What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5257959?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5257959?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257959?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12207996-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5257959?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5257959?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257959?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12207996-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Marchant Road, Hihi, RD 1, Mangonui 0494 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5257959 — Cleanliness

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

This is the third application filed by Ms Lyubina raising issues relating to the termination of her tenancy, and the actions of Ray White in the wake of the termination. 1
On 7 February 2025 the landlord issued a notice to end the tenancy on 8 May 2025. This notice was issued soon after a law change (on 30 January 2025) that allowed landlords to terminate a periodic tenancy by giving a 90-day notice, without having to give a reason for termination. Although landlords were no longer required to give a reason for termination, the landlord did give a reason in this instance - that they intended to carry out substantial renovations to the premises. 1 Lyubina v Ray White Doubtless Bay [2025] NZTT 5244991, Far North Circle Real Estate Ltd v Lyubina [2025] NZTT 5260802, 5273779
Ms Lyubina’s previous applications argued that the notice was retaliatory. She also argued that the landlord harassed her. She sought an extension of the termination date to allow her time to find another property.
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed those applications. The Tribunal found that the notice was lawful, that the landlord had not harassed the tenant, and that there was no legal basis to ‘extend’ the tenancy.
The new issue / argument that Ms Lyubina raises in this application is that Ray White (specifically, Ms Loane) discriminated against her by not giving her the opportunity for a new tenancy in any Ray White managed property in the area. Law
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to discriminate against any person, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993, in respect of the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination, or renewal of a tenancy. 2 Exemplary damages of up to $6,500 can apply.
Per the Human Rights Act 1993, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are: 3 a. sex, b. marital status, c. religious belief, d. ethical belief, e. colour, f. race, g. ethnic or national origins, h. disability, i. age, j. political opinion, k. employment status, l. family status, m. sexual orientation.

What happened?

2 Section 12, Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 3 Section 21, Human Rights Act 1993

On 10 April Ms Lyubina sent Ms Loane an email asking her help to find a new property. Ms Lyubina explained that she wanted to remain in the area because her daughter was settled in a local school. She expressed interest in a property that Ray White had listed at that time.
Ms Loane replied: I’ll be honest with you, cleanliness has always been an issue and you always argue and don’t take on what we say. This has been the feedback from all your property managers. [The currently listed tenancy] is a casual owner, an elderly woman and I wouldn’t want her to have to deal with the same issues.
Ms Lyubina responded on 10 April and 15 April, expressing surprise at Ms Loane’s comments and asking her to re-consider. Ms Lyubina’s emails were polite and professional.
There were further emails between them in April and May. Ms Lyubina maintained that she would be unable to leave on 8 May if Ray White did not help her into a new tenancy. Ms Loane maintained that Ray White could not assist, and that the 8 May date stood. Findings
It is clear that the termination of the tenancy caused enormous stress and disruption for Ms Lyubina.
However, that does not mean that the landlord’s actions were unlawful. Landlords a free to terminate a tenancy by giving 90-days’ notice. Tenants are free to terminate a tenancy by giving 21-days’ notice. The notice period does not vary according to where the property is, or whether the rental market is easy or difficult.
Similarly, landlords are free to grant a tenancy to whoever they want, having regard to any criteria that they want, as long as the criteria are not any of the factors listed at paragraph 8 above.
The structure of Ms Lyubina’s argument is that: a. There is no reasonable basis for Ms Loane’s stated reason for declining to assist (lack of cleanliness). b. Therefore there must be some other, unstated, reason. c. That unstated reason must be some prejudice against her.
Ms Lyubina said that Ray White did not issue a breach notice for cleaning during her six-year tenancy.
Ms Lyubina said that Ray White’s practice is to unfairly accuse tenants of failing to keep the property clean, thereby pressuring tenants into paying for maintenance costs that should fall to the landlord. Ms Lyubina said that this strategy can work on tenants who receive assistance from WINZ. She said that Ray White did not want her as a tenant because they cannot use this strategy on her.
Ms Loane said that: a. Ray White did issue a breach notice, in October 2022. b. She carried out an inspection herself several years ago. She noted that the premises were not clean. During the inspection Ms Lyubina told her that the elements on the stove occasionally caught fire. When she inspected the stove, she saw that it was very unclean, and that was the cause of the problem. She explained this to Ms Lyubina, who refused to accept that the stove was not clean.
The difficulty for Ms Lyubina is that she must not only prove that Ms Loane’s stated reason for declining to grant a new tenancy is not genuine, she must also prove that the actual reason is related to a prohibited grounds for discrimination.
The only potentially relevant argument that Ms Lyubina put forward is set out at paragraph 17 above. That allegation, if proven, could amount to discrimination on the basis of employment status.
However, the argument is not at all proven. It is entirely speculative. No evidence was put forward to support it.
In short, it is not proven that Ray White refused to grant Ms Lyubina a tenancy for reasons that are prohibited grounds for discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993.
Therefore, the application must be dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

This is the third application filed by Ms Lyubina raising issues relating to the termination of her tenancy, and the actions of Ray White in the wake of the termination. 1
On 7 February 2025 the landlord issued a notice to end the tenancy on 8 May 2025. This notice was issued soon after a law change (on 30 January 2025) that allowed landlords to terminate a periodic tenancy by giving a 90-day notice, without having to give a reason for termination. Although landlords were no longer required to give a reason for termination, the landlord did give a reason in this instance - that they intended to carry out substantial renovations to the premises. 1 Lyubina v Ray White Doubtless Bay [2025] NZTT 5244991, Far North Circle Real Estate Ltd v Lyubina [2025] NZTT 5260802, 5273779
Ms Lyubina’s previous applications argued that the notice was retaliatory. She also argued that the landlord harassed her. She sought an extension of the termination date to allow her time to find another property.
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed those applications. The Tribunal found that the notice was lawful, that the landlord had not harassed the tenant, and that there was no legal basis to ‘extend’ the tenancy.
The new issue / argument that Ms Lyubina raises in this application is that Ray White (specifically, Ms Loane) discriminated against her by not giving her the opportunity for a new tenancy in any Ray White managed property in the area. Law
It is an unlawful act for a landlord to discriminate against any person, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993, in respect of the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination, or renewal of a tenancy. 2 Exemplary damages of up to $6,500 can apply.
Per the Human Rights Act 1993, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are: 3 a. sex, b. marital status, c. religious belief, d. ethical belief, e. colour, f. race, g. ethnic or national origins, h. disability, i. age, j. political opinion, k. employment status, l. family status, m. sexual orientation.

What happened?

2 Section 12, Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 3 Section 21, Human Rights Act 1993

On 10 April Ms Lyubina sent Ms Loane an email asking her help to find a new property. Ms Lyubina explained that she wanted to remain in the area because her daughter was settled in a local school. She expressed interest in a property that Ray White had listed at that time.
Ms Loane replied: I’ll be honest with you, cleanliness has always been an issue and you always argue and don’t take on what we say. This has been the feedback from all your property managers. [The currently listed tenancy] is a casual owner, an elderly woman and I wouldn’t want her to have to deal with the same issues.
Ms Lyubina responded on 10 April and 15 April, expressing surprise at Ms Loane’s comments and asking her to re-consider. Ms Lyubina’s emails were polite and professional.
There were further emails between them in April and May. Ms Lyubina maintained that she would be unable to leave on 8 May if Ray White did not help her into a new tenancy. Ms Loane maintained that Ray White could not assist, and that the 8 May date stood. Findings
It is clear that the termination of the tenancy caused enormous stress and disruption for Ms Lyubina.
However, that does not mean that the landlord’s actions were unlawful. Landlords a free to terminate a tenancy by giving 90-days’ notice. Tenants are free to terminate a tenancy by giving 21-days’ notice. The notice period does not vary according to where the property is, or whether the rental market is easy or difficult.
Similarly, landlords are free to grant a tenancy to whoever they want, having regard to any criteria that they want, as long as the criteria are not any of the factors listed at paragraph 8 above.
The structure of Ms Lyubina’s argument is that: a. There is no reasonable basis for Ms Loane’s stated reason for declining to assist (lack of cleanliness). b. Therefore there must be some other, unstated, reason. c. That unstated reason must be some prejudice against her.
Ms Lyubina said that Ray White did not issue a breach notice for cleaning during her six-year tenancy.
Ms Lyubina said that Ray White’s practice is to unfairly accuse tenants of failing to keep the property clean, thereby pressuring tenants into paying for maintenance costs that should fall to the landlord. Ms Lyubina said that this strategy can work on tenants who receive assistance from WINZ. She said that Ray White did not want her as a tenant because they cannot use this strategy on her.
Ms Loane said that: a. Ray White did issue a breach notice, in October 2022. b. She carried out an inspection herself several years ago. She noted that the premises were not clean. During the inspection Ms Lyubina told her that the elements on the stove occasionally caught fire. When she inspected the stove, she saw that it was very unclean, and that was the cause of the problem. She explained this to Ms Lyubina, who refused to accept that the stove was not clean.
The difficulty for Ms Lyubina is that she must not only prove that Ms Loane’s stated reason for declining to grant a new tenancy is not genuine, she must also prove that the actual reason is related to a prohibited grounds for discrimination.
The only potentially relevant argument that Ms Lyubina put forward is set out at paragraph 17 above. That allegation, if proven, could amount to discrimination on the basis of employment status.
However, the argument is not at all proven. It is entirely speculative. No evidence was put forward to support it.
In short, it is not proven that Ray White refused to grant Ms Lyubina a tenancy for reasons that are prohibited grounds for discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993.
Therefore, the application must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257959 — Cleanliness at 15 Marchant Road, Hihi, RD 1, Mangonui 0494

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257959 — Cleanliness at 15 Marchant Road, Hihi, RD 1, Mangonui 0494

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What happened?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What happened?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions