What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4586089?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4586089?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4586089?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4586089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9232599-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4586089?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4586089?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4586089?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4586089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9232599-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Brittan Drive, Rolleston 7615 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4586089 — Exemplary damages

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 28 July 2023.
The tenant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities, or where it is more likely than not.
The tenant claims that the landlord acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds to do so (see s. 60 AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and seeks exemplary damages and compensation for that breach.
The evidence heard was essentially unchallenged by the landlord.
The tenancy commenced on 12 April 2022 and was a fixed term through until 11 April 2023.
In December 2022, the owner of the premises advised their property manager that they did not wish to renew the tenancy when the fixed term ended on 11 April 2023.The email from the owner to the property manager records that the reason given by the owner was that “we want to move into the property whenever the lease will be expired. In case the tenants wants to move out earlier in feb or march we don’t have any problem in that too.” (sic).
On 10 January 2023, the property manager advised the tenants in writing that the tenancy was to terminate at the end of the fixed term period on 11 April 2023. The letter records that “the premises are to be put on the market by the owner within 90 days after the termination date ...for the purposes of sale or other disposition.”
The tenants commenced looking for new premises. They found new accommodation and the parties mutually agreed to end the tenancy on 12 February 2023. A final inspection was carried out and the bond paid to the tenants.
In or about May 2023, the tenants discovered that the premises had not been sold and that the owners had moved in.
The tenants contacted the property manager to make enquiries. The property manager made contact with the owner and discovered that the property managers had provided the tenants with the wrong notice of termination. They had meant to give a 63-day notice that the owners intended to move in, but mistakenly sent a notice of termination on the grounds that the property was to be sold.
I accept on the evidence proffered that this was genuine mistake by the property managers. An error which provided the tenants with 90 days’ notice. Technically, it would not have been possible for the property managers to give a 63-day notice to the tenants in January 2023, as the fixed term tenancy didn’t end until 11 April 2023.
The tenants say that this error amounted to a breach of s.60 AA RTA.
Under Section 60AA RTA, 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.
The inclusion of the word “knowing” requires in my view a degree of intention. The question to be considered is whether the landlord knew that they were not entitled to give the notice. I find on the evidence proffered, that the landlord did not know that they were not entitled to give the notice of termination. The error was a genuine mistake on their behalf and accordingly there has been no unlawful act on which a claim for exemplary damages could be based. The tenants have not persuaded me that it is more likely than not that the landlord knew that they were not entitled to give the notice of termination.
The parties have then proceeded to reach an agreement on an early termination date.
The tenant seeks compensation for moving costs, end of tenancy clean and bond money.
I consider that the costs claimed by the tenants, would all have been costs incurred by the tenant in the event that the tenancy had ended on 11 April 2023. The tenants have not been disadvantaged by the error, and the claim for compensation is dismissed.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application for suppression is dismissed.

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 28 July 2023.
The tenant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities, or where it is more likely than not.
The tenant claims that the landlord acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds to do so (see s. 60 AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and seeks exemplary damages and compensation for that breach.
The evidence heard was essentially unchallenged by the landlord.
The tenancy commenced on 12 April 2022 and was a fixed term through until 11 April 2023.
In December 2022, the owner of the premises advised their property manager that they did not wish to renew the tenancy when the fixed term ended on 11 April 2023.The email from the owner to the property manager records that the reason given by the owner was that “we want to move into the property whenever the lease will be expired. In case the tenants wants to move out earlier in feb or march we don’t have any problem in that too.” (sic).
On 10 January 2023, the property manager advised the tenants in writing that the tenancy was to terminate at the end of the fixed term period on 11 April 2023. The letter records that “the premises are to be put on the market by the owner within 90 days after the termination date ...for the purposes of sale or other disposition.”
The tenants commenced looking for new premises. They found new accommodation and the parties mutually agreed to end the tenancy on 12 February 2023. A final inspection was carried out and the bond paid to the tenants.
In or about May 2023, the tenants discovered that the premises had not been sold and that the owners had moved in.
The tenants contacted the property manager to make enquiries. The property manager made contact with the owner and discovered that the property managers had provided the tenants with the wrong notice of termination. They had meant to give a 63-day notice that the owners intended to move in, but mistakenly sent a notice of termination on the grounds that the property was to be sold.
I accept on the evidence proffered that this was genuine mistake by the property managers. An error which provided the tenants with 90 days’ notice. Technically, it would not have been possible for the property managers to give a 63-day notice to the tenants in January 2023, as the fixed term tenancy didn’t end until 11 April 2023.
The tenants say that this error amounted to a breach of s.60 AA RTA.
Under Section 60AA RTA, 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.
The inclusion of the word “knowing” requires in my view a degree of intention. The question to be considered is whether the landlord knew that they were not entitled to give the notice. I find on the evidence proffered, that the landlord did not know that they were not entitled to give the notice of termination. The error was a genuine mistake on their behalf and accordingly there has been no unlawful act on which a claim for exemplary damages could be based. The tenants have not persuaded me that it is more likely than not that the landlord knew that they were not entitled to give the notice of termination.
The parties have then proceeded to reach an agreement on an early termination date.
The tenant seeks compensation for moving costs, end of tenancy clean and bond money.
I consider that the costs claimed by the tenants, would all have been costs incurred by the tenant in the event that the tenancy had ended on 11 April 2023. The tenants have not been disadvantaged by the error, and the claim for compensation is dismissed.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4586089 — Exemplary damages at 11 Brittan Drive, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4586089 — Exemplary damages at 11 Brittan Drive, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions