What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4688749?

The tribunal order states: Anthony Richards must pay Isla Catherine Mae Mcleod $1,520.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4688749?

Compensation: Moving Expenses: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4688749?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4688749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9603840-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4688749?

The tribunal order states: Anthony Richards must pay Isla Catherine Mae Mcleod $1,520.44 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4688749?

Compensation: Moving Expenses: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4688749?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4688749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9603840-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Sweet Waters Place, Woolston, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4688749 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4688749 — net $1,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Moving expenses	$500.00	Moving expenses
Exemplary damages: s66AA	$1,000.00	s66AA
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,520.44

Order

Anthony Richards must pay Isla Catherine Mae Mcleod $1,520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Mcleod, the applicant’s father, attended as a support person and was given leave to speak on his daughter’s behalf towards the end of the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation of $1000.00 for costs relating to moving expenses, storage and looking for new accommodation following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant, in a letter attached to her application form, also purported to apply for “two months’ rent for compensation of $2100 for forcibly ending the four year fixed term tenancy”.
During the hearing, the tenant clarified that the claim for $2100 outlined in her letter was unconnected to rent and was for exemplary damages for an unlawful act rather than compensation.
Although the terminology may not have been accurate, it was clear from the tenant’s application letter that the amount she was asking for directly related to the landlord purporting to end the tenancy early and I dealt with the application accordingly. Background
Both the landlord and the tenant gave complimentary evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the drawing up and signing of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord had completed details on the front page of the agreement and had the given it to his niece, Ms Richards, who was a co-tenant with the Applicant. Ms Richards had completed further details, including the fixed term of the tenancy, in the presence of the Applicant and Ms Richards signed the agreement and returned it to the landlord who had then signed it.
Although Mr Richards signed the agreement, he gave evidence that he was not aware that it was for a fixed term of four years.
Although Ms Mcleod did not sign the agreement, her name and contact details were entered on the front page, and she paid rent to the landlord’s account.
The agreement was for a fixed term of four years.

Was notice given?

In July of 2023, the Applicant received the first notification that there were issues with the tenancy when she was told by her co-tenant that she would have to move out so that Ms Richard’s partner could move in. The Applicant objected and pointed to the tenancy agreement to support her right to stay in the property. The Applicant provided evidence of the lengthy text conversation.
The landlord then sent a three-line text to Ms Mcleod around 11 July 2023 purporting to end the tenancy with 20 days’ notice. The Applicant’s father, Mr Mcleod, responded to this text asking the landlord to telephone him to discuss the matter.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a copy of a letter dated 9 August 2023, addressed to him by Ms Richards purportedly, “ending the current tenancy agreement”.
Mr Richards then gave a letter to the Applicant dated 11 August 2023 advising that he had received the notice described in 13 above, further advising that the current situation is “not pleasant” and stating that the agreement, described as periodic, would end on 22 September 2023. The Applicant gave evidence that she had received this letter, under the door of her room, on 17 August 2023.
The Applicant provided a copy of a text message to show that her father had contacted the landlord again to discuss issues around the attempted termination of the tenancy but with no response.
The Applicant gave evidence that the circumstances at the premises were such that she then felt unable to remain. She moved out of the property and told the landlord that she had done so under duress.

Has the landlord acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Ms Mcleod claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under the tenancy agreement by purporting to arbitrarily end the fixed term tenancy early.
Under Section 60AA of the Act, a landlord commits an unlawful act if they give notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
The burden of proving that the landlord issued or purported to issue the notice knowing that they did not have grounds rests with the tenant and the standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities.
The mental state of “knowledge” is not defined in the Act. In the case of Kerr v R [2012] NZCA 212, the Court, dealing with knowledge in a criminal context, held that knowledge meant “knowing or believing in a state of affairs”.
The landlord gave evidence that he had not read the agreement (although he signed it) and did not know that the tenancy was for a fixed term of four years. Even if this was true, and the landlord believed that the tenancy was periodic, the notice given to the tenant is not valid under the Act. Mr Richards gave evidence that he was an experienced landlord and, as such, he would have known that a landlord cannot give notice to a tenant under a periodic tenancy unless it complies with the requirements of the Act. The notice given to Ms Mcleod does refer to “renovations/repairs” but purports to give six weeks’ notice (42 days) when the required notice, if renovating, is 90 days (over 12 weeks).
The tenant provided copies of multiple communications between her and Ms Richard’s, referring to the four-year term, and between her father and Mr Richards both before and after the written notice received by the tenant on 17 August.
I find, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Richards knew that he was not entitled to give notice to Ms Mclead under the Act when he wrote the letter dated 11 August 2023 (received 17 August 2023) and has, therefore, committed an unlawful act under section 60AA. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court laid out the process for determining whether an award for exemplary damages should be made.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, in this case up to $6500.00, 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 under section 109(3) of the Act.
The landlord’s reasons for attempting to end the tenancy were possibly well intentioned in that he felt the relationship between his niece and Ms Mcleod had broken down and he wanted to help resolve the situation. He says as much in the notice dated 11 August 2023. His niece was in an unpleasant situation, and he wanted to help her out of it but, in doing so, he intentionally deprived Ms Mcleod of her right to another three and half years of the tenancy.
Ms Mcleod made it clear to Ms Richards from the time the issue was initially raised and continued to make it clear to Mr Richards both before and after the 11 August notice was received, that she considered she was entitled to stay in the property and badly wanted to do so. She and her father had attempted to contact the landlord with a view to discussing the matter prior to her deciding to leave the tenancy. Mr Richards had plenty of opportunity to withdraw his notice or negotiate an agreeable solution with Ms Mcleod but all efforts at communication were ignored and Mr Richards remained intent on enforcing the notice by following his text message notice with a written, albeit slightly extended, version.
The effect of the unlawful act was that the tenant got to enjoy only a small portion of the four-year tenancy she was entitled to. She had to move unexpectedly and has yet to find suitable accommodation. Her family have been put under strain with her grandmother storing her possessions and her father helping with the move and assisting with this application. She has undoubtedly suffered stress and financial and emotional hardship as a consequence of the landlord’s actions.
The interests of the tenant would be served by the imposition of exemplary damages as this would go some way to mitigating the effects on her.
It is in the public interest to discourage landlord’s from ending long term tenancies unlawfully and without cause. Housing insecurity is a serious issue and tenants should be able to rely on landlords to comply with their obligations under tenancy agreements and under the Act.
Taking into account all of the factors required by section 109(3), I have determined that the landlord must pay exemplary damages in the amount of $1000 for knowingly and intentionally purporting to end Ms Mcleod’s tenancy three and a half years early. Compensation
The Applicant has claimed compensation in the sum of $1000. This includes compensation for three days off work, 10 weeks storage of her possessions in her grandmother’s garage and petrol costs. The tenant has not provided supporting documentation for these claims, but I award the sum of $500 to cover reasonable costs of moving and one day off work which I consider sufficient in the circumstances.
As Isla Catherine Mae Mcleod has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4688749 — net $1,520.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: Moving expenses	$500.00	Moving expenses
Exemplary damages: s66AA	$1,000.00	s66AA
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,520.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,520.44

Order

Anthony Richards must pay Isla Catherine Mae Mcleod $1,520.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Mcleod, the applicant’s father, attended as a support person and was given leave to speak on his daughter’s behalf towards the end of the hearing.
The tenant has applied for compensation of $1000.00 for costs relating to moving expenses, storage and looking for new accommodation following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant, in a letter attached to her application form, also purported to apply for “two months’ rent for compensation of $2100 for forcibly ending the four year fixed term tenancy”.
During the hearing, the tenant clarified that the claim for $2100 outlined in her letter was unconnected to rent and was for exemplary damages for an unlawful act rather than compensation.
Although the terminology may not have been accurate, it was clear from the tenant’s application letter that the amount she was asking for directly related to the landlord purporting to end the tenancy early and I dealt with the application accordingly. Background
Both the landlord and the tenant gave complimentary evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the drawing up and signing of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord had completed details on the front page of the agreement and had the given it to his niece, Ms Richards, who was a co-tenant with the Applicant. Ms Richards had completed further details, including the fixed term of the tenancy, in the presence of the Applicant and Ms Richards signed the agreement and returned it to the landlord who had then signed it.
Although Mr Richards signed the agreement, he gave evidence that he was not aware that it was for a fixed term of four years.
Although Ms Mcleod did not sign the agreement, her name and contact details were entered on the front page, and she paid rent to the landlord’s account.
The agreement was for a fixed term of four years.

Was notice given?

In July of 2023, the Applicant received the first notification that there were issues with the tenancy when she was told by her co-tenant that she would have to move out so that Ms Richard’s partner could move in. The Applicant objected and pointed to the tenancy agreement to support her right to stay in the property. The Applicant provided evidence of the lengthy text conversation.
The landlord then sent a three-line text to Ms Mcleod around 11 July 2023 purporting to end the tenancy with 20 days’ notice. The Applicant’s father, Mr Mcleod, responded to this text asking the landlord to telephone him to discuss the matter.
The landlord provided the Tribunal with a copy of a letter dated 9 August 2023, addressed to him by Ms Richards purportedly, “ending the current tenancy agreement”.
Mr Richards then gave a letter to the Applicant dated 11 August 2023 advising that he had received the notice described in 13 above, further advising that the current situation is “not pleasant” and stating that the agreement, described as periodic, would end on 22 September 2023. The Applicant gave evidence that she had received this letter, under the door of her room, on 17 August 2023.
The Applicant provided a copy of a text message to show that her father had contacted the landlord again to discuss issues around the attempted termination of the tenancy but with no response.
The Applicant gave evidence that the circumstances at the premises were such that she then felt unable to remain. She moved out of the property and told the landlord that she had done so under duress.

Has the landlord acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Ms Mcleod claims that the landlord has breached his obligations under the tenancy agreement by purporting to arbitrarily end the fixed term tenancy early.
Under Section 60AA of the Act, a landlord commits an unlawful act if they give notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
The burden of proving that the landlord issued or purported to issue the notice knowing that they did not have grounds rests with the tenant and the standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities.
The mental state of “knowledge” is not defined in the Act. In the case of Kerr v R [2012] NZCA 212, the Court, dealing with knowledge in a criminal context, held that knowledge meant “knowing or believing in a state of affairs”.
The landlord gave evidence that he had not read the agreement (although he signed it) and did not know that the tenancy was for a fixed term of four years. Even if this was true, and the landlord believed that the tenancy was periodic, the notice given to the tenant is not valid under the Act. Mr Richards gave evidence that he was an experienced landlord and, as such, he would have known that a landlord cannot give notice to a tenant under a periodic tenancy unless it complies with the requirements of the Act. The notice given to Ms Mcleod does refer to “renovations/repairs” but purports to give six weeks’ notice (42 days) when the required notice, if renovating, is 90 days (over 12 weeks).
The tenant provided copies of multiple communications between her and Ms Richard’s, referring to the four-year term, and between her father and Mr Richards both before and after the written notice received by the tenant on 17 August.
I find, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Richards knew that he was not entitled to give notice to Ms Mclead under the Act when he wrote the letter dated 11 August 2023 (received 17 August 2023) and has, therefore, committed an unlawful act under section 60AA. Exemplary damages
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court laid out the process for determining whether an award for exemplary damages should be made.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, in this case up to $6500.00, 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 under section 109(3) of the Act.
The landlord’s reasons for attempting to end the tenancy were possibly well intentioned in that he felt the relationship between his niece and Ms Mcleod had broken down and he wanted to help resolve the situation. He says as much in the notice dated 11 August 2023. His niece was in an unpleasant situation, and he wanted to help her out of it but, in doing so, he intentionally deprived Ms Mcleod of her right to another three and half years of the tenancy.
Ms Mcleod made it clear to Ms Richards from the time the issue was initially raised and continued to make it clear to Mr Richards both before and after the 11 August notice was received, that she considered she was entitled to stay in the property and badly wanted to do so. She and her father had attempted to contact the landlord with a view to discussing the matter prior to her deciding to leave the tenancy. Mr Richards had plenty of opportunity to withdraw his notice or negotiate an agreeable solution with Ms Mcleod but all efforts at communication were ignored and Mr Richards remained intent on enforcing the notice by following his text message notice with a written, albeit slightly extended, version.
The effect of the unlawful act was that the tenant got to enjoy only a small portion of the four-year tenancy she was entitled to. She had to move unexpectedly and has yet to find suitable accommodation. Her family have been put under strain with her grandmother storing her possessions and her father helping with the move and assisting with this application. She has undoubtedly suffered stress and financial and emotional hardship as a consequence of the landlord’s actions.
The interests of the tenant would be served by the imposition of exemplary damages as this would go some way to mitigating the effects on her.
It is in the public interest to discourage landlord’s from ending long term tenancies unlawfully and without cause. Housing insecurity is a serious issue and tenants should be able to rely on landlords to comply with their obligations under tenancy agreements and under the Act.
Taking into account all of the factors required by section 109(3), I have determined that the landlord must pay exemplary damages in the amount of $1000 for knowingly and intentionally purporting to end Ms Mcleod’s tenancy three and a half years early. Compensation
The Applicant has claimed compensation in the sum of $1000. This includes compensation for three days off work, 10 weeks storage of her possessions in her grandmother’s garage and petrol costs. The tenant has not provided supporting documentation for these claims, but I award the sum of $500 to cover reasonable costs of moving and one day off work which I consider sufficient in the circumstances.
As Isla Catherine Mae Mcleod has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4688749 — Exemplary damages at 24 Sweet Waters Place, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4688749 — Exemplary damages at 24 Sweet Waters Place, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was notice given?

Has the landlord acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was notice given?

Has the landlord acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions