What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5229251 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 5229251?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229251?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11777601-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5229251 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 5229251?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5229251?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5229251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11777601-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5229251 — 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 application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The tenancy is for a fixed term from 4/11/2024 to 4/11/2025 @ $480.00 rent per week.

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.
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 submits that the tenant has breached her obligations by causing or permitting interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of other people residing in the neighbourhood in breach of section 40(2)(c).
The landlord served three 14-day notices on the tenant on 13/1, 13/2 and 4/3/2025 for incidents on 11/1, 6/2 and 23/2/2025 respectively.
On the other hand, the tenant provided a written submission about the three incidents, which the landlord agreed was a correct summary of what had happened.
The tenant submitted that the first and third incidents were not by a family member or someone who had been invited to the premises.
Although the second incident involved her mother the tenant confirmed she had immediately contacted the Police who issued a restraining order.
I find that the evidence does not support that the tenant’s actions caused or permitted interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any person residing in the neighbourhood.
The evidence clearly supports that neighbours were disturbed, and indeed the premises were damaged, but this was not due to any behaviour on the part of the tenant.
As I have found the tenant did not breach section 40(2)(c) I do not need to consider the matter any further.
However, for the avoidance of doubt I will also set out why I consider it would be inequitable to terminate the tenancy had I found there was a breach.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the Court at paragraph 61 set out the factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with her obligations in the future d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed e. The conduct of the landlord f. The gravity of the breach g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
Termination of a tenancy has serious consequences for a tenant.
Although the tenancy has only been in place for just over 4 months the evidence of the landlord was that she had no concerns about the tenant, who paid her rent and looked after the property.
There is no evidence of a history of breaches during the tenancy.
If I had found a breach, I consider based on the evidence that it would have been inadvertent because the tenant did not invite the people involved to the tenancy.
As a matter of proportionality termination would be an inequitable response having regard to the tenant’s conduct throughout the tenancy and during the incidents.
No filing fee is awarded because the landlord has been unsuccessful in their claim.
Suppression is granted both parties under section 95A because I consider it is in the interests of both parties to do so.

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 application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The tenancy is for a fixed term from 4/11/2024 to 4/11/2025 @ $480.00 rent per week.

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.
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 submits that the tenant has breached her obligations by causing or permitting interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of other people residing in the neighbourhood in breach of section 40(2)(c).
The landlord served three 14-day notices on the tenant on 13/1, 13/2 and 4/3/2025 for incidents on 11/1, 6/2 and 23/2/2025 respectively.
On the other hand, the tenant provided a written submission about the three incidents, which the landlord agreed was a correct summary of what had happened.
The tenant submitted that the first and third incidents were not by a family member or someone who had been invited to the premises.
Although the second incident involved her mother the tenant confirmed she had immediately contacted the Police who issued a restraining order.
I find that the evidence does not support that the tenant’s actions caused or permitted interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any person residing in the neighbourhood.
The evidence clearly supports that neighbours were disturbed, and indeed the premises were damaged, but this was not due to any behaviour on the part of the tenant.
As I have found the tenant did not breach section 40(2)(c) I do not need to consider the matter any further.
However, for the avoidance of doubt I will also set out why I consider it would be inequitable to terminate the tenancy had I found there was a breach.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the Court at paragraph 61 set out the factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with her obligations in the future d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed e. The conduct of the landlord f. The gravity of the breach g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
Termination of a tenancy has serious consequences for a tenant.
Although the tenancy has only been in place for just over 4 months the evidence of the landlord was that she had no concerns about the tenant, who paid her rent and looked after the property.
There is no evidence of a history of breaches during the tenancy.
If I had found a breach, I consider based on the evidence that it would have been inadvertent because the tenant did not invite the people involved to the tenancy.
As a matter of proportionality termination would be an inequitable response having regard to the tenant’s conduct throughout the tenancy and during the incidents.
No filing fee is awarded because the landlord has been unsuccessful in their claim.
Suppression is granted both parties under section 95A because I consider it is in the interests of both parties to do so.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229251 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5229251 — 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