What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5039610?

The tribunal order states: , knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breach of

How much money was awarded in case 5039610?

Property Damage: $6,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5039610?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5039610?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11384506-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5039610?

The tribunal order states: , knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breach of

How much money was awarded in case 5039610?

Property Damage: $6,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5039610?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5039610?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11384506-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Silvester Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5039610 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5039610. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
entitled to do so. Breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maxim	$6,500.00		entitled to do so. Breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maxim

Order

, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. 4

The time for deciding if there was an intention by the landlord to give notice knowing they are not entitled to do so is when the notice was given. For the notice to be valid the landlord must have genuinely intended to carry out the stated objective.
Under section 51(2)(f) of the Act it is necessary to show that the alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises, whichever is applicable, are “extensive”. This question must be considered in the context of whether it is reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken. 4 See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
Works that require the tenant to move out are, by their nature, likely to be extensive. At the same time, an issue that requires the tenant to move out temporarily for a short period, for example for 1 day for plumbing work to be undertaken in a kitchen or bathroom, may not be extensive. Each case will have to be determined on its particular facts and in light of the nature, extent, and effect of the intended work. Tenant’s submissions
The property was never altered, refurbished, repairs or redeveloped. The is accepted by both parties.
The tenant’s submission focused on why quotes in relation to the work intended to be done could not have been undertaken with the tenancy continuing. The issue for the tenant is that no work has been undertaken – which was the basis for termination. The tenant did not say that the landlord never intended to renovate the premises when they served the tenant with the notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant did acknowledge that the premises needed work done to it and asbestos was likely to be an issue.
The tenant says the termination has caused him stress, time and impacted his health. However, the tenant also said he stayed at his home 1-3 nights a week and otherwise stayed at his partner’s home. The tenant said that his children (aged 19+ by the end of the tenancy) resided in the home, and it was effectively a base for him. Landlord’s submissions
The landlord accepts that the property was never renovated but provided the following written explanation which was confirmed at the hearing - ..., the club had every intention to get tradesmen in to give the house an extensive make over and then put it out for rent again and we have 2 quotes on file to support this. Sadly, the house was in more disrepair than we first thought once empty (as well as a lot of rubbish that was left behind) and the quotes became higher than we thought they would be. We were also advised we needed to have the house asbestos and drug tested before any work could commence. On testing Asbestos was found inside on the wall claddings as well as the outside on the roof, (the roof needing total replacement to be up to code). The drug tests came back positive for Meth in most rooms, which was very disappointing/ disturbing. With all these things combined, the club and its members voted to sell the property, as we were not in a position to carry out such extensive work. We are now in the final phase of this sale, with it going unconditional soon. Hence no work been done on the property....
The landlord said the intention was to undertake the work required to improve the premises then relet the premises. The landlord said at the time they served the notice to terminate the tenancy, the landlord’s executive had minutes in relation to the intended renovations and quotes for renovating the one bathroom and for a full remake of the premises.
The landlord says he was verbally told by builders it would be better if the tenant was not residing in the premises while work was being undertaken. The landlord also says they were advised that asbestos testing was also required before building work commenced. In addition, the landlord said work was required to meet HHS standards.
The landlord says after the tenancy ended the quotes to do all the work required to make it tenantable became excessive and the landlord has now sold the property and the premises is going to be demolished.
The landlord said they lost rent income in the process and if they had known that they would ultimately sell the premises then they would not have issued the termination notice at that time.
I found the landlord’s oral evidence to be credible and on my enquiry the tenant did not say the landlord was being untruthful in his evidence that that the executive had decided to terminate the tenancy to undertake repairs. Outcome
The photographs of the property show the premises would have extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment.
The tenant also raised concerns about the state of repair of the bathroom and I consider it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken, given there was only one bathroom.
The issue I must determine is whether I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities the landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy, knowing they were not entitled to do so.
I consider it likely the landlord gave the termination notice with the genuine plan to undertake material steps with respect to work on the property within 90 days of the termination date and it was not reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while material steps were undertaken.
I also consider it likely that the work and expense involved quickly ballooned on further investigation after the tenancy ended and therefore the landlord decide to sell the premises.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities the landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy, knowing they were not entitled to do so.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
As the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. 5
Neither party sought name suppression. N Bradley 03 February 2025 5 See section 102(4) RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5039610. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
entitled to do so. Breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maxim	$6,500.00		entitled to do so. Breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maxim

Order

, knowing they are not entitled to do so. Breach of this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6,500.00. 4

The time for deciding if there was an intention by the landlord to give notice knowing they are not entitled to do so is when the notice was given. For the notice to be valid the landlord must have genuinely intended to carry out the stated objective.
Under section 51(2)(f) of the Act it is necessary to show that the alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises, whichever is applicable, are “extensive”. This question must be considered in the context of whether it is reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken. 4 See section 60AA and Schedule 1A RTA.
Works that require the tenant to move out are, by their nature, likely to be extensive. At the same time, an issue that requires the tenant to move out temporarily for a short period, for example for 1 day for plumbing work to be undertaken in a kitchen or bathroom, may not be extensive. Each case will have to be determined on its particular facts and in light of the nature, extent, and effect of the intended work. Tenant’s submissions
The property was never altered, refurbished, repairs or redeveloped. The is accepted by both parties.
The tenant’s submission focused on why quotes in relation to the work intended to be done could not have been undertaken with the tenancy continuing. The issue for the tenant is that no work has been undertaken – which was the basis for termination. The tenant did not say that the landlord never intended to renovate the premises when they served the tenant with the notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant did acknowledge that the premises needed work done to it and asbestos was likely to be an issue.
The tenant says the termination has caused him stress, time and impacted his health. However, the tenant also said he stayed at his home 1-3 nights a week and otherwise stayed at his partner’s home. The tenant said that his children (aged 19+ by the end of the tenancy) resided in the home, and it was effectively a base for him. Landlord’s submissions
The landlord accepts that the property was never renovated but provided the following written explanation which was confirmed at the hearing - ..., the club had every intention to get tradesmen in to give the house an extensive make over and then put it out for rent again and we have 2 quotes on file to support this. Sadly, the house was in more disrepair than we first thought once empty (as well as a lot of rubbish that was left behind) and the quotes became higher than we thought they would be. We were also advised we needed to have the house asbestos and drug tested before any work could commence. On testing Asbestos was found inside on the wall claddings as well as the outside on the roof, (the roof needing total replacement to be up to code). The drug tests came back positive for Meth in most rooms, which was very disappointing/ disturbing. With all these things combined, the club and its members voted to sell the property, as we were not in a position to carry out such extensive work. We are now in the final phase of this sale, with it going unconditional soon. Hence no work been done on the property....
The landlord said the intention was to undertake the work required to improve the premises then relet the premises. The landlord said at the time they served the notice to terminate the tenancy, the landlord’s executive had minutes in relation to the intended renovations and quotes for renovating the one bathroom and for a full remake of the premises.
The landlord says he was verbally told by builders it would be better if the tenant was not residing in the premises while work was being undertaken. The landlord also says they were advised that asbestos testing was also required before building work commenced. In addition, the landlord said work was required to meet HHS standards.
The landlord says after the tenancy ended the quotes to do all the work required to make it tenantable became excessive and the landlord has now sold the property and the premises is going to be demolished.
The landlord said they lost rent income in the process and if they had known that they would ultimately sell the premises then they would not have issued the termination notice at that time.
I found the landlord’s oral evidence to be credible and on my enquiry the tenant did not say the landlord was being untruthful in his evidence that that the executive had decided to terminate the tenancy to undertake repairs. Outcome
The photographs of the property show the premises would have extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment.
The tenant also raised concerns about the state of repair of the bathroom and I consider it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken, given there was only one bathroom.
The issue I must determine is whether I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities the landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy, knowing they were not entitled to do so.
I consider it likely the landlord gave the termination notice with the genuine plan to undertake material steps with respect to work on the property within 90 days of the termination date and it was not reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while material steps were undertaken.
I also consider it likely that the work and expense involved quickly ballooned on further investigation after the tenancy ended and therefore the landlord decide to sell the premises.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities the landlord gave notice to terminate the tenancy, knowing they were not entitled to do so.
The tenant’s application for exemplary damages is dismissed.
As the tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. 5
Neither party sought name suppression. N Bradley 03 February 2025 5 See section 102(4) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5039610 — Exemplary damages at 13 Silvester Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5039610 — Exemplary damages at 13 Silvester Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions