What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4694792?

The tribunal order states: The claim for exemplary damages for a retaliatory termination notice is

How much money was awarded in case 4694792?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4694792?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4694792?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9837832-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4694792?

The tribunal order states: The claim for exemplary damages for a retaliatory termination notice is

How much money was awarded in case 4694792?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4694792?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: State of repair, Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4694792?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9837832-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 3, 29 Euston Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4694792 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Adams attended on behalf of the landlord.

Mr Hadley and his wife were tenants in a boarding house managed by Whittle Knight Property Management Limited as agent for Ian and Susan Coombes. Mr Hadley gave evidence that he was very happy living in the property and enjoyed a good relationship with other tenants.

On 8 September 2023, Whittle Knight Property Management Limited gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 8 October 2023. The tenant claims the notice is 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 under section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

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 under section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A of the Act.

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 intent of the person committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest under section 109(3) and (3A) of the Act.

During the period surrounding the giving of the notice, the tenant had been communicating with the landlord about a flooding washing machine (referred to in more detail below).

On the day the notice was received there had been email communication between the parties on this issue and, when the notice was received the tenant believed that it was due to his legitimate actions in relation to trying to get the machine repaired.

The landlord gave evidence that the owner had instructed, sometime earlier, that notice be given to the applicant and two other tenants (in two separate buildings) in the last week of August. As an inspection was scheduled for the last week of August, the management company suggested that the notice be delayed one week so as not to be (incorrectly) associated with the inspection. This was agreed and termination letters were prepared to be sent automatically on 8 September 2023 which they were.

The landlord accepted that it was unfortunate that this coincided with other email correspondence relating to the repair of the washing machine but denied that the notice was in retaliation for the tenant’s legitimate complaints about the washing machine leaks.

I am not satisfied, on the evidence provided, that the giving of the termination notice was retaliatory.

The landlord gave evidence that the relationship and communication between the tenant and the property manager deteriorated from this point. Most of the communication provided between landlord and tenant is dated after the date of the termination notice and it is clear that the relationship did suffer, perhaps understandably, once the notice had been sent.

As the notice is not retaliatory, the landlord has not committed an unlawful act and is not liable to pay exemplary damages in this matter.

The tenant also claims that the landlord did not have the washing machine repair (referred to above) dealt with in a timely manner.

A landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair under section 66I(1)(b) of the Act.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 under section 66(4) and Schedule 1A of the Act.

The parties provided correspondence between the landlord and tenant in relation to a leaking washing machine. The original washing machine had broken down previously and had been replaced. The replacement machine was of a different quality to the original and began to leak on occasion sometime before 8 September 2023.

On 8 September 2023, the tenant contacted the landlord to advise that the machine was leaking again. The machine was looked at by a technician on 25 September 2023. The technician suggested pursuing a claim under the warranty as the machine was reasonably new.

Although there may have been some delays with getting the machine assessed, these seem to be due to the inability of the repair person to arrange access and not with any delay or lack of motivation on the part of the landlord.

The timeline provided by the evidence shows that the problem was dealt with in a reasonably timely way and, when the landlord struck issues with having the machine repaired or replaced under warranty, and the leaks were continuing to be a problem, a new machine was obtained (by 29 September 2023).

The landlord has not committed an unlawful act in relation to the timeliness of the washing machine repair and is not liable to pay exemplary damages.

Various other connected issues were raised by the parties both in the initial application and during the hearing. Although the parties wished to be heard on these issues, I was not asked to make any orders in relation to those other matters and I do not need to outline them here.

As the application has been unsuccessful, there are no suppression orders and costs lie where they fall.