The couple said they felt they “had no rights and no choice” other than to leave that day, taking what possessions they could. They left the remainder of their items in the bedroom they had occupied.
A week later they received a text message from one of Biddle’s children telling them they had until 5pm that day to remove their remaining property from the house or it would be taken to the charity shop. The message also said they would also be issued with a trespass notice, which would remain in place for two years.
That day the male tenant sought mediation, and it was agreed their property would remain at the house until there was somewhere to shift it. The couple subsequently found their possessions had been moved into the garage. Because the garage wasn’t watertight, they told the hearing there was a risk their property had been damaged or would be damaged.
The couple eventually took Biddle to the Tenancy Tribunal claiming exemplary damages for terminating the tenancy without valid notice, entering the tenancy without consent and disposing of their goods. Biddle did not attend the hearing.
The tribunal found a periodic tenancy was in place when the landlord gave notice and the tenants’ evidence was “persuasive” that they had no notice of the pair’s arrival, or that the landlord would be terminating their tenancy. They were also not given any reason why they had to leave, but there had been a disagreement between the female tenant and Biddle’s wife several weeks earlier.
It said Biddle had not given the tenants written notice to terminate the tenancy or provided a reason for the termination. It also said the timeframe the tenants were given to leave wasn’t “in keeping with the provisions of the RTA”. It was also satisfied the landlord’s children — who were acting as his agents — acted unlawfully by entering the premises and giving the tenants notice.
It found Biddle had acted intentionally in giving notice pointing to the fact he had sent his daughter and son to New Zealand “to end the tenancy with immediate effect and to ensure the tenants’ belongings are removed from the premises”.
It also said the tenancy agreement, which was not the standard form, included a section headed, “Address for Notice”.
“That shows Mr Biddle had turned his mind to the need to serve notices, such as a termination notice, on the tenants”, it said.
The decision found the tenants had moved out of the house with less than 24 hours’ notice and had taken only some of their possessions.
“They had to find somewhere to live at short notice. I am persuaded this has been very stressful on the tenants. It is in the tenants’ interests that landlords terminate tenancies only by giving proper written notice in circumstances where there is valid reason for termination as allowed under the RTA”.
But the tribunal said it could not determine that Biddle had disposed of the couple’s possessions, saying the tenants told the hearing they believed their goods were still in the garage and had not been disposed of.
The tenants sought $6500 in exemplary damages — the maximum allowed under the law. But the tribunal said the District Court had ruled this amount should be reserved for the worst cases. Instead, it ordered Biddle pay the couple $2600 — 40% of the maximum award to mark disapproval of the landlord’s conduct.
Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter, based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist for 20 years, including at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently she was working as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice.
