What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4706889 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4706889?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4706889?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4706889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9556758-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4706889 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4706889?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4706889?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4706889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9556758-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4706889 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 3 March 2023 and is a fixed term tenancy through until 2 March 2024.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal to have the tenancy terminated on the grounds that a 14-day breach notice served on the tenant on 11 September 2023 has not been complied with. General Law
The party bringing the claim is required to prove their claim to the civil standard called the “balance of probabilities.” The point where I accept that it is more likely than not that their version of events is correct. In crude mathematical terms, this might be described as meaning that the party whose claim has a probability threshold of 51% will meet the standard of proof. If they only reach 50% or less, then as a matter of law their claim must fail.
In this matter the onus or job of proving the claims fall on the landlord.
Just because I may find for one party or the other on a particular issue, does not necessarily mean that the unsuccessful party is wrong. It merely means that on the evidence presented, I was not sufficiently certain to make an order.
The Tribunal is not required to set out all of the evidence proffered by the parties at the hearing, but they can be assured that it has been taken into account in reaching this decision. Termination
Section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy on the application of a landlord where a tenant has breached a term of the tenancy agreement and in the case of a breach capable of remedy, the landlord has given the tenant a 14 day notice specifying the nature of the breach and requiring the tenant to remedy the breach within no less than 14 days, commencing on the date on which the notice was given.
The landlord attended a water leak at the adjoining flat 2 in early September 2023. Whilst investigation the leak at flat 2, the landlord sought the tenant’s permission to enter flat 3. Whilst there the landlord saw a dog.
The tenancy agreement entered into by the parties at the commencement of the tenancy states that the tenant could have a cat at the premises only.
The landlord returned to the premises the next week to discuss the presence of the dog.
The tenant explained that they had recently obtained a dog and asked if the landlord would talk to the owner of the premises to seek permission to have the dog remain at the premises.
The landlord did speak to the owner, but permission to have the dog was not granted by the owner.
A 14-day beach notice dated 11 September 2023 was served on the tenant. The notice provided that the tenant had until 26 September 2023 to remove the dog.
During the evidence, I asked the landlord if they had seen the dog at the premises at any time following the expiry of the 14-day notice. The landlord said that they had not.
I asked the landlord if the tenant had told them that the dog was still present after the expiry of the 14-day notice. The landlord said that the tenant had not.
The landlord referred to a letter received from the tenant’s lawyer confirming that the dog was no longer present at the premises.
The only reference made to the dog remaining at the premises after the expiry was when the landlord said that she had been told by the owner that the dog was still present. The owner was not at the hearing to give this evidence, nor was any written statement from the owner provided.
The onus of proving the claim on the balance of probabilities rests with the landlord. The landlord is inviting the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy. In those circumstances, I require the landlord to provide sufficient evidence so that I may reach the point where I consider that it is more likely than not that the tenant has failed to comply with the notice. The landlord has failed to provide acceptable evidence of the beach and the application is dismissed.
Having heard the evidence proffered by the landlord at the hearing, I did not require the tenant to give evidence.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has been wholly successful, and suppression of the tenant details is ordered.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 3 March 2023 and is a fixed term tenancy through until 2 March 2024.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal to have the tenancy terminated on the grounds that a 14-day breach notice served on the tenant on 11 September 2023 has not been complied with. General Law
The party bringing the claim is required to prove their claim to the civil standard called the “balance of probabilities.” The point where I accept that it is more likely than not that their version of events is correct. In crude mathematical terms, this might be described as meaning that the party whose claim has a probability threshold of 51% will meet the standard of proof. If they only reach 50% or less, then as a matter of law their claim must fail.
In this matter the onus or job of proving the claims fall on the landlord.
Just because I may find for one party or the other on a particular issue, does not necessarily mean that the unsuccessful party is wrong. It merely means that on the evidence presented, I was not sufficiently certain to make an order.
The Tribunal is not required to set out all of the evidence proffered by the parties at the hearing, but they can be assured that it has been taken into account in reaching this decision. Termination
Section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy on the application of a landlord where a tenant has breached a term of the tenancy agreement and in the case of a breach capable of remedy, the landlord has given the tenant a 14 day notice specifying the nature of the breach and requiring the tenant to remedy the breach within no less than 14 days, commencing on the date on which the notice was given.
The landlord attended a water leak at the adjoining flat 2 in early September 2023. Whilst investigation the leak at flat 2, the landlord sought the tenant’s permission to enter flat 3. Whilst there the landlord saw a dog.
The tenancy agreement entered into by the parties at the commencement of the tenancy states that the tenant could have a cat at the premises only.
The landlord returned to the premises the next week to discuss the presence of the dog.
The tenant explained that they had recently obtained a dog and asked if the landlord would talk to the owner of the premises to seek permission to have the dog remain at the premises.
The landlord did speak to the owner, but permission to have the dog was not granted by the owner.
A 14-day beach notice dated 11 September 2023 was served on the tenant. The notice provided that the tenant had until 26 September 2023 to remove the dog.
During the evidence, I asked the landlord if they had seen the dog at the premises at any time following the expiry of the 14-day notice. The landlord said that they had not.
I asked the landlord if the tenant had told them that the dog was still present after the expiry of the 14-day notice. The landlord said that the tenant had not.
The landlord referred to a letter received from the tenant’s lawyer confirming that the dog was no longer present at the premises.
The only reference made to the dog remaining at the premises after the expiry was when the landlord said that she had been told by the owner that the dog was still present. The owner was not at the hearing to give this evidence, nor was any written statement from the owner provided.
The onus of proving the claim on the balance of probabilities rests with the landlord. The landlord is inviting the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy. In those circumstances, I require the landlord to provide sufficient evidence so that I may reach the point where I consider that it is more likely than not that the tenant has failed to comply with the notice. The landlord has failed to provide acceptable evidence of the beach and the application is dismissed.
Having heard the evidence proffered by the landlord at the hearing, I did not require the tenant to give evidence.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has been wholly successful, and suppression of the tenant details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4706889 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4706889 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions