What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5266565 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5266565?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266565?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266565?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12161505-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5266565 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5266565?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5266565?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5266565?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12161505-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5266565 — Cleanliness

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for the tenant breaching their obligations.
In this case because the tenant lives in a body corporate development, she must comply with the body corporate rules.
The body corporate has written to the unit owner describing the breaches as follows: Police Calls: Police have been called on three separate occasions due to tenant-related incidents: •24/04/2025- Reference: P062345454 •13/05/2025 - Reference: P062536353 •13/05/2025 - Reference: P062534480 Complaints and Issues Reported: Numerous residents have raised ongoing concerns regarding the following behaviour: •Excessive noise, particularly outside permitted hours as outlined by Auckland CounciI regulations •Domestic disturbances and violent altercations •Profanity and aggressive behaviour, including threats directed at neighbours (e.g., threats of increased noise ir evicted) •Alcohol-related spills in common areas, resulting in additional cleaning. All of these matters have been brought to your and the property manager's attention through multiple emails, phone calls, and video evidence, which have been provided as part of our repeated attempts to resolve this issue amicably. As per the Body Corporate Rules the tenant's ongoing behaviour constitutes a clear breach of obligations to ensure peaceful enjoyment of the property for other residents and to maintain common areas free from obstruction and hazard.

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. 1
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
In this case, I am satisfied that the breaches cumulatively are serious, and that the landlord has warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breaches.
The tenant explained that all of the breaches related to her ex-partner’s actions. She has ended the relationship and issued him with a trespass order. She believes he is in prison. She says there have been no complaints about her use of the unit to her knowledge for over a month now that her ex-partner has been trespassed.
Mr Meili did not dispute the tenant’s comments.
I am not satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy where there is a good prospect the impugned conduct will not recur. Therefore, the Tribunal must decline the application. 1 See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The application for termination is dismissed.
However, if the landlord brings another claim for termination for repeated similar breaches relating to the unit, the Tribunal may decide differently. Breach costs
The landlord asked for an order that the tenant pay on-charges to the landlord related to the alleged breaches.
The on-charge invoices do not specify what they are. They do not for instance specify the date or the conduct they are for.
Given I cannot confidently connect the tenant or her guests’ alleged misconduct to the invoices and the tenant cannot usefully comment on whether the charges (if they do relate to her conduct or her guests’ conduct), I am not prepared to make an order.
I note that if the charges do relate to the tenant and her guests breaching the body corporate rules, and the landlord can demonstrate what they are for, the tenant should probably pay them if they are due to her or her guests breaching the body corporate rules. Non-publication
The tenant requests non-publication of her name and identifying details.
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.
The tenant has succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified by the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances. Moreover, there is a domestic violence element that militates for non-publication.
Non-publication is ordered.

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for the tenant breaching their obligations.
In this case because the tenant lives in a body corporate development, she must comply with the body corporate rules.
The body corporate has written to the unit owner describing the breaches as follows: Police Calls: Police have been called on three separate occasions due to tenant-related incidents: •24/04/2025- Reference: P062345454 •13/05/2025 - Reference: P062536353 •13/05/2025 - Reference: P062534480 Complaints and Issues Reported: Numerous residents have raised ongoing concerns regarding the following behaviour: •Excessive noise, particularly outside permitted hours as outlined by Auckland CounciI regulations •Domestic disturbances and violent altercations •Profanity and aggressive behaviour, including threats directed at neighbours (e.g., threats of increased noise ir evicted) •Alcohol-related spills in common areas, resulting in additional cleaning. All of these matters have been brought to your and the property manager's attention through multiple emails, phone calls, and video evidence, which have been provided as part of our repeated attempts to resolve this issue amicably. As per the Body Corporate Rules the tenant's ongoing behaviour constitutes a clear breach of obligations to ensure peaceful enjoyment of the property for other residents and to maintain common areas free from obstruction and hazard.

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. 1
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
In this case, I am satisfied that the breaches cumulatively are serious, and that the landlord has warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breaches.
The tenant explained that all of the breaches related to her ex-partner’s actions. She has ended the relationship and issued him with a trespass order. She believes he is in prison. She says there have been no complaints about her use of the unit to her knowledge for over a month now that her ex-partner has been trespassed.
Mr Meili did not dispute the tenant’s comments.
I am not satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy where there is a good prospect the impugned conduct will not recur. Therefore, the Tribunal must decline the application. 1 See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The application for termination is dismissed.
However, if the landlord brings another claim for termination for repeated similar breaches relating to the unit, the Tribunal may decide differently. Breach costs
The landlord asked for an order that the tenant pay on-charges to the landlord related to the alleged breaches.
The on-charge invoices do not specify what they are. They do not for instance specify the date or the conduct they are for.
Given I cannot confidently connect the tenant or her guests’ alleged misconduct to the invoices and the tenant cannot usefully comment on whether the charges (if they do relate to her conduct or her guests’ conduct), I am not prepared to make an order.
I note that if the charges do relate to the tenant and her guests breaching the body corporate rules, and the landlord can demonstrate what they are for, the tenant should probably pay them if they are due to her or her guests breaching the body corporate rules. Non-publication
The tenant requests non-publication of her name and identifying details.
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.
The tenant has succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified by the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances. Moreover, there is a domestic violence element that militates for non-publication.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266565 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5266565 — Cleanliness

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