What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5020968 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 5020968?

The reconciled net award was $27.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5020968?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5020968?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11110809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5020968 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 5020968?

The reconciled net award was $27.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5020968?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5020968?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11110809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5020968 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, being the application filing fee.
The landlord application for termination is dismissed.
[The remaining tenant] is to permanently remove the dog from the premises, no later than 5pm Sunday 1 December 2024.
Effective immediately, [exiting tenant] is removed as the second tenant. [The remaining tenant] is the sole and liable tenant.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The remain tenant was joined via pre- approved teleconference. The exiting tenant is believed to be currently in prison.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s 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 tenant has breached their obligations by failing to remove a dog from the premises.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenants on 4 September 2024, and the tenants had not remedied the breach within the required period. A second notice was served the next day, 5 September 2024. The other issues raised, noise and aggressive behaviour, have ceased within the remedy period. The dog remains at the premises.
It would be inequitable to terminate the tenancy at this time because the remaining issue of the dog will be addressed as per the timing in this order, and as committed to by the tenant. The other issues have been resolved, more than likely due to the removal of the second tenant from the premises.
The remaining tenant has a protection order against the exiting tenant and the police have invested in ensuring appropriate safety measures are in place at the premises. She would like to remain there. The protection order was without notice and the tenant did not seek a tenancy order per s 121 Family Violence Act 2018. Such a tenancy order could still be applied for. It could have the same effect as this order; the removal of one joint tenant. Given the inability of the exiting tenant to benefit from this tenancy it is also fair to release him immediately from any potential liability (some rent arrears exist and require payment by the remaining tenant).
The landlord is supportive of the tenancy continuing, with the change in tenant and the removal of the dog.
In removing the one tenant, I have also considered s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall 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. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome.
The remaining tenant advised that all of the exiting tenant’s possessions have already been removed from the premises by his family. The family will also be the first engagement for potential rehoming of the dog, as it was the exiting tenant’s pet initially. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered. Given the background to this dispute is family violence, I consider it appropriate to suppress all details.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, being the application filing fee.
The landlord application for termination is dismissed.
[The remaining tenant] is to permanently remove the dog from the premises, no later than 5pm Sunday 1 December 2024.
Effective immediately, [exiting tenant] is removed as the second tenant. [The remaining tenant] is the sole and liable tenant.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The remain tenant was joined via pre- approved teleconference. The exiting tenant is believed to be currently in prison.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s 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 tenant has breached their obligations by failing to remove a dog from the premises.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenants on 4 September 2024, and the tenants had not remedied the breach within the required period. A second notice was served the next day, 5 September 2024. The other issues raised, noise and aggressive behaviour, have ceased within the remedy period. The dog remains at the premises.
It would be inequitable to terminate the tenancy at this time because the remaining issue of the dog will be addressed as per the timing in this order, and as committed to by the tenant. The other issues have been resolved, more than likely due to the removal of the second tenant from the premises.
The remaining tenant has a protection order against the exiting tenant and the police have invested in ensuring appropriate safety measures are in place at the premises. She would like to remain there. The protection order was without notice and the tenant did not seek a tenancy order per s 121 Family Violence Act 2018. Such a tenancy order could still be applied for. It could have the same effect as this order; the removal of one joint tenant. Given the inability of the exiting tenant to benefit from this tenancy it is also fair to release him immediately from any potential liability (some rent arrears exist and require payment by the remaining tenant).
The landlord is supportive of the tenancy continuing, with the change in tenant and the removal of the dog.
In removing the one tenant, I have also considered s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall 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. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome.
The remaining tenant advised that all of the exiting tenant’s possessions have already been removed from the premises by his family. The family will also be the first engagement for potential rehoming of the dog, as it was the exiting tenant’s pet initially. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered. Given the background to this dispute is family violence, I consider it appropriate to suppress all details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5020968 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5020968 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions