What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5231571 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 5231571?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $575.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5231571?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5231571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12170982-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5231571 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 5231571?

Compensation: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $575.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5231571?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5231571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12170982-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5231571 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5231571 — net $246.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears as agreed	$575.71		Rent arrears as agreed
Compensation for unlawful termination		$1,500.00	Compensation for unlawful termination
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$575.71	$1,527.00
Net award		$246.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$246.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Superior Property Management Limited Andrew Galbraith application for cleaning and carpet cleaning costs is dismissed.
Superior Property Management Limited Andrew Galbraith must pay [The tenant/s] $951.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $705.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Galbraith and Ms Clanthon attended on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant has applied for compensation for improper termination of the boarding house tenancy including general damages for stress and inconvenience in the sum of $5,000.00.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the boarding house tenancy.

Was the tenancy lawfully terminated?

The landlord purported to terminate the tenancy on 10 January 2025 immediately under section 66U (1) (ii) and (iii) of The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
These sections allow a landlord of a boarding house tenancy to terminate immediately if a tenant has, “endangered, or threatened to endanger people or property; or caused or threatened to cause, serious disruption to other tenants...”
This was in relation to an incident which the parties agree occurred on New Year’s Eve 2024/2025.
During this incident the police were called, and another tenant was arrested.
A short time after this, the landlord said he had received information from other tenants suggesting that the applicant had assaulted the arrested tenant and had made threats against her.
The landlord asked the applicant to come to his office at the property to discuss this on 10 January 2025. The applicant did so.
The landlord said that the applicant accepted the accusations were true and that they agreed that, in those circumstances, the tenancy should end immediately.
The tenant provided copies of message exchanges between the parties which confirm that the tenancy was purported to be terminated under s66U (1) (a) as above rather than by any mutual agreement.
The applicant said that he did not accept the allegations as to his behaviour on New Year’s but thought the landlord had already determined to terminate the tenancy and felt there was nothing he could do or say to change his mind.
The evidence provided to the Tribunal included an unsigned police statement from a witness to the events. Most of the statement relates to a previous incident not the subject of this decision but the relevant paragraph reads, “On that night another tenant was beating up [the applicant]. Police was called and that tenant was arrested.”
Although the tenancy situation was clearly difficult as between various tenants at the boarding house, to my mind, where police have been called to an incident, interviewed relevant parties and witnesses, and determined to arrest one participant, it would be unusual for a landlord to then terminate the tenancy of the victim.
The applicant acknowledged that he had physically restrained the other tenant briefly with the intention of removing an empty beer bottle from her hand. When this was unsuccessful, he had released her resulting in him then allegedly being struck by that bottle. This was after the other tenant had damaged some of his computer equipment and other possessions.
Given the nature of this incident, it is unsurprising that the applicant may have yelled at the other tenant and attempted to disarm her. Tensions would undoubtedly have been running high.
The landlord provided no documentation or witness evidence to support the allegation that the applicant endangered the other tenant or threated to do so or that he was the cause of this disruption.
The applicant was not aware of the identity of the other tenant/s who had complained about his behaviour and was not given an appropriate opportunity to challenge the information those people or that person supplied.
The arrested tenant had left the premises permanently and there was no suggestion that the applicant had threated any other tenant at the property.
In the circumstances, the tenant had responded in what seems like an appropriate manner by attempting to disarm the other tenant and then, when that was unsuccessful, by calling the police.
The applicant said that there was no one else present who could have seen what occurred except those interviewed by police, being the applicant the arrested tenant and the witness whose (unsigned) statement was provided to the Tribunal.
The evidence provided by the applicant, as well as the accepted fact that the other tenant was arrested, supports the applicant’s recollection of events and therefore, I find that on the balance of probabilities, the tenancy was unlawfully terminated.
It is understandable that the landlord may have desired a change of the mix of tenants at the property as a consequence of this and prior incidents and may have considered the boarding house would be more cohesive if the applicant found somewhere else to stay. This could have been accomplished with the giving of a without cause 28-day notice under s66U (1) (d) of the Act.
On that basis I consider that damages in the amount of $1,500.00 is suitable to reflect the hardship caused to the applicant in having to leave without notice and with nowhere to stay. This resulted in the applicant being forced to sleep in his car for about a week, being unable to work and suffering significant stress.
This is on the basis tat the tenancy could have been lawfully terminated with 28 days’ notice as mentioned above.
The amount of $1,500.00 is ordered as compensation for the unlawful termination without notice.
The amount ordered is proved.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10 January 2025. The landlord has provided records which prove the amount of rent owing to the end of the tenancy and the tenant accepted the amount claimed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all goods and rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 66M(b) to (e) of the Act.
The landlord provided photographs and invoices to prove that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The carpets were stained, and the room was not cleaned.
Given the circumstances around the end of the tenancy, I do not consider that it is appropriate to award these sums to the landlord. The tenancy had been unlawfully terminated and the tenant did not have free access to the property to either clean or to retrieve his possessions.
The possessions were retrieved with difficulty and on the timetable of the landlord and subject to his availability.
Once the tenancy had been unlawfully terminated by the landlord, the tenant cannot have had any obligation to clean the premises.
The landlord’s application for cleaning and carpet cleaning is dismissed. Filing fees and suppression
As the applicant has been successful in his application the landlord must pay the filing fee.
Suppression was requested by the applicant and as he has been successful suppression of his name and identifying information is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5231571 — net $246.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears as agreed	$575.71		Rent arrears as agreed
Compensation for unlawful termination		$1,500.00	Compensation for unlawful termination
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$575.71	$1,527.00
Net award		$246.29
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$246.29

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Superior Property Management Limited Andrew Galbraith application for cleaning and carpet cleaning costs is dismissed.
Superior Property Management Limited Andrew Galbraith must pay [The tenant/s] $951.29 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $705.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Galbraith and Ms Clanthon attended on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant has applied for compensation for improper termination of the boarding house tenancy including general damages for stress and inconvenience in the sum of $5,000.00.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the boarding house tenancy.

