What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4894160 about?

The tribunal order states: The claim is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4894160?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4894160?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4894160?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10890575-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4894160 about?

The tribunal order states: The claim is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4894160?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4894160?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4894160?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10890575-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4894160 — 14-day notice

Order

The claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord. [The tenant/s] attended with two social workers as support.
This tenancy commenced in 2021 with [The tenant/s] living in the home with her children.
The landlord has now applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of [The tenant/s] obligations being the following alleged failures: a. To keep the property reasonably clean and tidy. b. To report damage. c. To not keep a dog d. To allow access for inspections.
The landlord says they cannot sustain the tenancy any longer with the amount of damage that has been occurring throughout [The tenant/s] tenure and her lack of engagement with them. [The landlord’s representative] says that [The tenant/s] has failed to notify of the continuing damages, which are costing the landlord significant amounts and now that she is preventing their access, they are very concerned for the property.
[The tenant/s] wishes to maintain her tenancy. She says that things have changed for her. She is out of the criminal justice system, her eldest boy who has been having difficulties and who caused a lot of the damage has moved out, she has rehomed the dog and is prepared to engage with [The landlord/s].
[The tenant/s] explanation for not engaging with [The landlord/s] this year has been that she has been frustrated with their lack of attendance to maintenance issues. She says there is a lot of significant maintenance that needs to be attended to at the property and so when the landlord applied to the Tribunal to end her tenancy, she saw that as disingenuous as they were not attending to their 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 (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. The landlord has served seven 14- day notices on the tenant over the duration of this tenancy, 1 five this year. They were for the following breaches: i. Section 40(1)(c) RTA: to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. ii. S40(d)RTA: to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. iii. Failure to allow the landlord access pursuant to section 48(2)(b)RTA. iv. Breach of the tenancy agreement to not have pets at the home.
Since April, [The tenant/s] has prevented the landlord access to check whether she has been complying with the notices. The landlord’s submission is that the breaches have not been remedied.
Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that [The tenant/s] has failed to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy given the amount of rubbish and belongings that have been scattered throughout. [The tenant/s] has also failed 1 Almost 3 years to notify the landlord of damage, has prevented the landlord from accessing the property and has homed a dog in breach of the tenancy agreement. [The tenant/s] has therefore breached her tenancy agreement and the RTA.
I therefore must consider whether or not it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The District Court in Te Rangi v HNZC, CIV-2010-091- 110, DC Porirua, noted that it is a balancing exercise. The nature of the breach is most relevant, however the circumstances of the tenant or consequences to the tenant are also relevant.
The District Court looked directly at the issue of inequitability to refuse to terminate in Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229. Judge Rowe noted at paragraph 61 that the following are relevant when considering such an application (I note each one with my comments regarding this case immediately following): a. The history of the tenancy: this has been [The tenant/s] home for almost three years. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings: Seven 14-day notices have been issued and [The tenant/s] has failed to comply until now. She showed the hearing around the property, and it is currently clean and tidy and there did not appear to be new damage. The rubbish in the garden had been removed and there was no sign of the dog. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. [The landlord’s representative] submits that [The tenant/s] caused considerable damage in her previous tenancy and has done so throughout this tenancy. As such they have no faith that things will change now. In particular she notes that there has not been a gap of longer than two months during the tenancy without damage. [The tenant/s] says the previous tenancy issues were due to a bad relationship. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. These breaches were deliberate; [The tenant/s] was aware of her obligations and failed to comply. She has apologised for her lack of reasonable engagement. She explains she has been having a difficult time over the last years, but things are improving now. She also explains that some damage was as a result of a break in. e. The conduct of the landlord. The landlord has attempted to work with [The tenant/s], but she has been unwilling to engage of late. They are no longer willing to provide her with any further chances. [The landlord’s representative] advises that they let the property for an owner and the owner is very concerned about the ongoing damage. f. The gravity of the breach. These breaches are serious, particularly [The tenant/s] failure to report damage and permit inspections. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. Termination here is extremely serious; [The tenant/s] has three children living with her and no family support.
In considering the situation I must assess the quality of the landlord’s evidence. As applicant it is for the landlord to establish their claim to the evidential standard of the balance of probabilities, or what is more likely than not. In doing that I note that whilst regular damage has been proven, there are few details available as to the extent of it.
I have discussed with [The tenant/s] that even if she thinks the landlord is breaching their obligations, that does not entitle her to breach hers. There are processes both must follow in such situations. I am confident she is aware of the law, and I also accept her evidence that she has made life changes that will mean that further breaches are less likely. I commend her for attending the hearing in a candid way acknowledging her wrongdoing.
I have considered the evidence very carefully given the seriousness of the situation. The breaches are serious and longstanding, yet termination would have dire consequences for [The tenant/s] and her children.
Considering the above, I find (only just) that termination of the tenancy would be disproportionate to the breaches and therefore it is equitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. In coming to this finding, I have considered section 85 of the RTA which allows the Tribunal to determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
In allowing the tenancy to continue, I have placed weight on the following: a. [The tenant/s] undertaking to allow regular inspections. b. [The tenant/s] undertaking to engage with the landlord in a respectful way. c. [The tenant/s] undertaking to report damage when it occurs. d. [The tenant/s] undertaking not to have a dog at the property. e. [The tenant/s] undertaking that it is her and her three younger children living at the tenancy only.
Should [The tenant/s] breach any of these undertakings, the landlord is entitled to apply to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy, after following the usual procedures (pursuant to section 56RTA). Essentially, I am providing [The tenant/s] with a final opportunity. If the landlord applies to the Tribunal again and establishes in evidence further breaches of the same nature, it is likely that the Tribunal will take a stricter approach than I have today. Compensation claim
The landlord claimed compensation for a broken glass pane in the back door. [The tenant/s] says this was present throughout the tenancy.
In considering the standard of proof, the landlord as applicant must establish with evidence that it is “more likely than not” that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
They were not able to do this, therefore the claim for $255.88 is dismissed.
I have directed that all party identifying details be suppressed given the family violence matters that were discussed throughout the proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4894160 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4894160 — 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