What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5495352?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5495352?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5495352?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5495352?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13726128-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5495352?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5495352?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5495352?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5495352?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13726128-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

76 Victoria Street, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5495352 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Curtis and Ms Phillips represented Whalan & Partners, Ms Sommerville represented the RSA.
Mr Selwyn applied for compensation and exemplary damages for issues he had with power/wiring at the premises, and for the landlord issuing a retaliatory notice to end the tenancy. However, he confirmed at the hearing that he is now only claiming exemplary damages for the issuing of a retaliatory notice.
Mr Selwyn had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 14 May 2021. A dispute arose between him and the RSA over the RSA’s use of a garage at the property, in particular the power usage and issues with electrical wiring. Mr Selwyn first advised the landlord of his concerns in May 2025. Both parties engaged lawyers and, on 26 February 2026, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the dispute. The agreement included the payment of a sum of money to Mr Selwyn.
On 19 March 2026, the RSA gave Mr Selwyn a 90-day notice to end the tenancy on 17 June 2026. Mr Selwyn subsequently gave the landlord a 21-day notice, and the tenancy ended on 2 June 2026.
Mr Selwyn claims that the 19 March notice was issued in retaliation of him asserting his rights with respect to the power issues. He bases his belief on the notice being issued within a short period of time after the settlement agreement was reached.

Is the notice retaliatory?

Section 54(1) and (2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the Tribunal may declare a notice to end the tenancy retaliatory if, in giving the notice, the landlord was wholly or partially motivated by the exercise of a right against the landlord in relation to the tenancy.
Section 54(3) of the Act declares that the issuing of a notice that is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum amount of $6,500.00 may be awarded.
Ms Somerville denied that there was any connection between Mr Selwyn asserting any rights he had regarding the power issue and the issuing of the notice. She said that the decision to issue the notice was solely to address the problem the RSA were having with room availability for its commercial activities and the community engagement part of its business. She said that they were having to turn away business because of the lack of room space and this had been an ongoing issue for the last 12 to 18 months. She was therefore asked, in February 2026, by the board to investigate and report back on the current usage of rooms and possible solutions. Minutes of a meeting held on 10 February support her evidence. Ms Sommerville concluded that of the four rental properties owned by the RSA in the area only one, the tenancy premises, would be suitable for use in its business because: it was next door to the RAS complex; it had three, potentially four, rooms that could be used; and it only required limited work to bring it to the required standard. The board accepted her findings and resolved to end Mr Selwyn’s tenancy to enable it to be used for additional meeting room space (recorded in the minutes of meeting held on 18 March 2026). Work was completed at the premises, including landscaping and installing a ramp, after Mr Selwyn’s tenancy ended, and the RSA gave notice to community groups inviting them to look at the new meeting rooms at the premises.
I accept Ms Sommerville’s evidence that the sole motivation for ending Mr Selwyn’s tenancy was to enable the RSA to utilise the premises for its business and community activities. As mentioned, the meeting minutes support her evidence and the actions of the RSA after Mr Selwyn’s tenancy ended also support the reason the premises were required. Although there is only a matter of weeks between the signing of the settlement agreement and the issuing of the notice, Mr Selwyn first asserted his rights regarding the power issue some 10 months before the notice was issued.
I am therefore satisfied that the that the 90-day notice issued by the landlord was not wholly or partially motivated by Mr Selwyn asserting a right. The application for exemplary damages for issuing a retaliatory is therefore dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Curtis and Ms Phillips represented Whalan & Partners, Ms Sommerville represented the RSA.
Mr Selwyn applied for compensation and exemplary damages for issues he had with power/wiring at the premises, and for the landlord issuing a retaliatory notice to end the tenancy. However, he confirmed at the hearing that he is now only claiming exemplary damages for the issuing of a retaliatory notice.
Mr Selwyn had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 14 May 2021. A dispute arose between him and the RSA over the RSA’s use of a garage at the property, in particular the power usage and issues with electrical wiring. Mr Selwyn first advised the landlord of his concerns in May 2025. Both parties engaged lawyers and, on 26 February 2026, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the dispute. The agreement included the payment of a sum of money to Mr Selwyn.
On 19 March 2026, the RSA gave Mr Selwyn a 90-day notice to end the tenancy on 17 June 2026. Mr Selwyn subsequently gave the landlord a 21-day notice, and the tenancy ended on 2 June 2026.
Mr Selwyn claims that the 19 March notice was issued in retaliation of him asserting his rights with respect to the power issues. He bases his belief on the notice being issued within a short period of time after the settlement agreement was reached.

Is the notice retaliatory?

Section 54(1) and (2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the Tribunal may declare a notice to end the tenancy retaliatory if, in giving the notice, the landlord was wholly or partially motivated by the exercise of a right against the landlord in relation to the tenancy.
Section 54(3) of the Act declares that the issuing of a notice that is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum amount of $6,500.00 may be awarded.
Ms Somerville denied that there was any connection between Mr Selwyn asserting any rights he had regarding the power issue and the issuing of the notice. She said that the decision to issue the notice was solely to address the problem the RSA were having with room availability for its commercial activities and the community engagement part of its business. She said that they were having to turn away business because of the lack of room space and this had been an ongoing issue for the last 12 to 18 months. She was therefore asked, in February 2026, by the board to investigate and report back on the current usage of rooms and possible solutions. Minutes of a meeting held on 10 February support her evidence. Ms Sommerville concluded that of the four rental properties owned by the RSA in the area only one, the tenancy premises, would be suitable for use in its business because: it was next door to the RAS complex; it had three, potentially four, rooms that could be used; and it only required limited work to bring it to the required standard. The board accepted her findings and resolved to end Mr Selwyn’s tenancy to enable it to be used for additional meeting room space (recorded in the minutes of meeting held on 18 March 2026). Work was completed at the premises, including landscaping and installing a ramp, after Mr Selwyn’s tenancy ended, and the RSA gave notice to community groups inviting them to look at the new meeting rooms at the premises.
I accept Ms Sommerville’s evidence that the sole motivation for ending Mr Selwyn’s tenancy was to enable the RSA to utilise the premises for its business and community activities. As mentioned, the meeting minutes support her evidence and the actions of the RSA after Mr Selwyn’s tenancy ended also support the reason the premises were required. Although there is only a matter of weeks between the signing of the settlement agreement and the issuing of the notice, Mr Selwyn first asserted his rights regarding the power issue some 10 months before the notice was issued.
I am therefore satisfied that the that the 90-day notice issued by the landlord was not wholly or partially motivated by Mr Selwyn asserting a right. The application for exemplary damages for issuing a retaliatory is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5495352 — Exemplary damages at 76 Victoria Street, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5495352 — Exemplary damages at 76 Victoria Street, Rangiora, Rangiora 7400

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions