What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4769802 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4769802?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4769802?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4769802?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10040113-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4769802 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4769802?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4769802?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4769802?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10040113-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4769802 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Shea and Mr Islam appeared for the landlord, who is a social housing provider for those with mental health and addiction issues. The tenant appeared and was supported by their Community Mental Health Services Key Worker.
On 19 December 2023, the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations to maintain the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Law
Under section 40 (1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act’), the tenant must keep the property reasonably clean and tidy. What is reasonably clean and tidy is not defined in the Act. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, including inspection reports and photographs.
Under section 56(1)(c) of the Act, 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.
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 determining the exercise of the discretion in section 56(1)(c) of the Act to refuse termination, the District Court in Terangi v Housing NZ DC Porirua CIV 2010 – 091 – 110, 28 June 2010, referred to relevant factors, set out by Hammond J in Studio X Ltd v Mobil Oil New Zealand Limited [1996] 2 NZLR 697 (HC): -Whether the breach was advertent or deliberately committed. In such a case there are sound reasons why in the normal case relief should not be given: why should a lessor be compelled to remain in a relation of neighbourhood with a person in deliberate breach of his obligations? -Conversely, whether the breach was caused by inadvertence or was entirely beyond the tenant’s control. -Whether the breach involves an immoral / illegal use. It must be wrong in principle for a lessor to be forced into improper or illegal relations, possibly even exposing the lessor himself to some form of legal sanction. -Whether a tenant has made or will make good the breach of the covenant and is able and willing to fulfil his obligations in the future. -The conduct of the tenant. -The conduct of the landlord. -The financial position of the tenant. -Sometimes the position of third parties has had to be considered. For instance, the position of a contracting purchaser of the interest. -The gravity of the breach. -Whether a breach has occasioned lasting damage to a landlord. -There is a proportionality concern. Under this head there has to be concern whether whatever damage is said to have been sustained by the landlord can truly be said to be proportionate to the advantages she will obtain if relief is not granted. Generally speaking, and at a greater level of abstraction, there has to be a concern with keeping an even hand. Afterall a lease is both an interest in land and a contract and a Court ought not to estreat an entire interest of that character simply because (for instance) the tenant fails to repair (at a cost of $50) a window the tenant’s son happened to put a cricket ball through.” Issues
There is no issue concerning the form or service of the notices.
The issue in this case is whether the tenant has breached their obligation to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy, and if so, having failed to remedy the breach within the required period, whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Facts
The tenancy commenced on 11 October 2019. In addition to the 14-day notice referred to in the application dated 05 July 2023, requiring the tenant to return the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition, there have been four subsequent notices issued for the same thing. In support of the notices the landlord has produced inspection reports showing the inside of the property. The landlord is relying on what is shown in the photographs contained in the reports, and the oral evidence of both Mr Islam and Ms Shea, who both also state that the carpet is covered with an oily substance, likely cooking oil.
The tenant states they have done their best to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy and has referred to circumstances outside their control. The tenant states that they have not enjoyed good relationships with the case workers, of whom there have been three. It is unclear as to what if any assistance the case workers have been able to offer.
Despite their best intentions, I am satisfied, having conducted an objective assessment, that the tenant has failed to maintain the property in a reasonably clean condition, and has failed to remedy the breach notices.
The issue, having been satisfied of the breach, is whether due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
Considering the relevant factors set out in Studio X Ltd v Mobil Oil New Zealand Limited.
The tenant has disclosed their mental health challenges. Though no expert evidence regarding the effects of this unwellness has been presented, it is likely, based on the comments made by the tenant during the hearing, a significant factor in this breach.
The landlord has referred to a previous decision of the Tribunal where failure to maintain the property in a reasonably clean condition has resulted in termination of the tenancy. The Tribunal is not bound by its own decisions, moreover in this case I am satisfied that the decision referred to can be distinguished on its facts, and reasoning.
The landlord states that there has been on notice issued previously for anti- social behaviour, abusing an employee of the landlord. There have been no issues with rent arrears.
The community health key worker states the tenant has previously agreed to move into supported accommodation. The tenant disputes this stating that they wish to remain living independently but acknowledge the need for regular support with cleaning. The key worker states that there is a disability assessment pending to determine the level of care the tenant may require, but no date has been set for the assessment.
The landlord states that the carpet is soiled to the extent that it will need to be replaced.
The landlord states they have engaged professional cleaners to assist the tenant on two occasions but that subsequently the tenant has failed to maintain a reasonable standard of cleanliness. The landlord provides each tenant with a Housing Case Worker, whose role it is to assist the tenant maintain the tenancy. The landlord states that the tenant has not been engaging with the case workers.
A consistent feature of the reports produced is the significant number of empty containers, tins, glass bottles, plastic bottles, and other recyclables that are shown stored throughout the property. Along with the obviously unclean surfaces and flooring in the kitchen, this was a significant factor in finding that the property has not been kept in a reasonably clean condition. The tenant states that there was no glass recycling bin provided. The tenant states that the council recycling bin was stolen about 6 months ago. The tenant states they raised this with the landlord who advised that they would investigate the matter. This was accepted by the landlord. However, the landlord submits that the maintenance of any council bins provided is the responsibility of the tenant, suggesting it was the responsibility of the tenant to arrange replacements. In this case, considering the tenant’s personal circumstances, I am unsure as to whether this is a realistic expectation. Decision
After carefully considering the evidence, I am not satisfied that in this case termination would be a proportionate response. I am not satisfied that there has been lasting damage caused by the uncleanliness. The photographs of the carpet on their own are insufficient. Apart from the landlord’s oral evidence that the carpet requires replacing there is no other evidence.
In my opinion providing the tenant with the means of disposing recyclable items will no doubt assist mitigate the state of uncleanliness. The tenant states that they wish to maintain their independence. The tenant’s desire for independence, coupled with their acknowledged need for cleaning support, suggests a potential for remedy. It is likely that collaborative efforts between Community Mental Health Services, the landlord, and other relevant agencies can facilitate the tenant in maintaining the tenancy.
A future disability assessment conducted by suitably qualified professionals determining that the tenant, despite the assistance of external support, is in fact unable to maintain independent living may influence the outcome of subsequent applications by the landlord. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published.
The tenant has been wholly successful defending the claim and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
In the case of Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135 at [2]-[3],[13], and [18], the Supreme Court stated the principle of open justice was fundamental to the common law system of civil and criminal justice. The Court stated that it was well established that there were circumstances in which the interests of justice required departure from the general principle, but only to the extent required to serve the administration of justice. The Court referred to the administration of justice standard as capable of accommodating the particular circumstances of individual cases with consideration given to the broader public interest. The Court went onto endorse the principle in ASB Bank Ltd v AB [2010] 3 NZLR 427 (HC), stating, that there must be specific adverse consequences sufficient to justify an exception to the rule, adding that the threshold was a high one.
I am not satisfied that there will be adverse consequences suffered by the landlord and suppression in this case is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4769802 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4769802 — Rent arrears

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