What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5534061 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5534061?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5534061?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5534061?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13937791-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5534061 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5534061?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5534061?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5534061?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13937791-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

23 Haversham Street, Highbury, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5534061 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by Mr Jenkins of Manawatu Tenants Union, and the landlord by Ms Faulkner.

On 12 June 2026, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 10 September 2026. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory and/or unlawful.

The onus of proof is on the applicant. She must provide the evidence to support her claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, that is “more likely than not”.

Ms Macdonald has been a long-term tenant for about 9 years. There have been no difficulties with her tenancy.

On 10 June 2026, following an inspection, the property manager sent an email asking the tenant to tidy up the outside of the property. No timeframe was specified, but the tenant was told that failure to do this may result in termination. The wording was: These items potentially put you in breach of the agreed terms of your rental agreement and if not rectified immediately may lead to termination of the tenancy.

Two days later, the tenant received a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy.

Ms McDonald was understandably upset to receive this notice and inferred that there was a relationship between the 10 June notice to tidy up and the 90-day notice to terminate.

Mr Jenkins argued that the notice on 10 June was a threat and should have contained a 14-day notice to remedy. He says that the 12 June notice to terminate shows that the landlord has carried out the threat to terminate for not doing something that they did not know they needed to address.

Mr Jenkins says that the termination notice should be struck down and compensation ordered for this clear breach.

Was the notice 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.

If the tenant makes the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice, the tenant may at the same time apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect. This application was made on 26 June, which is within the timeframe set out under the Act.

Mr Jenkins was asked to identify the tenant exercising a right or making a complaint against the landlord. He said that the issue is that the notice given on 10 June was a breach of their rights.

There is no evidence before the Tribunal of the tenant attempting to exercise a right at any time leading up to the 90-day notice. Therefore, the tenant has not established that the 90-day notice was more likely than not given in retaliation. This claim is dismissed.

Was the notice unlawful?

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 $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Section 51 sets out the law for a party to end a tenancy by giving notice. Under section 51(1)(a), a landlord may terminate the tenancy by giving 90 days’ notice. No reason is required.

The notice given on 12 June 2026 allows for 91 days’ notice.

Ms Faulkner said that the notice to terminate was not related to the notice given on 10 June regarding the premises. She said that the landlord is planning to renovate. She provided copies of quotes that have been obtained in the last few days for renovation work, along with an unsigned statement from the owner saying that on 10 June they had discussed giving notice for renovations.

That evidence has little weight in proving that the reason for the termination was renovations, given the statement is not signed, and all of the quotes have been obtained since the notice was given. However, the law does not require the landlord to have a reason for termination. They simply need to give 90 days’ notice.

The tenant has not established that the landlord gave the tenant notice knowing they were not entitled to do so and so the claim is dismissed. Breach of quiet enjoyment

The application also referred to a breach of quiet enjoyment, but this was not actively pursued at the hearing.

I observe that the wording of the 10 June notice is unfortunate. The landlord said that the untidy grounds were “potentially” a breach of the tenancy, and also said that if they were not rectified immediately, the tenancy could be terminated. Mr Jenkins classified this as a threat.

My criticism is that any such notice should state clearly whether or not the tenant has breached a term of their agreement and specify which term. If the landlord applies to the Tribunal for termination of a tenancy because the tenant has breached a term of their agreement or of the Act, then the landlord would need to show that the terms of section 56 had been complied with, that is, that the tenant had been given notice of the breach and requirement to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days.

The landlord has not applied to the Tribunal to terminate based on the 10 June notice and so the fact that the notice does not comply with section 56 is not relevant to the Tribunal’s decision.

I note, however, that it is not reasonable to ask tenant to rectify something immediately and suggest termination.

The timing of this notice with the 12 June termination notice was also unfortunate. The tenant has lost her home of 9 years, and it is not surprising that the tenant thought that the termination notice was in some way related to the 10 June notice and would have felt that they had not had sufficient time to remedy the breach, if any.

That said, the nature and extent of this one notice does not amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment or harassment.

The tenant’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons