What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5466217?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5466217?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5466217?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5466217?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13466346-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5466217?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5466217?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5466217?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5466217?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13466346-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Holly Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5466217 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

On 15 March 2026, the tenant filed an application seeking an order declaring the 90-day notice given by the landlord terminating the tenancy was retaliatory and of no effect.

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Mr Amar Durakovic and Ms Eve Pallatt, Property Managers, appeared for the landlord. Mr Parth Khunt appeared for both tenants. Background of the tenancy

The tenancy commenced on 3 September 2022 with the fixed term expiring on 3 September 2023. There after the tenancy became periodic.

On 24 October 2025, the tenant formally requested a rent reduction to align with market rentals for similar properties.

On 29 October 2025, the landlord reduced the tenants rent from $630.00 per week to $600.00 per week, commencing 2 November 2025.

On 4 March 2026, the landlord gave the tenant 90 days-days’ notice terminating the tenancy effective 3 June 2026. Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

Is the notice retaliatory?

The tenants claim the landlord issued a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy in response to their request for repairs to a rotten window frame, a leaking tap - which was damaging the bathroom vanity, and the water heater failing which needed to be replaced.

The tenants said the notice was issued seven days after the repairs were undertaken and the proximity of the notice to their request for maintenance suggests that the landlord thinks “I am a bit of a headache”.

The Property Manager denied the 90-day notice was retaliatory. The Tribunal heard the landlord issued the notice as he requires vacant possession of the property. The landlord is working with an architect to determine whether to develop this property or selling it to finance the development of another property he owns.

The Property Manager told the Tribunal that once the landlord has possession of this property their agency agreement him will end. The property is not going to be re-tenanted.

The Property Manager produced a maintenance log for the property dating back to 7 October 2022 showing 37 repairs were completed over the course of the tenancy. The most recent repairs completed were: a. 12 March 2026 – window repairs. b. 22 February 2026 – replacement of the hot water unit; and c. 18 February 2026 – replace leaking tap. The Property Manager said the landlord takes their responsibilities for repairs at the property seriously, and that 90-day notice was not motivated by a desire to avoid responsibility for maintenance obligations or because the tenants raised maintenance issues. Analysis and decision

Section 54 of the Act holds that the Tribunal may declare a notice to terminate a tenancy of no effect, and retaliatory if: In giving the notice, the landlord 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 this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.

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. See 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 effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) of the Act.

There are four issues to consider: a. Does the termination notice comply with section 51 of the Act? b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? If not, are there grounds to extend the notice period under section 96(2) of the Act? In Realty house Whakatane Limited v Eschbank [2020] NZDC 16081, the District Court held that the time limit for filing an application is mandatory but may be extended in limited circumstances. c. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord? d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?

Does the notice comply with section 51 of the Act?

In this case the landlord has issued a 90-day notice that complies with the requirements of section 51(1)(d) of the Act.

Was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served?

The tenant’s application was filed within 28 days’ of the notice being served. Was the landlord motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord?

The Tribunal has held that the term motivate has the ordinary dictionary meaning “to give impetus to...to impel”. Usually there will be little direct evidence about the landlord’s intent and in giving a termination notice. Therefore, the Tribunal must consider what inference, if any, can be drawn from the timing and sequence of events.

Where there is a short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord serving notice, this may lead to a strong inference that the landlord is at least in part motivated by the tenants exercising their rights. The right to issue a 90-day notice is not, in itself, evidence of a retaliatory notice.

The tenants say that the notice terminating the tenancy was issued within seven days of their raising an issue with the quality of the window repair. The Property Manager told the Tribunal they have no record of this being raised with them and said that if the repair were substandard, they would require their contractor to return to the property to remedy their faulty workmanship.

For the notice to be deemed to be retaliatory under section 54 of the Act, there must be credible evidence that the landlord was motivated by the tenant’s exercise of their rights or by a complaint made by the tenants. The parties confirmed that they have a positive landlord and tenant relationship. The tenant has previously raised issued of disrepair which have been remedied without issue. The evidence shows the landlord has undertaken consistent repairs to the property throughout the duration of the tenancy. There was no evidence of a dispute arising between the parties over the most recent request for repairs or a landlord attempting to avoid their obligations to undertake repairs. The Tribunal accepts the landlord’s evidence that the 90-day notice was issued as vacant possession is required as the property is assessed for its development potential or possible sale. The Tribunal is not persuaded on the evidence before it that the notice was given for retaliatory purposes. The claim therefore is dismissed. Other matters

The tenant seeks name suppression.

Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.

The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful and the tribunal declines to order suppression.

Reasons