Was the tenancy lawfully terminated?

The landlord purported to terminate the tenancy on 10 January 2025 immediately under section 66U (1) (ii) and (iii) of The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
These sections allow a landlord of a boarding house tenancy to terminate immediately if a tenant has, “endangered, or threatened to endanger people or property; or caused or threatened to cause, serious disruption to other tenants...”
This was in relation to an incident which the parties agree occurred on New Year’s Eve 2024/2025.
During this incident the police were called, and another tenant was arrested.
A short time after this, the landlord said he had received information from other tenants suggesting that the applicant had assaulted the arrested tenant and had made threats against her.
The landlord asked the applicant to come to his office at the property to discuss this on 10 January 2025. The applicant did so.
The landlord said that the applicant accepted the accusations were true and that they agreed that, in those circumstances, the tenancy should end immediately.
The tenant provided copies of message exchanges between the parties which confirm that the tenancy was purported to be terminated under s66U (1) (a) as above rather than by any mutual agreement.
The applicant said that he did not accept the allegations as to his behaviour on New Year’s but thought the landlord had already determined to terminate the tenancy and felt there was nothing he could do or say to change his mind.
The evidence provided to the Tribunal included an unsigned police statement from a witness to the events. Most of the statement relates to a previous incident not the subject of this decision but the relevant paragraph reads, “On that night another tenant was beating up [the applicant]. Police was called and that tenant was arrested.”
Although the tenancy situation was clearly difficult as between various tenants at the boarding house, to my mind, where police have been called to an incident, interviewed relevant parties and witnesses, and determined to arrest one participant, it would be unusual for a landlord to then terminate the tenancy of the victim.
The applicant acknowledged that he had physically restrained the other tenant briefly with the intention of removing an empty beer bottle from her hand. When this was unsuccessful, he had released her resulting in him then allegedly being struck by that bottle. This was after the other tenant had damaged some of his computer equipment and other possessions.
Given the nature of this incident, it is unsurprising that the applicant may have yelled at the other tenant and attempted to disarm her. Tensions would undoubtedly have been running high.
The landlord provided no documentation or witness evidence to support the allegation that the applicant endangered the other tenant or threated to do so or that he was the cause of this disruption.
The applicant was not aware of the identity of the other tenant/s who had complained about his behaviour and was not given an appropriate opportunity to challenge the information those people or that person supplied.
The arrested tenant had left the premises permanently and there was no suggestion that the applicant had threated any other tenant at the property.
In the circumstances, the tenant had responded in what seems like an appropriate manner by attempting to disarm the other tenant and then, when that was unsuccessful, by calling the police.
The applicant said that there was no one else present who could have seen what occurred except those interviewed by police, being the applicant the arrested tenant and the witness whose (unsigned) statement was provided to the Tribunal.
The evidence provided by the applicant, as well as the accepted fact that the other tenant was arrested, supports the applicant’s recollection of events and therefore, I find that on the balance of probabilities, the tenancy was unlawfully terminated.
It is understandable that the landlord may have desired a change of the mix of tenants at the property as a consequence of this and prior incidents and may have considered the boarding house would be more cohesive if the applicant found somewhere else to stay. This could have been accomplished with the giving of a without cause 28-day notice under s66U (1) (d) of the Act.
On that basis I consider that damages in the amount of $1,500.00 is suitable to reflect the hardship caused to the applicant in having to leave without notice and with nowhere to stay. This resulted in the applicant being forced to sleep in his car for about a week, being unable to work and suffering significant stress.
This is on the basis tat the tenancy could have been lawfully terminated with 28 days’ notice as mentioned above.
The amount of $1,500.00 is ordered as compensation for the unlawful termination without notice.
The amount ordered is proved.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 10 January 2025. The landlord has provided records which prove the amount of rent owing to the end of the tenancy and the tenant accepted the amount claimed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all goods and rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 66M(b) to (e) of the Act.
The landlord provided photographs and invoices to prove that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy. The carpets were stained, and the room was not cleaned.
Given the circumstances around the end of the tenancy, I do not consider that it is appropriate to award these sums to the landlord. The tenancy had been unlawfully terminated and the tenant did not have free access to the property to either clean or to retrieve his possessions.
The possessions were retrieved with difficulty and on the timetable of the landlord and subject to his availability.
Once the tenancy had been unlawfully terminated by the landlord, the tenant cannot have had any obligation to clean the premises.
The landlord’s application for cleaning and carpet cleaning is dismissed. Filing fees and suppression
As the applicant has been successful in his application the landlord must pay the filing fee.
Suppression was requested by the applicant and as he has been successful suppression of his name and identifying information is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5231571 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5231571 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the tenancy lawfully terminated?

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the tenancy lawfully terminated?

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions