witnesses will need to be provided to the Tribunal by Friday 15 May 2026.
The parties should bring any important original documents and two copies (one for the Tribunal and one for the other party) to the hearing for ease of reference. If these documents have been filed with the Tribunal and served on each other, there is no requirement to do so if the party choses not too. You will however need to be able to assist the Tribunal to locate any such important documents in its case management system by informing the Adjudicator the label/title the documents(s) were given when you uploaded them into the case management system or when they were sent to the registry.
Any videos the parties wish to rely on must be brought to the hearing on a laptop or mobile phone, especially when videos are often too large to email to the Tribunal or each other.
The tenants must be able to clearly identify the date and how their issues/claims were raised with the landlord, what the landlord did in response to them raising the issues/claims (if anything) and the date the issues/claims were remedied (if they have been remedied) or that they have not been remedied.
The burden of proof is on the party making a claim(s). Once the party has proved its claim(s) on the balance of probability, it is then for the other party to disprove that claim.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 8 April 2026.
The tenant applied for work orders, compensation, general damages, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee. A. CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section109(2)(b) of the RTA , bars a party from applying for exemplary damages for a breach of the RTA 12 months or more after the date of commission of the unlawful act.

TENANTS TERMINATION BREACHES CLAIMS

Did the landlord attempt to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

The tenants claims that the landlord has breached her obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
To be considered to have issued a lawful termination notice, the landlord must have issued such a notice I accordance with the relevant provision(s) of the RTA.
The fixed term tenancy commenced in 2013 and there has been a series of renewed fixed terms since that initial tenancy. No new tenancy agreement has ever been entered into. The last renewal was due to end on 17 February 2026 and no renewal occurred. Consequentially, the tenancy became period as at 18 February 2026 and a wider range of termination provisions could be applied to the tenancy.
The tenants have provided evidence that proves Shaina Ayseen issued them with a number of termination of tenancy notices during their tenancy. All these termination notices rely on the termination by notice provisions set out in section 51 of the RTA.
The tenants evidence confirmed, on June 2022 the landlord issued several unlawful termination notices, after they raised issues with the fence needing repair, as follows: a. The text termination notice was issued by text message on 17 June 2022 at 6:20am. It gives the tenants 3 weeks ( 21 days) notice to move out and states “your children made that gap with a ball, so please I will give you 3 weeks’ notice to vacate the house then I can renovate the house the fence, My husband is here to inspect the house if you are not there we are going inside to inspect not a problem”; b. On 17 June 2022 at 4:40pm, the landlord sent the tenants a text message telling them about notice periods for boarding house tenancies and then tells the tenants “[Tenant 1], about house you read accurately I had discussed it with the Tenancy Tribunal I would like to renovate the house so you have to vacate the house, next week you will get the lawyers letter to vacate I’m not mucking you or bullying you the tenant pushing me to fix the house also you not letting me to inspect the house last I inspected the house on the 26/32021. Due to the Covid 19 you didn’t sign the renewal agreement I hope you will understand”. The tenants took this to mean they had to move out by the following week; and c. The email termination notice issued on 17 June 2022 at 6:30pm gave the tenants 28 days’ notice and gives the reason as being the house needs renovating and this could not be done while the tenants and their children were living in the house.
The landlord did not try to enforce the unlawful termination notices, and the tenancy continued.
The tenants sent the landlord an email listing a number on ongoing repair and maintenance issues on 23 February 2026 at 12:04am, after receiving some landlord concerns by email on 22 February 2026 , along with the 20 February 2026 routine property inspection report. At this stage, the tenants say there had been no mention of demolition or renovation of the premise since the 2022 unlawful notices. The landlord denies this and says the tenants knew of her intention to demolish the house and that she was waiting on consent to be issued.
The tenants wanted their repair and maintenance issues addressed with some urgency, as these had been outstanding for some time.
At 4:58pm on 23 February 2026, the landlord emailed the tenant 42 days’ notice, ending the tenancy on 5 April 2026. The reason given for this termination notice is the landlord intends to demolish the house within 42 days after the tenancy ends. She provided an email to the tenants to support the termination notice, she got from Auckland Council that says the building consent approval is expected by 2 March 2026. This email shows the landlord did not yet have consent.
Section 51(2) of the RTA confirms a landlord may only give 42 days’ notice terminating a tenancy for the following reasons: (a) The owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family; or (b) the owner is required, under an unconditional agreement for the sale of the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession; or (c) 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, and— (i) that fact is clearly stated in the tenancy agreement; and (ii) the premises are required for that use; or (d) the landlord customarily uses the premises, or has acquired the premises, for occupation by employees of a school board or by contractors under contracts for services with a school board, and— (i) that fact is clearly stated in the tenancy agreement; and (ii) the premises are required for that use; and (iii) the landlord is the Crown.
There is no s51(2) of the RTA provision that allowed the landlord to terminate the tenancy by the giving of 42 days’ notice for the purpose of demolishing the house.
Prior to 30 January 2025, a landlord was required to give a tenant no less than 90 days' notice terminating the tenancy for the purpose of demolition, extensive repairs, or redevelopment The landlord claims she was unaware of the January 2025 legislative changes to section 51 of the RTA and thought the 42 days termination notice was valid and lawful.
After seeking advice from Tenancy Services, the landlord emailed the tenants a 90-day termination notice on 26 February 2026, terminating the tenancy a second time, but not recording the final date of the tenancy.
Section 51(3) of the RTA states every notice terminating a tenancy shall: (a) be in writing; and (b)identify the premises to which it relates; and (c)specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises; and (ca)if the landlord gives less than 90 days’ notice, set out the reasons for the termination; and (d)be signed by the party giving the notice, or by that party’s agent.
Despite the landlord’s clear breach of s51(3)(c) I find this termination notice to be lawful and enforceable because the notice is clear the date by which the tenants are to vacate the premise is 90 days from 26 February 2026, and s51(4) of the RTA states: “In a notice to terminate a tenancy, no special form of words shall be required; and no such notice shall be held invalid for any failure to comply strictly with the requirements of subsection (3) so long as the notice is in writing, the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period is stated clearly in the notice, and that any non-compliance is not such as to mislead or affect unjustly the interests of the recipient”.
Additionally, there is now a new end of tenancy date, created by the tenants issuing the landlord with written notice by email on 5 April 2026, giving 3 weeks (21 days’ notice) ending the tenancy on 26 April 2026.
I find the landlord committed an unlawful act when she terminated the tenancy on 23 February 2026, by emailing the tenants 42 days’ notice, ending the tenancy on 5 April 2026 when there was no statutory or contractual right for her to do so.
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says she was unaware the law had changed and she could not give 42 days’ notice ending the tenancy because the premise was to be demolished to make way for the construction of a new three story three unit dwelling within 12 months of the landlord’s receipt of local Council consent, which she received on 31 March 2026.
The RTA never provided for a landlord to give 42 days’ notice to end a tenancy for this reason. Additionally, there has been a lot of publicity about a landlord’s ability to terminate a period tenancy with the giving of 90 days’ notice, without cause. Further, in New Zealand ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaching it. A landlord is expected to familiarise themselves with their rights and obligations if they are going to rent out a premise in exchange for rent. Tenancy Services provides advice/guidance and numerous resources to assist landlords to understand their rights and obligations, including the operation of a call centre helpline. The landlord’s evidence proved she knew about this resource and had used it for different aspects of the management of this tenancy. Additionally, the New Zealand Government provide a service that allows current updated legislation to be available to the public online. The tenants had also challenged her prior 2022 unlawful notices.
I find the landlord intentionally chose not to use any of these resources to check notice requirements, when she knew where to seek such advice, before intentionally evicting the tenants using a shorter notice period than is provided for by law.
I am satisfied it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum in exemplary damages of $812.50 (one eighth of the maximum penalty available) because: a. The tenants were given a notice without lawful grounds which caused them considerable stress and inconvenience, but this notice was followed up with a lawful termination notice three days later for the proven reason of demolition for a new housing development; b. it is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the unlawful notice; and c. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to give tenants lawful notice.

Did the landlord issue the tenants with a retaliatory termination notice?

The tenants claim the notice terminating their tenancy on 23 February 2026 was 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.
As already set out above, the fixed term tenancy commenced in 2013. After a series of renewed fixed terms, and the last renewal ending on 17 February 2026, the tenancy became period.
The tenants evidence confirmed, on 17 June 2022 the landlord issued several retaliatory termination notices, after the tenants tried to exercise their s45(1) of the RTA rights to have some issues with the fence addressed, the first clearly confirming the notice was in response to the fencing issue when the landlord stated “your children made that gap with a ball, so please I will give you 3 weeks’ notice to vacate the house then I can renovate the house the fence , My husband is here to inspect the house if you are not there we are going inside to inspect not a problem”;
The landlord confirmed she found the tenants numerous and continuous complaints about breaches of her RTA rights and the landlord’s obligations challenging. Additionally, the timing between the 20 February 2026 routine property inspection, the landlord raising post inspection issues and concerns with the tenants on 22 February 2026, the tenants raising urgent ongoing repair and maintenance issues at 12:04am on 23 February 2026 and then receiving 42 days termination notice at 4:58pm the same day does provide a causal link that indicates the motivation for the termination notice being issued that day was partially motivated by the tenants exercising their rights to have the premise maintained in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord had 12 months from 31 March 2026 to commence the demolition of the premise and commence the development of the land. The evidence suggests, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord did not want to repair or maintain a premise she was going to demolish in the next 12 months and that she made the decision to issue the unlawful 23 February 2026 termination notice, in part in retaliation for the tenants trying to exercise their rights under the RTA so she did not have to pay to have any further repair or maintenance work done to the premise.
However, the landlord was also partially motivated by the fact she had committed to demolishing the premise and rebuilding the new consented structure within a 12-month period and at the date she issued the notice she had been given an indication by the local Council that the written consent was imminent.
I am satisfied the evidence proves on the balance of probabilities that a casual link exists between the tenant’s formal email complaints on 23 February 2026, seeking to uphold their rights as tenants, with the landlord issuing them with a retaliatory notice later the same day, over a month prior to having received the local Council consent.
I find that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated partly by the exercise by the tenants of a right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenants by the tenancy agreement or by the RTA or any other Act or any complaint by the tenants against the landlord relating to the tenancy and that this was an intentional and unlawful act (Refer to s52(4)(a) of the RTA).
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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I find it would be just to require the landlord to pay a sum of $2,166.67 (a third of the maximum penalty available) exemplary damages: a. The landlord was motivated partly by the tenants exercising a s45(1)(b) of the RTA right under the RTA, and that they may make an application to the Tribunal against the landlord for breaches of the RTA; b. The landlord having demonstrated a pattern of giving unlawful and retaliatory notice during the tenancy when the tenants tried to exercise their statutory and/or contractual rights; c. The tenants are entitled to the security afforded to them by the law to protect them from having their tenancy unlawfully terminated because they try to exercise their rights under the RTA; d. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlords’ breach; and e. it is in the public interest for landlords’ to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations to the tenant to terminate her tenancy lawfully to protect tenant’s interests.
The quantum of exemplary damages takes into consideration the award of exemplary damages made under the termination without grounds head of claim above.

OTHER ORDERS

Name suppression

The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have wholly succeeded in this part of their proceedings, and I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants’ conduct.
The tenants’ application for non-publication is ordered. B. CASE MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS Tenants Remaining Claims
The tenants seek orders for compensation, general damages and exemplary damages for: a. Failure to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair, specifically (refer to s45(1)(b) of the RTA): i. Dishwasher broken after rat gnawed through the pipe; ii. Mould in bathroom, two bedrooms and lounge (ceilings and walls); iii. Water damage to the lounge wall; iv. Windows; v. Hole in lounge ceiling; vi. Jammed shut doors and windows; vii. Security alarm-upstairs part of the system; viii. Pest control- rats; ix. Fireplace; x. Shower box wall hole; and xi. Water pipe in bathroom. b. Breach of healthy homes standards, specifically (Refer to s45(1)(bb) of the RTA: i. Ventilation; ii. Heating; iii. Insulation; iv. Draught stopping; and v. Moisture ingress and drainage. c. Unlawful entry by the landlord (Refer s48 of the RTA); i. Notice for inspections; ii. Accessing lemon tree. d. Breach of quiet enjoyment and privacy, specifically (Refer s38 of the RTA): i. Notice for inspections; ii. Accessing lemon tree. e. Application fee to be refunded if tenants claims are wholly or substantially successful; f. Reimbursement of filing fee if tenants’ claims are wholly or substantially successful.
The landlord opposes all the tenants’ claims. She says she has taken steps to address the tenants’ claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5453999 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5453999 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

AND DIRECTIONS SETTING DOWN THE REMAINDER OF THE

TENANTS SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS FOR HEARING

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS TERMINATION BREACHES CLAIMS

Did the landlord attempt to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Did the landlord issue the tenants with a retaliatory termination notice?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

AND DIRECTIONS SETTING DOWN THE REMAINDER OF THE

TENANTS SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS FOR HEARING

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS TERMINATION BREACHES CLAIMS

Did the landlord attempt to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Did the landlord issue the tenants with a retaliatory termination notice?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions