What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4408400 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4408400?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4408400?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4408400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8263249-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4408400 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4408400?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4408400?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4408400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8263249-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4408400 — 14-day notice

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

The landlord claims that the tenant has breached their obligations on three occasions, I shall deal with each one separately.

Firstly, by growing marijuana on the section.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 14 September 2022.

A photo was submitted in evidence. The photo had been given by a neighbour who had ‘issues’ with the tenants adult children. There is no evidence of the date the photo was taken, and the photo evidence of the tenant’s yard is immaculate. The property manager confirmed that there has never been any evidence of the pot growing marijuana in the yard and if that had been the case the lawn in that area would have been damaged.

There is no evidence of the pot there, so even if it had been, the issue was remedied.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because there is insufficient evidence that this existed when the notice was given.

The landlord issued another notice on the same day, 14 September 2022 following an allegation from the neighbour that he had knocked over the wheelie bin dragging it down the road. The tenant accepted that he did that but unintentionally. The reality is that that one incident has not been repeated so it can not be said that it has not been remedied. Further I am advised that the neighbour had moved out which should resolve all issues. The property manager was clear that the tenant is otherwise an excellent tenant and keeps the property immaculate.

A further 14 day notice was issued on 25 September as a photo was taken of the tenant’s partner entering the property with a small Bichon Frise dog. The dog is the tenant’s partner who does take the dog if she visits and if she stays it stays with her son. I accept this evidence and do not deem on the evidence this is a breach that warrants termination of the tenancy. The tenant did not understand this to have been a breach and he and his partner confirmed that the dog will simply not visit. I reiterate that the property manager confirmed there were no issues on inspections.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The applicant has not satisfied me that there should be a termination of the tenancy and the claim must be dismissed.

Based on the above I believe it is in everyone’s interest to have name suppression of all parties.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant and landlord’ name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord claims that the tenant has breached their obligations on three occasions, I shall deal with each one separately.
Firstly, by growing marijuana on the section.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 14 September 2022.
A photo was submitted in evidence. The photo had been given by a neighbour who had ‘issues’ with the tenants adult children. There is no evidence of the date the photo was taken, and the photo evidence of the tenant’s yard is immaculate. The property manager confirmed that there has never been any evidence of the pot growing marijuana in the yard and if that had been the case the lawn in that area would have been damaged.
There is no evidence of the pot there, so even if it had been, the issue was remedied.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because there is insufficient evidence that this existed when the notice was given.
The landlord issued another notice on the same day, 14 September 2022 following an allegation from the neighbour that he had knocked over the wheelie bin dragging it down the road. The tenant accepted that he did that but unintentionally. The reality is that that one incident has not been repeated so it can not be said that it has not been remedied. Further I am advised that the neighbour had moved out which should resolve all issues. The property manager was clear that the tenant is otherwise an excellent tenant and keeps the property immaculate.
A further 14 day notice was issued on 25 September as a photo was taken of the tenant’s partner entering the property with a small Bichon Frise dog. The dog is the tenant’s partner who does take the dog if she visits and if she stays it stays with her son. I accept this evidence and do not deem on the evidence this is a breach that warrants termination of the tenancy. The tenant did not understand this to have been a breach and he and his partner confirmed that the dog will simply not visit. I reiterate that the property manager confirmed there were no issues on inspections.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant has not satisfied me that there should be a termination of the tenancy and the claim must be dismissed.
Based on the above I believe it is in everyone’s interest to have name suppression of all parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4408400 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4408400 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions