What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5155082 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 5155082?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5155082?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5155082?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11567737-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5155082 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 5155082?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5155082?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5155082?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11567737-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

163 West Harbour Drive, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5155082 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
The applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for termination and compensation.
The tenant applied for an order that the landlord acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds. Background
The tenancy began on 28 June 2024 and was for a fixed term due to end on 29 December 2025.
There were two tenants at the beginning of the tenancy but one of the tenants gave notice to withdraw pursuant to section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That withdrawal took effect on 11 December 2024.
In accordance with section 56B(3)(b) (RTA) the tenancy continued with the remaining tenant. Landlord application Termination
The landlord applied for termination due to the tenant’s breach of assaulting an occupier of the building of which the premises constitutes a part 1 , the tenant causing interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the landlord’s other tenants 2 and the tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises 3 .
Section 40(2)(c) provides that: (2)The tenant shall not - (c)cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
Under section 40(3A)(d) a contravention of section 40(2)(c) is an unlawful act in circumstances that amount to harassment of a tenant or a neighbour of the tenant. Section 109 RTA provides that a party may apply for exemplary damages where a person has committed an unlawful act. The landlord has not applied for exemplary damages, so this is not something for the Tribunal to consider. A contravention of section 40(2)(c) is not grounds to terminate a tenancy.
Section 55(1)(b) provides that – (1) Subject to subsection (2), on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— (b) the tenant has caused, or has permitted any other person to cause, or has threatened to cause, substantial damage to the premises; or
The damage referred to by the landlord was damage to the flooring due to dog urine and damage to the deck due to the tenant using a water blaster.
At the hearing the landlord confirmed that it was not urgent for either damage to be repaired and that remedial work could wait until the tenancy ended. 1 Section 55(1)(c) RTA 2 Section 55(1)(b) RTA 3 Section 40(2)(a) RTA
The tenant acknowledged the damage caused by the dog’s urine on the floorboards. In relation to the deck the tenant had asked the landlord for permission to water blast it but had failed to read the response from the landlord asking that he not water blast the deck.
The tenant’s evidence is that he did not intentionally damage the deck and there is evidence from the company who provided the quote to repair it, that the deck is not necessarily damaged.
For section 55(1)(b) to apply the damage must be substantial. I consider that the damage to the floorboards is not substantial and whether the deck is damaged is unclear. Termination of the tenancy pursuant to section 55(1)(b) is not proven and is dismissed.
The remaining ground for termination is section 55(1)(c) RTA which provides: 1) Subject to subsection (2), on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— (c)the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons: (iv)any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part
In relation to whether the tenant has assaulted, the evidence relied upon by the landlord is the statutory declaration signed by the other tenant on 9 December 2024. That declaration states that she has been a victim of family violence during her current tenancy. In addition, there is a letter written by the former tenant also dated 9 December 2024 which states, “Over the past few weeks, I have been subjected to physical violence by my partner...”
Neither document refers to any particular incident which may have been an assault or gives any detail or further evidence.
The landlord does not have any direct evidence of an alleged assault other than what they have from these documents or conversations with the other tenant.
The tenant denies the alleged assault and instead states that he endured family violence including both physical and psychological.
Given the conflicting evidence from the parties and the lack of specifics in relation to any alleged assault, I am not satisfied that there was an assault. Because I have reached this conclusion it is not necessary for me to consider whether the other tenant is an “occupier” as provided by section 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA. The landlord’s application for termination is dismissed. Damage
The landlord’s application states that they seek a determination of intentional damage for two areas of the house. The areas are the flooring and deck as mentioned above.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty.
On the evidence I am not satisfied that the damage caused was intentional. There are two areas of the floorboards which have been damaged by dog urine. For the damage to be intentional I would expect there to be significantly more areas that were damaged 4 .
In relation to the deck, it is not clear that there is any damage, and even if there were I accept the tenant’s evidence that he did not intentionally cause any damage due to not seeing the email from the landlord before he carried out the water blasting.
The tenancy agreement records that the tenants will cover the cost of sanding/revarnishing the floor if there is more significant damage than reasonable wear and tear. The damage to the flooring is more than reasonable wear and tear and the tenant should be responsible. However, the landlord has not had an opportunity to inspect all the flooring and there may be further damage.
As there may be further damage and as the flooring will not be repaired until after the tenancy ends the landlord’s claim in relation to the flooring should be considered then. Whether there is any liability on the tenant in relation to the deck can also be considered at that time as it will be necessary to consider the age of the deck and what maintenance has been carried out before the water blasting by the tenant.
The landlord’s claim for damages is dismissed at this stage but can be claimed at the end of the tenancy if there is no agreement between the parties.
At the hearing the landlord also sought an order that the tenant’s dogs be removed from the premises. The landlord had served the tenant with a 14-day notice to remedy on 19 February 2025. 4 Bright Property Management Limited v Aleisha Te Kapa [2023] NZTT 4493521
At the beginning of the tenancy the parties agreed for the tenant to have two dogs at the premises. The landlord produced communication from the tenant giving details about the two dogs.
There was an incident involving at least one of the tenant’s dogs when a neighbour’s dog jumped up on the fence separating the two properties. There is no evidence that the authorities (Auckland Council) have taken any steps in relation to the incident. The tenant’s evidence is that the matter was sorted with the neighbour, and he had contacted Auckland Council and no action is proposed. The landlord has produced an email from the neighbour providing further detail in relation to the incident.
The notice to remedy issued by the landlord is to remedy a breach. Section 56(1)(a) RTA provides that the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement or of this Act.
By having the dogs, the tenant is not breaching any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement because it was agreed that the tenant could have the dogs at the premises. The landlord has submitted that the other tenant misrepresented that the does were well behaved but there is insufficient evidence to support a claim of misrepresentation.
It is also not clear what section the landlords claim the tenant has breached in the Act. As stated above there are no grounds for this tenancy to be terminated and the parties had agreed for the dogs to be included in the tenancy. It is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to order that dogs are removed from the tenancy in these circumstances. The proper process would be through the territorial authority (Auckland Council). Other matters
In the documents produced by the landlord there is an Australian newspaper article from 2016 in relation to charges against the tenant which are completely unrelated to these proceedings. There is also a decision of the New South Wales District Court which is unrelated. The filing of these documents was unnecessary and were of no relevance to these proceedings. Tenant’s application
The tenant applied for an order that the landlord acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds.
Section 60AA RTA provides that, “A landlord commits an unlawful act if they give or purport to give a notice to terminate to the tenant or apply or purport to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice or to make the application.”
Prior to the withdrawal by the other tenant, this tenant had indicated he may move out. After the other tenant withdrew from the tenancy, he indicated that he wished to remain in the tenancy. There was communication from the landlord attempting to reach an agreement that the tenant would move out and the fixed term tenancy would be ended by agreement. However, there was no agreement.
While there was communication from the landlord seeking that the tenancy end, I do not consider that they gave notice to end the tenancy. Also, while they have applied to terminate the tenancy, I consider that they have done so with the belief that they are entitled to do so.
For these reasons the tenant’s application for an order pursuant to section 60AA is dismissed.
In his submissions, the tenant referred to a claim in relation to a breach of his right to quiet enjoyment. This claim was not included in the application filed by the tenant and was therefore not considered.
As neither party has been successful with their application I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.
In relation to suppression, I consider it appropriate to suppress the names of both parties as they have successfully defended the application brought by the other party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5155082 — 14-day notice at 163 West Harbour Drive, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5155082 — 14-day notice at 163 West Harbour Drive, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

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