What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5229893?

The tribunal order states: Auckland Property Management Limited As Agent For Ps Vijay Investments

How much money was awarded in case 5229893?

Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229893?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12117559-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5229893?

The tribunal order states: Auckland Property Management Limited As Agent For Ps Vijay Investments

How much money was awarded in case 5229893?

Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229893?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229893?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12117559-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

82F Landscape Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5229893 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5229893 — net $1,827.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Unlawful termination	$1,800.00	Unlawful termination
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,827.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,827.00

Order

Auckland Property Management Limited As Agent For Ps Vijay Investments Limited must pay Nikayla Jade Walton $1,827.00 immediately as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Jiang.
The tenant is claiming retaliatory notice, unlawful termination and reimbursement of the filing fee.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Unlawful termination
The tenant claims the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”). Under this section, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Ms Walton claims that on 6 December 2024, the landlord gave the tenant a notice to increase the rent from 14 February 2025.
On 17 December 2024, the tenant responded by disputing the rent increase. She raised three points in an email to the property manager which were, the rent increase not being in line with current market rent, the outstanding maintenance issues and the amount of time taken to remedy previous maintenance issues, and protections provided to tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”).
On 23 December 2024, the owner advised the property management company that a member of their family would be moving back into the property in mid- February 2025 and the tenants would need to vacate.
On 27 December 2024 the landlord issued the tenants with a 63 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy on 28 February 2025 because “the owner/owner’s family are requiring the above property for the purpose of residing in for a minimum of 90 days”.
The tenancy ended on 28 February 2025.
Two weeks later the tenant saw the property listed for rent on TradeMe with a different property management company.
At the hearing today, Ms Jiang explained that she and the company she works for made a concerted effort to advise the owner against increasing the rent from $1,000.00 per week to $1,250.00 per week because the market did not support the rise. The owners were steadfast and instructed the agent to increase the rent.
The tenant’s claim is an assertion that the landlord’s plan to have a family member move back into the premises was a ruse to get the tenants out of the property, so the property could be re-let at a higher rental without having to deal with a difficult tenant.
In support of this claim is a tight timeframe: On 6 December 2024 the landlord sought to increase the rent and clearly had no intention of terminating the tenancy. Then only 6 days after the tenants raised a dispute about the rent increase (and outstanding maintenance issues), the landlord gave notice to end the tenancy because a family member is moving back in.
This family member apparently never moved back in, and only two weeks after the tenancy ended, the property was being advertised again for rent at an increased rental. As well as this, the property management company was changed, which had the effect of ensuring a break in the flow of information to the tenant regarding the landlord’s circumstances.
The landlord has chosen to remain silent in rebutting this claim. I would expect more from a landlord. I am able to draw inferences between the landlord’s conduct and what their intentions were. I raised with the landlord’s representative today that I found the tenant’s submissions particularly persuasive in the absence of any contradictory information from the landlord, and I offered her the opportunity for an adjournment so instructions could be taken from the owners. The offer was declined.
On the information before me today, I determine on the balance of probabilities that the landlord had no intention of having a family member move into the property and that the landlord was looking for the most expeditious and convenient means to take back possession of the property. On that basis the notice given to end the tenancy was unlawful under section 60AA of the RTA which provides the following: 60AA Landlord acting to terminate tenancy without grounds A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application.
Breaching this obligation 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.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant today stated that the effect of the unlawful notice was to disrupt the lives of her and her flatmates. They each incurred moving costs and a period of having to pay double rent. It is unavoidable that this also comes at an emotional cost. No details on the amount of costs incurred were provided.
The landlord’s actions appear to have been targeted at increasing their financial return without regard to the consequences that had on their tenants.
Tenants have a right to expect landlords to act consistently with the act, to be transparent and communicative, and to engage with tenants constructively when tenants make requests that are within their rights. This landlord did not act in that way.
I am not aware of the landlord having breached this section previously.
When I consider the factors of this case I determine that this is a case where a moderate level of exemplary damages should be awarded. I determine $1,800.00 is an appropriate amount. Retaliatory Notice
The notice of termination was given on 27 December 2024. The version of the RTA that was in force at that time was “Version as at 30 January 2025”, replacing the earlier “Version as at 18 December 2024”.
The 63 days’ notice to end the tenancy is a provision under the earlier version, “Version as at 18 December 2024”. The correct notice, given under the subsequent “Version as at 30 January 2025” requires 42 days’ notice to be given if a family member is moving back into the premises.
The section 54 Retaliatory Notice provisions of these two respective versions is quite different. However they are similar in that they both require the notice being given to be a lawful notice under section 51 of the RTA in order for section 54 to be applied. Because I have determined the notice to end the tenancy was not lawful, the termination can not be declared retaliatory under either of the versions of the RTA.
Because Nikayla Jade Walton has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5229893 — net $1,827.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: Unlawful termination	$1,800.00	Unlawful termination
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,827.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$1,827.00

Order

Auckland Property Management Limited As Agent For Ps Vijay Investments Limited must pay Nikayla Jade Walton $1,827.00 immediately as set out in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Jiang.
The tenant is claiming retaliatory notice, unlawful termination and reimbursement of the filing fee.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these standards is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. That means the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the burden of proof. Unlawful termination
The tenant claims the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”). Under this section, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Ms Walton claims that on 6 December 2024, the landlord gave the tenant a notice to increase the rent from 14 February 2025.
On 17 December 2024, the tenant responded by disputing the rent increase. She raised three points in an email to the property manager which were, the rent increase not being in line with current market rent, the outstanding maintenance issues and the amount of time taken to remedy previous maintenance issues, and protections provided to tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”).
On 23 December 2024, the owner advised the property management company that a member of their family would be moving back into the property in mid- February 2025 and the tenants would need to vacate.
On 27 December 2024 the landlord issued the tenants with a 63 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy on 28 February 2025 because “the owner/owner’s family are requiring the above property for the purpose of residing in for a minimum of 90 days”.
The tenancy ended on 28 February 2025.
Two weeks later the tenant saw the property listed for rent on TradeMe with a different property management company.
At the hearing today, Ms Jiang explained that she and the company she works for made a concerted effort to advise the owner against increasing the rent from $1,000.00 per week to $1,250.00 per week because the market did not support the rise. The owners were steadfast and instructed the agent to increase the rent.
The tenant’s claim is an assertion that the landlord’s plan to have a family member move back into the premises was a ruse to get the tenants out of the property, so the property could be re-let at a higher rental without having to deal with a difficult tenant.
In support of this claim is a tight timeframe: On 6 December 2024 the landlord sought to increase the rent and clearly had no intention of terminating the tenancy. Then only 6 days after the tenants raised a dispute about the rent increase (and outstanding maintenance issues), the landlord gave notice to end the tenancy because a family member is moving back in.
This family member apparently never moved back in, and only two weeks after the tenancy ended, the property was being advertised again for rent at an increased rental. As well as this, the property management company was changed, which had the effect of ensuring a break in the flow of information to the tenant regarding the landlord’s circumstances.
The landlord has chosen to remain silent in rebutting this claim. I would expect more from a landlord. I am able to draw inferences between the landlord’s conduct and what their intentions were. I raised with the landlord’s representative today that I found the tenant’s submissions particularly persuasive in the absence of any contradictory information from the landlord, and I offered her the opportunity for an adjournment so instructions could be taken from the owners. The offer was declined.
On the information before me today, I determine on the balance of probabilities that the landlord had no intention of having a family member move into the property and that the landlord was looking for the most expeditious and convenient means to take back possession of the property. On that basis the notice given to end the tenancy was unlawful under section 60AA of the RTA which provides the following: 60AA Landlord acting to terminate tenancy without grounds A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application.
Breaching this obligation 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.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant today stated that the effect of the unlawful notice was to disrupt the lives of her and her flatmates. They each incurred moving costs and a period of having to pay double rent. It is unavoidable that this also comes at an emotional cost. No details on the amount of costs incurred were provided.
The landlord’s actions appear to have been targeted at increasing their financial return without regard to the consequences that had on their tenants.
Tenants have a right to expect landlords to act consistently with the act, to be transparent and communicative, and to engage with tenants constructively when tenants make requests that are within their rights. This landlord did not act in that way.
I am not aware of the landlord having breached this section previously.
When I consider the factors of this case I determine that this is a case where a moderate level of exemplary damages should be awarded. I determine $1,800.00 is an appropriate amount. Retaliatory Notice
The notice of termination was given on 27 December 2024. The version of the RTA that was in force at that time was “Version as at 30 January 2025”, replacing the earlier “Version as at 18 December 2024”.
The 63 days’ notice to end the tenancy is a provision under the earlier version, “Version as at 18 December 2024”. The correct notice, given under the subsequent “Version as at 30 January 2025” requires 42 days’ notice to be given if a family member is moving back into the premises.
The section 54 Retaliatory Notice provisions of these two respective versions is quite different. However they are similar in that they both require the notice being given to be a lawful notice under section 51 of the RTA in order for section 54 to be applied. Because I have determined the notice to end the tenancy was not lawful, the termination can not be declared retaliatory under either of the versions of the RTA.
Because Nikayla Jade Walton has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229893 — Exemplary damages at 82F Landscape Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229893 — Exemplary damages at 82F Landscape Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions