What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5255761?

The tribunal order states: Baystays Limited As Agent For J Davies is granted possession of the premises

How much money was awarded in case 5255761?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5255761?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5255761?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12197126-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5255761?

The tribunal order states: Baystays Limited As Agent For J Davies is granted possession of the premises

How much money was awarded in case 5255761?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5255761?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5255761?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12197126-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27 Arapeta Place, Takaka, Takaka 7110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5255761 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 31 July 2025.

The tenancy commenced on 16 November 2021. The current landlord took over management of the tenancy in August 2024.

The tenant’s applications to the Tribunal are ; • The landlord has acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds (s.60AA RTA). • The landlord has breached the tenants quiet enjoyment by way of a breach of the tenant’s privacy. • The tenant seeks exemplary damages for the breaches.

The landlord’s applications to the Tribunal are for; • Possession. • Breach of the tenancy agreement, by exceeding the number of approved tenants. • Breaching the tenancy agreement by having unregistered and unwarranted vehicles parked on the lawn. • Reimbursement of the filing fee.

The factual background to this matter is not greatly in dispute and can be summarised as follows;

The tenancy commenced in 2021. The landlord took over management of the premises in August 2024.

The tenant returned to the premises on 16 March 2025, having been in an area of the country without internet or mobile coverage. Upon her return to an area which had coverage, she discovered that the landlord had sent a notice to her on 14 March 2025, that methamphetamine testing was to be conducted at the premises on 16 March 2025. This came as something of a surprise to the tenant, but she accepted that the sole reason for her not receiving the notice provided by the landlord earlier, was that she had been out of a coverage area.

The testing was completed on 16 March 2025.

On 20 March 2025, the tenant received a written notice of termination of the tenancy from the landlord. The notice gave the tenant 90 days’ notice. No reasons for the termination were provided in the notice.

Some hours later, the tenant received a copy of the methamphetamine test results. The test results indicated a positive result for methamphetamine. I record there no pre-tenancy methamphetamine baseline test had been carried out by the landlord. As a result, it would be impossible to tell whether the methamphetamine residue discovered by the testing had been at the premises since prior to the tenant commencing the tenancy.

The District Court in Erin Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnyak (2021) NZDC 15210 held that “the lack of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy significantly weakens the circumstantial case against the tenants to the point where it is not possible to conclude on the balance of probabilities that it was the tenants who were responsible for the methamphetamine residue located at the premises at the end of their tenancy.”

The tenant says that it can be inferred because of the time between the testing results being available and receiving the notice, that the reason for the termination notice being issued was the methamphetamine testing result. The tenant says that this makes the notice invalid.

The notice of termination does not provide any reasons for the termination.

Section 51 RTA was amended with effect from 30 January 2025. That section provides that a landlord may give 90 days’ notice of termination of a tenancy to a tenant without being required to give a reason.

The Tribunal must be careful to ensure that parliament's intention to allow landlords to terminate a tenancy without reason by giving 90 days’ notice is implemented.

Any alleged retaliatory notice by a landlord must meet the s.54 RTA criteria on the balance of probabilities before it can be set aside. In short, s.54 RTA requires that for there to be a finding of a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal must accept that a landlord in giving a termination notice, was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by the RTA or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy. Whilst the tenant did not file an application alleging retaliatory notice by the landlord, had she done so, the application would have been dismissed as a result of the tenant’s failure to meet the s. 54 RTA criteria.

The tenant further claims that the landlord has acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds (see s.60AA RTA). A landlord will commit an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant, knowing that they are not entitled under the RTA to give the notice. The amended s.51 RTA makes it clear that the landlord was entitled to give the notice and that no reasons were required to be given by the landlord in that notice.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.

The tenancy ended on 20 June 2025, as a result of the termination notice from the landlord. The end of the tenancy is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) RTA are satisfied. The Tribunal orders that possession of the premises be granted to the landlord at 11.59 am on Friday 8 August 2025.

Olivia Florence Ma’a claims the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises and seeks exemplary damages.

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

The tenant says that the landlord has breached her privacy by disclosing the results of the methamphetamine test to people other than the tenant. The tenant says that a Wendy Davies had become aware of the results. Wendy Davies is the ex-partner of the tenant’s partner. The tenant provided copies of messages between Wendy Davies and Jenna Bowden, an employee of the landlord, to the Tribunal. The messages make it clear that Wendy Davies has become aware of something to do with methamphetamine use in the community. It is not clear that the messages relate to the tenant, but that is a reasonable assumption, given the recipient of the message. The only direct reference to this tenant in the messages by Wendy Davies, received a reply from the landlord, that due to privacy reasons, they are unable to comment on any tenancy.

The burden of proving that there has been a breach of her quiet enjoyment is on the tenant. I am not satisfied that the tenant has proven on the civil standard of more likely than not, that there has been a breach of her privacy by the landlord. The application is dismissed.

The landlord seeks compensation for breaches of the tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement for the premises provides that the maximum number of people to reside at the premises is “one adult and one child”. The landlord says that the tenant’s partner has also lived at the premises. Further, the landlord says that the tenant has had unwarranted and unregistered vehicles parked on the grass at the premises. The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant must not park cars on the grass at the premises. 27Where a landlord alleges that there has been a breach of the tenancy agreement and that breach is capable of remedy, section 56 (1)(b) RTA requires the landlord to give the tenant a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the tenant to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days, commencing with the day on which the notice was given, and the tenant has failed to remedy the default.

The landlord says that following an inspection, a 14 day breach notice was sent to the tenant on 14 May 2025. The landlord said that at a follow up inspection on 4 June 2025, the tenant’s partner was present during the course of the inspection and the vehicles were all still on the grass. The tenant in her evidence accepted that the vehicles had been on the grass. She said that one of the vehicles had now been removed.

The burden of proof on this matter lies with the landlord. The landlord must prove their claim to the civil standard of more likely than not. Limited evidence was provided to show that the tenant’s partner was a permanent resident at the premises. The fact that the tenant’s partner was at the premises during the course of the follow up inspection, does not in and of itself, prove that the partner was a permanent resident. It may be that the partner was visiting. I am not satisfied on the evidence provided that there has been a breach, nor that any breach was not remedied. That claim is dismissed.

I accept that having vehicles on the grass at the premises was a breach of the tenancy agreement. The landlord served a 14 day breach notice on the tenant. The tenant did not comply with that notice. In considering whether any compensation should be ordered, I am conscious that no evidence of damage as a result of the breach was provided by the landlord. In the circumstances, I record that whilst has been a breach of the tenancy agreement, no compensation is to be awarded for that breach as there is no evidence of landlord loss.

The landlord seeks reimbursement of the filing fee. I am not satisfied that the landlord has been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. No order is made for the reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord applied for name suppression. As I am not satisfied that the landlord has been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing, the landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 31 July 2025.

The tenancy commenced on 16 November 2021. The current landlord took over management of the tenancy in August 2024.

The factual background to this matter is not greatly in dispute and can be summarised as follows;

The tenancy commenced in 2021. The landlord took over management of the premises in August 2024.

The testing was completed on 16 March 2025.

The notice of termination does not provide any reasons for the termination.

The Tribunal must be careful to ensure that parliament's intention to allow landlords to terminate a tenancy without reason by giving 90 days’ notice is implemented.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.

Olivia Florence Ma’a claims the landlord has breached her quiet enjoyment of the premises and seeks exemplary damages.

A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

The landlord applied for name suppression. As I am not satisfied that the landlord has been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing, the landlord’s application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5255761 — 14-day notice at 27 Arapeta Place, Takaka, Takaka 7110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5255761 — 14-day notice at 27 Arapeta Place, Takaka, Takaka 7110

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