What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5509089 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5509089?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5509089?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5509089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13760264-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5509089 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5509089?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5509089?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5509089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13760264-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 1, 1 Haversham Street, Highbury, Palmerston North Tenancy Tribunal Case 5509089 — Exemplary damages

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s application was for exemplary damages and an order declaring the landlord’s termination notice retaliatory and of no effect under section 54 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the tenant’s application, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each the tenant must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not.
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.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
It is intended that this order be as concise as possible to convey the essential facts, the law and the Tribunal’s reason for its decisions. Background
The parties agree on the following background information: a. On 3 May 2026 the tenant was assaulted by another tenant at the boarding house. The other tenant was removed by the police and a complaint made to the police by the tenant. b. On 8 May 2026 the landlord issued a termination notice under section 66U(1)(d) RTA (“notice 1”). c. On 16 May 2026 the tenant and another tenant were involved in a further assault of the tenant. d. On 18 May 2025 the tenant made his application to the Tribunal to declare notice 1 retaliatory and invalid. e. On 28 May 2026 the landlord withdrew notice 1 on the request of the tenant. f. On 8 June 2026 the landlord issued a further termination notice under section 66U(1)(d) RTA (“notice 2”). The tenant’s submissions
The tenant made the following submissions: a. After living at the boarding house for eight years, he was upset and concerned that the landlord would terminate his tenancy just after he had been the victim of an assault. b. He was happy living at the boarding house and wanted to go on living there. Given his long history at the boarding house, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have negotiated an end to his tenancy if the landlord believed he could not continue to live there. c. If notice 1 was not retaliatory, notice 2 was because at that time he had made his application to the Tribunal to have notice 1 declared retaliatory and of no effect. The landlord’s submissions
The landlord made the following submissions: a. With advancing years, the tenant’s behaviour at the boarding house had been causing concern with the landlord and other tenants. In support, the landlord filed statements from other tenants detailing their specific concerns. b. The landlord had been working with the tenant for some time prior to the incident on 3 May 2026 to try and resolve the landlord’s and the other tenant’s concerns. c. As a result of the incident on 3 May 2026 the landlord had issued termination notices to the tenant and the other person involved. d. The landlord believes that the boarding house no longer meets the tenant’s ongoing needs due to his advanced age. The landlord has been trying to find accommodation that better suits the tenant’s needs which will only increase in the future. The landlord is concerned that the tenant is “ageing out of the facility” as he becomes less able to live independently and due to hygiene and safety concerns. e. After issuing notice 1, the tenant asked and confirmed in writing that notice 1 be withdrawn. The landlord believed that the tenant was co-operating with the landlord in finding alternative accommodation better suited to the tenant’s changing needs and that it would not be necessary for it to rely on the termination notice in ending the tenancy. It therefore withdrew notice 1 in writing on 28 May 2026. f. When it became clear that the tenant did not intend to work with the landlord in finding new accommodation, the landlord issued notice 2 because continuing with the tenancy was not in the tenant’s interests or those of the landlord’s other tenants in the boarding house given the concerns they had raised and which the landlord had been trying to work through. g. The landlord has been in discussion with other accommodation providers who may be able to offer the tenant living arrangements more in keeping with his needs. Discussion and decision
The Tribunal must determine four issues: a. Do the termination notices comply with the requirements of section 51(3)

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?

Firstly, the landlord’s notices comply with the requirements of section 51(3) RTA. The notices: a. Were in writing. b. Identify the premises. c. Specify the date on which to vacate. d. Refer to section 66U RTA and that no reason need be given for the termination under that section. e. Were signed.
Secondly, the tenant’s application was made within 28 business days of notice 1.
On the evidence before it, the tenant has not persuaded the Tribunal that in relation to notice 1, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or the RTA, or by any complaint against the landlord. The tenant has not provided any evidence that on 4 May 2026 the tenant was pursuing any claim against the landlord. The tenant had been the victim of an assault at the premises but that does not amount to the tenant exercising any right under the tenancy agreement or the RTA against the landlord.
It was reasonable of the landlord to withdraw notice 1 in the belief that it was in the process of negotiating an orderly exit from the tenancy to premises more suitable for the tenant. The Tribunal accepts that the landlord’s decision to issue notice 2 was made to reinstate its position under notice 1 when the tenant ceased to co-operate in ending the tenancy. The Tribunal is persuaded that the issuing of notice 2 was not done in retaliation for the tenant filing his application, but because it wished to renew the termination it had voluntarily withdrawn at the tenant’s request because the landlord remained concerned that the premises no longer met the tenant’s accommodation needs. In other words, the landlord’s reason for issuing notice 2 was the same reason for issuing notice 1.
Having come to this conclusion, the tenant’s application must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has sympathy for the tenant and the situation he finds himself in having been the victim of assault. However, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the tenant is being punished for being assaulted. Instead, his tenancy is being ended so that he can move to accommodation that is more suitable for his needs now and in the future.
This decision means that notice 2 is effective and the tenancy is due to end on 6 July 2026. The tenant is to be encouraged to co-operate with the landlord and its volunteers so that this process can be as painless as possible and produce the positive outcome of the tenant finding accommodation more suited to his needs. If the tenant has not vacated the premises by that date, the landlord may need to apply for a possession order under section 64 RTA within 90 days of 6 July 2026. Name suppression
Having considered the personal issues facing the tenant and which have contributed to his present predicament, it is appropriate to exercise the discretion in section 95A(4) RTA and order suppression of his name and identifying details.
As the tenant’s application has been unsuccessful, it is also appropriate to suppress the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant’s application was for exemplary damages and an order declaring the landlord’s termination notice retaliatory and of no effect under section 54 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the tenant’s application, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each the tenant must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not.
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.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
It is intended that this order be as concise as possible to convey the essential facts, the law and the Tribunal’s reason for its decisions. Background
The parties agree on the following background information: a. On 3 May 2026 the tenant was assaulted by another tenant at the boarding house. The other tenant was removed by the police and a complaint made to the police by the tenant. b. On 8 May 2026 the landlord issued a termination notice under section 66U(1)(d) RTA (“notice 1”). c. On 16 May 2026 the tenant and another tenant were involved in a further assault of the tenant. d. On 18 May 2025 the tenant made his application to the Tribunal to declare notice 1 retaliatory and invalid. e. On 28 May 2026 the landlord withdrew notice 1 on the request of the tenant. f. On 8 June 2026 the landlord issued a further termination notice under section 66U(1)(d) RTA (“notice 2”). The tenant’s submissions
The tenant made the following submissions: a. After living at the boarding house for eight years, he was upset and concerned that the landlord would terminate his tenancy just after he had been the victim of an assault. b. He was happy living at the boarding house and wanted to go on living there. Given his long history at the boarding house, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have negotiated an end to his tenancy if the landlord believed he could not continue to live there. c. If notice 1 was not retaliatory, notice 2 was because at that time he had made his application to the Tribunal to have notice 1 declared retaliatory and of no effect. The landlord’s submissions
The landlord made the following submissions: a. With advancing years, the tenant’s behaviour at the boarding house had been causing concern with the landlord and other tenants. In support, the landlord filed statements from other tenants detailing their specific concerns. b. The landlord had been working with the tenant for some time prior to the incident on 3 May 2026 to try and resolve the landlord’s and the other tenant’s concerns. c. As a result of the incident on 3 May 2026 the landlord had issued termination notices to the tenant and the other person involved. d. The landlord believes that the boarding house no longer meets the tenant’s ongoing needs due to his advanced age. The landlord has been trying to find accommodation that better suits the tenant’s needs which will only increase in the future. The landlord is concerned that the tenant is “ageing out of the facility” as he becomes less able to live independently and due to hygiene and safety concerns. e. After issuing notice 1, the tenant asked and confirmed in writing that notice 1 be withdrawn. The landlord believed that the tenant was co-operating with the landlord in finding alternative accommodation better suited to the tenant’s changing needs and that it would not be necessary for it to rely on the termination notice in ending the tenancy. It therefore withdrew notice 1 in writing on 28 May 2026. f. When it became clear that the tenant did not intend to work with the landlord in finding new accommodation, the landlord issued notice 2 because continuing with the tenancy was not in the tenant’s interests or those of the landlord’s other tenants in the boarding house given the concerns they had raised and which the landlord had been trying to work through. g. The landlord has been in discussion with other accommodation providers who may be able to offer the tenant living arrangements more in keeping with his needs. Discussion and decision
The Tribunal must determine four issues: a. Do the termination notices comply with the requirements of section 51(3)

RTA?

Firstly, the landlord’s notices comply with the requirements of section 51(3) RTA. The notices: a. Were in writing. b. Identify the premises. c. Specify the date on which to vacate. d. Refer to section 66U RTA and that no reason need be given for the termination under that section. e. Were signed.
Secondly, the tenant’s application was made within 28 business days of notice 1.
On the evidence before it, the tenant has not persuaded the Tribunal that in relation to notice 1, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or the RTA, or by any complaint against the landlord. The tenant has not provided any evidence that on 4 May 2026 the tenant was pursuing any claim against the landlord. The tenant had been the victim of an assault at the premises but that does not amount to the tenant exercising any right under the tenancy agreement or the RTA against the landlord.
It was reasonable of the landlord to withdraw notice 1 in the belief that it was in the process of negotiating an orderly exit from the tenancy to premises more suitable for the tenant. The Tribunal accepts that the landlord’s decision to issue notice 2 was made to reinstate its position under notice 1 when the tenant ceased to co-operate in ending the tenancy. The Tribunal is persuaded that the issuing of notice 2 was not done in retaliation for the tenant filing his application, but because it wished to renew the termination it had voluntarily withdrawn at the tenant’s request because the landlord remained concerned that the premises no longer met the tenant’s accommodation needs. In other words, the landlord’s reason for issuing notice 2 was the same reason for issuing notice 1.
Having come to this conclusion, the tenant’s application must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has sympathy for the tenant and the situation he finds himself in having been the victim of assault. However, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the tenant is being punished for being assaulted. Instead, his tenancy is being ended so that he can move to accommodation that is more suitable for his needs now and in the future.
This decision means that notice 2 is effective and the tenancy is due to end on 6 July 2026. The tenant is to be encouraged to co-operate with the landlord and its volunteers so that this process can be as painless as possible and produce the positive outcome of the tenant finding accommodation more suited to his needs. If the tenant has not vacated the premises by that date, the landlord may need to apply for a possession order under section 64 RTA within 90 days of 6 July 2026. Name suppression
Having considered the personal issues facing the tenant and which have contributed to his present predicament, it is appropriate to exercise the discretion in section 95A(4) RTA and order suppression of his name and identifying details.
As the tenant’s application has been unsuccessful, it is also appropriate to suppress the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5509089 — Exemplary damages at Room 1, 1 Haversham Street, Highbury, Palmerston North

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5509089 — Exemplary damages at Room 1, 1 Haversham Street, Highbury, Palmerston North

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions