What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5233474 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 5233474?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5233474?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5233474?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12027655-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5233474 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 5233474?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5233474?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5233474?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12027655-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5233474 — 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 landlord’s application for termination is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.
The tenancy is a periodic tenancy which began on 13/12/2023.
The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy because they consider the tenant has used the premises for unlawful purposes, and interfered with the peace, comfort and privacy of other tenants.
Specifically, the landlord has applied for immediate termination because it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy. See section 55B. Landlord’s evidence
The landlord submitted that on 16/3/2025 they received a complaint from a neighbouring tenant about a domestic violence incident the previous evening at the premises, involving the tenant.
On making enquiries with the NZ Police the landlord was advised that the tenant had been arrested and a search of the premises had located two firearms and a quantity of ammunition.
The Police report confirmed that the tenant had been charged with “unlawfully carrying/possession of firearms x 2, was currently imprisoned and due to appear in Court on 17/4/2025.
Further the report noted that on 16/3/2025 the tenant had been cleared of unlawfully carrying/possessing a firearm/restricted weapon/explosives, and that since 5/1/2025 the Police had been involved in three family violence occurrences.
The landlord further submitted that between 23/9/2024 and making the application on 11/4/2025 they had had difficulty contacting the tenant, patched gang members were intimidating neighbouring tenants, there was damage to the property and staff felt unsafe attending the premises.
The landlord wanted the tenancy terminated due to the hardship suffered by staff and neighbouring tenants.
Although the property manager had met with the tenant on 10/3/2025 and twice inspected the premises, no 14 day notice had been issued about the incidents of concern. Tenant’s evidence
The tenant did not dispute that he had been arrested and was currently on bail for firearms charges, for which he had pleaded not guilty.
The tenant was adamant that the Police only found one shotgun, which was unable to be fired and a few cartridges.
The tenant did not believe there was any evidence of gang members at the premises and no intimidation of neighbours, two of whom were family members.
The understanding of the tenant was that he had sorted out everything with his tenancy manager when they met on 10/3, especially the damage and lock change.
The tenant said he lived at the premises with his two children, aged 12 and 6 years, who attended the local school.
If his tenancy was ended the tenant suggested he would probably lose his children and would no longer have a bail address.
Further the tenant denied threatening any staff or neighbours, was not a patched gang member and had left the gang two years ago. Law
Under section 40(2)(b) a tenant shall not use premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purposes.
Subsection 40(2)(c) provides that a tenant shall not 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.
Section 55B provides that a landlord under a periodic tenancy may apply for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of hardship.
The Tribunal may only make an order if satisfied that – a. Without the order the landlord would suffer greater hardship than the tenant; and b. Because of that hardship, it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy.
In deciding whether it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy, the Tribunal must take into account the impact that terminating the tenancy would have on the tenant. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that their claim is more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, as in this case, then the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the landlord, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claim. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
In addition, the Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord did not submit any evidence about financial hardship but instead relied on the Police report about the firearms charges and family violence issues, and the undocumented complaints from neighbours and staff.
There is no dispute that at least one firearm and some shotgun cartridges were located at the premises by the Police on 16/3/2025, nor that the tenant has been charged with unlawfully carrying/possession of two firearms.
By itself this evidence is compelling but not sufficient to end the tenancy.
There is no objective evidence from staff, neighbours or other tenants supporting intimidating behaviour on the part of the tenant or gang members with whom he may or may not be associated with.
While it is possible there has been intimidation by gang members visiting the tenant, put simply there is not enough persuasive evidence to make this a possibility.
If the tenancy were terminated the effect on the tenant would be significant because he would be without a home and possibly lose the care of his children, whose lives would be seriously disrupted.
I find based on the very limited evidence before the Tribunal that I am not persuaded the landlord’s hardship would be greater than the tenant’s.
The issue of the firearms is being dealt with by the District Court.
There are other steps the landlord could have taken in response to what they perceive was the tenant’s behaviour.
At the very least the Tribunal would have expected the landlord to have issued a section 56 notice, especially if they had been receiving complaints since September 2024.
Unfortunate as it may be for the landlord, the claim for termination fails.
No filing fee is awarded because the landlord was unsuccessful.
Suppression is granted to both parties under section 95A because in the particular circumstances of this case 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 landlord’s application for termination is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.
The tenancy is a periodic tenancy which began on 13/12/2023.
The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy because they consider the tenant has used the premises for unlawful purposes, and interfered with the peace, comfort and privacy of other tenants.
Specifically, the landlord has applied for immediate termination because it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy. See section 55B. Landlord’s evidence
The landlord submitted that on 16/3/2025 they received a complaint from a neighbouring tenant about a domestic violence incident the previous evening at the premises, involving the tenant.
On making enquiries with the NZ Police the landlord was advised that the tenant had been arrested and a search of the premises had located two firearms and a quantity of ammunition.
The Police report confirmed that the tenant had been charged with “unlawfully carrying/possession of firearms x 2, was currently imprisoned and due to appear in Court on 17/4/2025.
Further the report noted that on 16/3/2025 the tenant had been cleared of unlawfully carrying/possessing a firearm/restricted weapon/explosives, and that since 5/1/2025 the Police had been involved in three family violence occurrences.
The landlord further submitted that between 23/9/2024 and making the application on 11/4/2025 they had had difficulty contacting the tenant, patched gang members were intimidating neighbouring tenants, there was damage to the property and staff felt unsafe attending the premises.
The landlord wanted the tenancy terminated due to the hardship suffered by staff and neighbouring tenants.
Although the property manager had met with the tenant on 10/3/2025 and twice inspected the premises, no 14 day notice had been issued about the incidents of concern. Tenant’s evidence
The tenant did not dispute that he had been arrested and was currently on bail for firearms charges, for which he had pleaded not guilty.
The tenant was adamant that the Police only found one shotgun, which was unable to be fired and a few cartridges.
The tenant did not believe there was any evidence of gang members at the premises and no intimidation of neighbours, two of whom were family members.
The understanding of the tenant was that he had sorted out everything with his tenancy manager when they met on 10/3, especially the damage and lock change.
The tenant said he lived at the premises with his two children, aged 12 and 6 years, who attended the local school.
If his tenancy was ended the tenant suggested he would probably lose his children and would no longer have a bail address.
Further the tenant denied threatening any staff or neighbours, was not a patched gang member and had left the gang two years ago. Law
Under section 40(2)(b) a tenant shall not use premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purposes.
Subsection 40(2)(c) provides that a tenant shall not 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.
Section 55B provides that a landlord under a periodic tenancy may apply for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of hardship.
The Tribunal may only make an order if satisfied that – a. Without the order the landlord would suffer greater hardship than the tenant; and b. Because of that hardship, it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy.
In deciding whether it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to continue with the tenancy, the Tribunal must take into account the impact that terminating the tenancy would have on the tenant. Standard of proof
This is a civil jurisdiction which means when looking at the claims the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Put simply this means the landlord must establish, with evidence, that their claim is more likely than not.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain. All evidence presented is considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, as in this case, then the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided.
Although I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing the parties can be assured that it has been considered. For the purposes of conciseness only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to.
The onus is on the applicant, in this case the landlord, to provide the necessary evidence to support their claim. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed, whether it has merit or not.
Section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides useful guidance about how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. This must be in a manner most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises.
In addition, the Tribunal must consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations, or to legal forms and technicalities.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord did not submit any evidence about financial hardship but instead relied on the Police report about the firearms charges and family violence issues, and the undocumented complaints from neighbours and staff.
There is no dispute that at least one firearm and some shotgun cartridges were located at the premises by the Police on 16/3/2025, nor that the tenant has been charged with unlawfully carrying/possession of two firearms.
By itself this evidence is compelling but not sufficient to end the tenancy.
There is no objective evidence from staff, neighbours or other tenants supporting intimidating behaviour on the part of the tenant or gang members with whom he may or may not be associated with.
While it is possible there has been intimidation by gang members visiting the tenant, put simply there is not enough persuasive evidence to make this a possibility.
If the tenancy were terminated the effect on the tenant would be significant because he would be without a home and possibly lose the care of his children, whose lives would be seriously disrupted.
I find based on the very limited evidence before the Tribunal that I am not persuaded the landlord’s hardship would be greater than the tenant’s.
The issue of the firearms is being dealt with by the District Court.
There are other steps the landlord could have taken in response to what they perceive was the tenant’s behaviour.
At the very least the Tribunal would have expected the landlord to have issued a section 56 notice, especially if they had been receiving complaints since September 2024.
Unfortunate as it may be for the landlord, the claim for termination fails.
No filing fee is awarded because the landlord was unsuccessful.
Suppression is granted to both parties under section 95A because in the particular circumstances of this case I consider it is in the interests of both parties to do so.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5233474 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5233474 — 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