What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304739 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 5304739?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $206.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304739?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304739?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12291770-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304739 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 5304739?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $206.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304739?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304739?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12291770-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5304739 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5304739 — net $234.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$206.50	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$234.50
Bond	$234.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$234.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Matthew Messerschmidt at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 4pm on Friday 22 August 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay $234.50 from the bond of $352.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the bond of $117.50 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, by telephone.
Unfortunately, the tenant did not attend the hearing in person and the Tribunal was unable to contact him by telephone.
The landlord sought termination of the tenancy for using an illegal substance, exceeding the number of occupants, and disturbing the quiet enjoyment of a neighbour.
In addition, the landlord claimed rent arrears and compensation for replacement of keys.
However, due to lack of sufficient evidence for the use of an illegal substance and rent arrears claims the landlord did not rely on these parts of the application.
It is open to the landlord to bring a new application for rent arrears if they wish.
The periodic tenancy began on 19/5/2025 at an income related rent of $90.00 per week rent.
For the avoidance of doubt the Tribunal can only look at this tenancy and not the previous tenancy with the same landlord for a different flat in the same complex.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

In support of the claim for termination the landlord relied on the 14 day notices dated 27/5, 30/6 and 23/7/2025 for the tenant exceeding the number of occupants in the premises and breaching the quiet enjoyment of a neighbour residing in the landlord’s premises.
The landlord submitted that the tenant had previously occupied a two bedroom flat but when his circumstances changed, he had moved to a one bedroom unit under which the tenancy agreement provided for a maximum of only one occupant.
Since the end of May 2025, the landlord suggested that the unit had been occupied by two people, despite the tenant having been issued with notices to remedy the situation.
In addition, the landlord submitted that a visitor to the tenant’s premises had verbally abused a neighbour and provided a copy of the neighbour’s written complaint.
The landlord suggested they had spent significant time attempting to unsuccessfully sort out the tenant’s issues and were concerned for the safety of the neighbour.
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.
I find the evidence of the landlord and witness statement supports that the tenant has breached sections 40(2)(c) and 41 by allowing a person at the premises with his permission, to interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of another tenant of the landlord in her use of the premises.
Moreover, I am persuaded by the evidence of the landlord and notices that the tenant has breached section 40(3) by exceeding the maximum number of people who may ordinarily reside in the premises as per the tenancy agreement.
As I have found the evidence supports that the tenant has breached his obligations, I must consider whether it is inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

Is it inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

In exercising the discretion under section 56 I need to consider whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
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 his obligations in the future d. Whether the breaches were 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.
The evidence supports that issues began at the commencement of the tenancy on 19/5/2025 and despite 14 day notices and attempts to rectify the issues there has been no change or improvement.
The failure to comply with the various breach notices suggests it is unlikely the tenant will comply with his obligations in the future.
The question for the Tribunal is having established that the tenant breached his obligations under the tenancy agreement and legislation, is whether as a matter of proportionality termination is an inequitable response having regard to the tenant’s conduct throughout the tenancy and the likelihood of him complying in the future with his obligations.
Termination of a tenancy has serious consequences for a tenant.
I consider having regard to the facts of this case, which includes continual breaches over a period of three months, the safety of other tenants in the complex and the lack of remedial action by the tenant, that it would not be inequitable to terminate the tenancy.
An order has accordingly been made for termination.

Is the landlord entitled to compensation?

The landlord sought compensation of $206.50 for replacement keys and provided an invoice from a locksmith.
In support of the claim the landlord submitted that the tenant had lost his keys five times, and they wanted compensation because of the need to replace keys due to damage to a door.
Section 40(2)(a) provides that a tenant shall not intentionally and carelessly damage premises.
I am persuaded by the evidence of the landlord that re-keying of the premises was needed due to damage caused by the tenant.
The amount claimed is reasonable and has been awarded from the Bond.
The balance of the bond is to be held by the Bond Centre pending a further rent arrears claim by the landlord.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord as they were largely successful with the proceedings.
Although the landlord also sought suppression for the tenant, I do not consider it is in the public interest to do so due to the nature and extent of the claims.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5304739 — net $234.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$206.50	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$234.50
Bond	$234.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$234.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Matthew Messerschmidt at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 4pm on Friday 22 August 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay $234.50 from the bond of $352.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the bond of $117.50 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, by telephone.
Unfortunately, the tenant did not attend the hearing in person and the Tribunal was unable to contact him by telephone.
The landlord sought termination of the tenancy for using an illegal substance, exceeding the number of occupants, and disturbing the quiet enjoyment of a neighbour.
In addition, the landlord claimed rent arrears and compensation for replacement of keys.
However, due to lack of sufficient evidence for the use of an illegal substance and rent arrears claims the landlord did not rely on these parts of the application.
It is open to the landlord to bring a new application for rent arrears if they wish.
The periodic tenancy began on 19/5/2025 at an income related rent of $90.00 per week rent.
For the avoidance of doubt the Tribunal can only look at this tenancy and not the previous tenancy with the same landlord for a different flat in the same complex.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

In support of the claim for termination the landlord relied on the 14 day notices dated 27/5, 30/6 and 23/7/2025 for the tenant exceeding the number of occupants in the premises and breaching the quiet enjoyment of a neighbour residing in the landlord’s premises.
The landlord submitted that the tenant had previously occupied a two bedroom flat but when his circumstances changed, he had moved to a one bedroom unit under which the tenancy agreement provided for a maximum of only one occupant.
Since the end of May 2025, the landlord suggested that the unit had been occupied by two people, despite the tenant having been issued with notices to remedy the situation.
In addition, the landlord submitted that a visitor to the tenant’s premises had verbally abused a neighbour and provided a copy of the neighbour’s written complaint.
The landlord suggested they had spent significant time attempting to unsuccessfully sort out the tenant’s issues and were concerned for the safety of the neighbour.
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.
I find the evidence of the landlord and witness statement supports that the tenant has breached sections 40(2)(c) and 41 by allowing a person at the premises with his permission, to interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of another tenant of the landlord in her use of the premises.
Moreover, I am persuaded by the evidence of the landlord and notices that the tenant has breached section 40(3) by exceeding the maximum number of people who may ordinarily reside in the premises as per the tenancy agreement.
As I have found the evidence supports that the tenant has breached his obligations, I must consider whether it is inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

Is it inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

In exercising the discretion under section 56 I need to consider whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
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 his obligations in the future d. Whether the breaches were 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.
The evidence supports that issues began at the commencement of the tenancy on 19/5/2025 and despite 14 day notices and attempts to rectify the issues there has been no change or improvement.
The failure to comply with the various breach notices suggests it is unlikely the tenant will comply with his obligations in the future.
The question for the Tribunal is having established that the tenant breached his obligations under the tenancy agreement and legislation, is whether as a matter of proportionality termination is an inequitable response having regard to the tenant’s conduct throughout the tenancy and the likelihood of him complying in the future with his obligations.
Termination of a tenancy has serious consequences for a tenant.
I consider having regard to the facts of this case, which includes continual breaches over a period of three months, the safety of other tenants in the complex and the lack of remedial action by the tenant, that it would not be inequitable to terminate the tenancy.
An order has accordingly been made for termination.

Is the landlord entitled to compensation?

The landlord sought compensation of $206.50 for replacement keys and provided an invoice from a locksmith.
In support of the claim the landlord submitted that the tenant had lost his keys five times, and they wanted compensation because of the need to replace keys due to damage to a door.
Section 40(2)(a) provides that a tenant shall not intentionally and carelessly damage premises.
I am persuaded by the evidence of the landlord that re-keying of the premises was needed due to damage caused by the tenant.
The amount claimed is reasonable and has been awarded from the Bond.
The balance of the bond is to be held by the Bond Centre pending a further rent arrears claim by the landlord.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord as they were largely successful with the proceedings.
Although the landlord also sought suppression for the tenant, I do not consider it is in the public interest to do so due to the nature and extent of the claims.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304739 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304739 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is it inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Is the landlord entitled to compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is it inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Is the landlord entitled to compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions