What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4635389 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and

How much money was awarded in case 4635389?

The reconciled net award was $20.44.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4635389?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4635389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9286821-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4635389 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and

How much money was awarded in case 4635389?

The reconciled net award was $20.44.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4635389?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4635389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9286821-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4635389 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4635389 — net $20.44 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$20.44

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.

The occupant of [Tenancy address suppressed] known only as “[The third-party occupant]” must vacate those premises on or before 2.00pm on Monday 14 August 2023.

[The landlord/s] is granted the right to possession of [Tenancy address suppressed] on behalf of [Tenant 1] at 2.00pm on Monday 14 August 2023.

[Tenant 1] is the sole legal tenant of the premises and retains the right to possession after the above date and time.

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] the filing fee of $20.44, immediately.

Reasons

The landlord’s representatives and the tenant attended the hearing today.

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

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 tenancy agreement states that maximum occupancy in this room is one adult. I am satisfied that an additional person (named “[The third-party occupant]”) is also living in the room without the consent of the landlord.

The tenant has breached their obligations by allowing an additional occupant to live at the premises. No other breaches have been proven.

The landlord served a breach notice on the tenant on 19 June 2023 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

There are three other tenants who live at this address and share kitchen and living room facilities. They are entitled to know that only tenants who have been approved by the landlord are living at the premises.

I agree that the additional occupant must move out of the premises. I have made an order saying that [The third-party occupant] must move out by 2pm on Monday 14 August 2023.

I have not made an order terminating the tenancy of [Tenant 1]. There is insufficient evidence to show that he has breached the Act in any way except allowing the additional occupant. However, he should understand that he is legally responsible for the actions of any person who is in the premises with his permission.

I have also made an order giving the landlord the legal right to possession on behalf of [Tenant 1]. The landlord may apply for a District Court warrant of eviction against [The third-party occupant] after 2pm on Monday 14 August 2023.

[Tenant 1] retains the legal right to possession after that date and time as he is the sole legal tenant. Costs of cleaning the kitchen

The landlord claims that [The third-party occupant] or [Tenant 1] caused mess in the communal kitchen and they should pay costs to clean this. I dismiss this claim because it is not known who caused the mess. Also, there was no invoice provided. Exemplary damages for additional occupant

Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which a tenant may be fined up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord has proven that the tenant has breached this obligation. However, it was clear in the hearing that the tenant did not know that the tenancy agreement contained a clause that limits occupants to one. He now understands that the other person must move out or his tenancy will be terminated.

I do not award a fine (exemplary damages) on this occasion. However, if the tenant allows [The third-party occupant] to return to live at the premises, he needs to be aware that he may be fined under this section. Exemplary damages for harassment of other tenant

A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants, or of neighbours. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A RTA.

There is insufficient evidence to prove a breach of this obligation. Direct telephone or in-person evidence from the tenants or neighbours who say they have been harassed by [The third-party occupant] would usually be required. This claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression of names

The landlord was justified in making the application so the tenant must pay the filing fee.

Neither party has fully succeeded in the claims, so they are not entitled to name suppression as of right; s95A RTA.

However, I have considered the parties interests and the public interest and now suppress both landlord and tenant names. The landlord has acted properly to protect the interests of the other tenants. The only breach by the tenant is to let [The third-party occupant] live with him. This is not something he needs to have his name published for.

I have removed the name of the guarantor as no money orders of note have been made.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4635389 — net $20.44 NZD. Verify amounts on MoJ.
Claim	Category	Amount	Awarded to	Reason
Net award	$20.44