A complaint was made to MBIE in April 2022 about water coming into the property. After a site visit in June, concerns were raised with the landlord, Wei Zhang, about that water as well as a smoke alarm and electrical fault.

An extension cord was plugged into the bathroom to supply power to the lounge.

The tenant’s son complained again in November about continuing electrical problems.

The MBIE investigator phoned the landlord to advise than an improvement notice was to be issued, requiring the issues to be addressed. The landlord then told the investigator she would terminate the tenancy.

Within a quarter of an hour of the improvement notice being issued, the landlord had given the tenant notice that the tenancy was ending.

She told the tenant: “I haven’t heard you give me any information about the problem, but you keep telling me that the tenancy has various problems with my house, so I want to redecorate the house and decide to live in it by myself. Please move out of my house as soon as possible…within three months at the latest.”

MBIE asked the tribunal to set the termination notice aside and order exemplary damages on the grounds that it had been issued in retaliation.

The tribunal is allowed to determine a notice to terminate a tenancy is of no effect if the landlord was motivated even in part by the tenant proposing to or exercising any right, power, authority or remedy that they are able to under the tenancy agreement or law.

Zhang told the tribunal that an electrician had not been able to find any fault with the premises.

Tribunal adjudicator Rex Woodhouse says when Zhang issued the notice she did so at least partly motivated by the complaint to MBIE.

“Whether or not there is in fact an electrical issue, would not change anything as far as this retaliatory notice complaint is concerned. I have no reason to believe that the tenant and MBIE had not acted in good faith, or to put that another way, the improvement notice was issued with an honest belief there was an electrical problem. It is completely lawful for the tenant or MBIE to raise that with the landlord, and if the landlord terminated the tenancy in response, even in part, then the landlord is acting in a retaliatory way.”

The notice was set aside so the tenancy could continue.

Woodhouse says a third of the maximum amount of exemplary damages would be appropriate, but Zhang will not have to pay until the tribunal has considered a claim from her for rent arrears.

Sarin a Gibbon, general manager of the Auckland Property Investors Association, says this is the TCIT showing its teeth.

“It is easy to forget how expansive the TCIT’s jurisdiction is. It is oversight over the entire lifespan of a tenancy. Landlords need to be aware of their reach and authority.”