What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4573869 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 4573869?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4573869?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4573869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9256811-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4573869 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 4573869?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4573869?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4573869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9256811-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4573869 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by [The landlord’s representative], attended the hearing by teleconference, with the Tribunal’s consent. While notified, the tenant did not attend, and the hearing proceeded in her absence.
This is a periodic tenancy which began on 3 August 2022. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord gave the tenant a 14 day notice on 31 March 2023 requiring the tenant to repair damage to the walls and door, replace the door stopper, clean the bathroom, and remove marks on the walls and door. The landlord re-inspected the premises at the end of the 14 day period and found the tenant had not complied with the notice. Photographic evidence has been provided.
The landlord’s oral evidence is that the estimated cost of the repairs is around $500.00. The door would likely need to be replaced. The matter was unable to be resolved through mediation. Only one 14 day notice has been issued.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
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.
In this jurisdiction, it is the party making the claim (in this case, the landlord) who has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means that the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not.” For the Tribunal to find in their favour, the landlord must be able to show that the tenant has been in breach of a legal obligation.
During the tenancy, the tenant’s obligation is to keep the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. 1 “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 2 . So, if it is found that the tenant has been in breach of this obligation, a 14-day notice may be served to remedy this breach, and the landlord would need to establish that, at the end of the 14 day period, the tenant has failed to clean and tidy the premises to a reasonable standard.
In terms of any damage by the tenant, the landlord may repair this damage before the tenancy ends, but it is not for the tenant to undertake these repairs. This is because it is the responsibility of the landlord to repair the tenancy premises. 3 The tenant’s responsibility, in this regard, is to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovering any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. This is stated in section 40(1)(d) of the RTA.
In this case, having considered the evidence and submissions of the landlord, I find the landlord has not established that the tenant has failed to keep the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The evidence concerning this aspect of the breach notice is limited. Therefore, the landlord has not shown that the tenant has breached this obligation under the RTA. 1 Section 40(1)(c) of the RTA 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 3 Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA and Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson 6.14 at p119
In terms of the damage, the photographic evidence of the damage is accepted. However, it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair the damage once notified of it. Therefore, this is not a situation where the tenant can be required to undertake the repairs.
Furthermore, even if the Tribunal were to find that the tenant had been in breach, there would remain the issue of whether the tenant’s breaches were serious enough to terminate the tenancy. The ending of a tenancy has significant implications for the tenant and is a measure that is not taken lightly. There are many factors to be considered in determining whether a breach is serious enough to terminate. This is noted by the District Court decision in Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation. 4 These factors include whether the breach is accidental or intentional, any immoral or illegal use, whether a breach is made good by the tenant, the landlord’s conduct, the tenant’s personal qualifications and financial position, the position of third parties, the gravity of the breach, lasting damage and proportionality.
Applying the relevant factors in this case, even if the landlord had established the breaches noted, as explained at the hearing, the Tribunal is unable to conclude that termination of the tenancy is warranted. Consequently, the landlord’s application is dismissed. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been unsuccessful with its application, the filing fee is not reimbursed.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by [The landlord’s representative], attended the hearing by teleconference, with the Tribunal’s consent. While notified, the tenant did not attend, and the hearing proceeded in her absence.
This is a periodic tenancy which began on 3 August 2022. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord gave the tenant a 14 day notice on 31 March 2023 requiring the tenant to repair damage to the walls and door, replace the door stopper, clean the bathroom, and remove marks on the walls and door. The landlord re-inspected the premises at the end of the 14 day period and found the tenant had not complied with the notice. Photographic evidence has been provided.
The landlord’s oral evidence is that the estimated cost of the repairs is around $500.00. The door would likely need to be replaced. The matter was unable to be resolved through mediation. Only one 14 day notice has been issued.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
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.
In this jurisdiction, it is the party making the claim (in this case, the landlord) who has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means that the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not.” For the Tribunal to find in their favour, the landlord must be able to show that the tenant has been in breach of a legal obligation.
During the tenancy, the tenant’s obligation is to keep the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. 1 “Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 2 . So, if it is found that the tenant has been in breach of this obligation, a 14-day notice may be served to remedy this breach, and the landlord would need to establish that, at the end of the 14 day period, the tenant has failed to clean and tidy the premises to a reasonable standard.
In terms of any damage by the tenant, the landlord may repair this damage before the tenancy ends, but it is not for the tenant to undertake these repairs. This is because it is the responsibility of the landlord to repair the tenancy premises. 3 The tenant’s responsibility, in this regard, is to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovering any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. This is stated in section 40(1)(d) of the RTA.
In this case, having considered the evidence and submissions of the landlord, I find the landlord has not established that the tenant has failed to keep the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The evidence concerning this aspect of the breach notice is limited. Therefore, the landlord has not shown that the tenant has breached this obligation under the RTA. 1 Section 40(1)(c) of the RTA 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 3 Section 45(1)(b) of the RTA and Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand S. Benson 6.14 at p119
In terms of the damage, the photographic evidence of the damage is accepted. However, it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair the damage once notified of it. Therefore, this is not a situation where the tenant can be required to undertake the repairs.
Furthermore, even if the Tribunal were to find that the tenant had been in breach, there would remain the issue of whether the tenant’s breaches were serious enough to terminate the tenancy. The ending of a tenancy has significant implications for the tenant and is a measure that is not taken lightly. There are many factors to be considered in determining whether a breach is serious enough to terminate. This is noted by the District Court decision in Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation. 4 These factors include whether the breach is accidental or intentional, any immoral or illegal use, whether a breach is made good by the tenant, the landlord’s conduct, the tenant’s personal qualifications and financial position, the position of third parties, the gravity of the breach, lasting damage and proportionality.
Applying the relevant factors in this case, even if the landlord had established the breaches noted, as explained at the hearing, the Tribunal is unable to conclude that termination of the tenancy is warranted. Consequently, the landlord’s application is dismissed. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been unsuccessful with its application, the filing fee is not reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4573869 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4573869 — 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