An Auckland couple has won financial damages against their landlord after the Tenancy Tribunal ruled their 90-day eviction notice was in part an unlawful "retaliatory" action.Rhys Duncan and his partner went to great lengths to prove the sudden notice to end their seven-year Massey lease was manifestly unfair.
This included orchestrating a sting operation in which their property manager Nikki Dixon was secretly recorded giving the professional couple a bad reference to a relative posing as a prospective landlord.
In the recording, Dixon said the couple had been a "constant struggle".
"I mean they are not terrible but ... I probably would avoid them if possible.
"I just made the decision it would be best for us to move them on and find new tenants."
The recording was used as evidence against property management company NZ Invest during a tribunal hearing in December 2016 after the couple challenged the decision to evict their family.
..
In the couple's case, the tribunal ruled Dixon had unlawfully issued the eviction notice after the couple challenged claims they were behind in rent.
Duncan said that after he demanded evidence in a terse phone conversation with Dixon, the company arranged a property inspection then issued the eviction notice within days.
The tribunal ruled the notice was in part retaliatory and unlawful under the Residential Tenancies Act.
Duncan had been entitled to seek clarification regarding his rent payments, the adjudicator said.
"I have come to the conclusion that the notice was at least partially motivated by the tenant's attempted exercise of his rights under the RTA.
"I have no doubt that if Mr Duncan had not pursued an explanation of the tenant ledger with the zeal that he did, he would not have been served a 90 day notice by the landlord."
This included orchestrating a sting operation in which their property manager Nikki Dixon was secretly recorded giving the professional couple a bad reference to a relative posing as a prospective landlord.
In the recording, Dixon said the couple had been a "constant struggle".
"I mean they are not terrible but ... I probably would avoid them if possible.
"I just made the decision it would be best for us to move them on and find new tenants."
The recording was used as evidence against property management company NZ Invest during a tribunal hearing in December 2016 after the couple challenged the decision to evict their family.
..
In the couple's case, the tribunal ruled Dixon had unlawfully issued the eviction notice after the couple challenged claims they were behind in rent.
Duncan said that after he demanded evidence in a terse phone conversation with Dixon, the company arranged a property inspection then issued the eviction notice within days.
The tribunal ruled the notice was in part retaliatory and unlawful under the Residential Tenancies Act.
Duncan had been entitled to seek clarification regarding his rent payments, the adjudicator said.
"I have come to the conclusion that the notice was at least partially motivated by the tenant's attempted exercise of his rights under the RTA.
"I have no doubt that if Mr Duncan had not pursued an explanation of the tenant ledger with the zeal that he did, he would not have been served a 90 day notice by the landlord."
Got to love retaliation. Fined the equivalent of 1-2 letting fees, doesn't seem like much disincentive for disgraceful behavior. Property management.. such an honorable profession
Comment