What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5321400 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 5321400?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5321400?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5321400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12464853-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5321400 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 5321400?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5321400?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5321400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12464853-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5321400 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Mr Campbell appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Both appeared by telephone.

The tenancy commenced on 13 April 2022 and is periodic. The landlord believes that the tenant has breached the provisions of the Act and the terms of the agreement.

On 27 May 2025, the landlord issued a 14-day breach notice to remedy issues concerning damage, cleaning, and rubbish removal by 18 June 2025. The landlord claims that the notice was not remedied.

On 08 August 2025, the landlord filed a claim seeking termination of the tenancy.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Under section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act), the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable under section 56(1)(c) to refuse to terminate.

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.

In determining the exercise of the discretion in section 56(1)(c), the Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management Limited [2020] NZDC 19229, stated at [61]: [61] Factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate this tenancy include: •The history of the tenancy. •Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. •Whether the history of breaches was such that it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. •Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. •The conduct of the landlord. •The gravity of the breach. •Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

Under section 40 of the Act, the tenant must keep the property reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant is also responsible for any damage occurring during the tenancy that is more than fair wear and tear. If a tenant breaches these obligations, the landlord may serve a notice requiring them to remedy the breach. If they fail to do so the landlord may seek termination of the tenancy. Evidence

The landlord states that since the commencement of the tenancy there have been multiple attempts to assist the tenant with issues concerning damage and rubbish removal, including providing the tenant with five skip bins. Although no statements have been provided, the landlord states that they had received complaints from neighbours about vermin, which they attribute to the rubbish at the tenant’s property.

The landlord states that they have issued a number of 14-day breach notices, and have produced four: 13 September 2022 (remove rubbish and removal of a dog) , 01 November 2024 (repair damage to a bedroom wall) , 23 May 2025 ( remove a dog) , and 27 May 2025 ( containing the issues forming the basis of this application).

The landlord states that shortly before the most recent notice, they made an application for termination relying on the failure to remedy an earlier notice. The application went to mediation. The mediated order produced by the landlord is dated 11 June 2025, and required the tenant to address issues concerning cleaning, rubbish, damage, lawns, and to remove the dog by 31 July 2025. The order also warns the tenant that if they fail to comply, the landlord could make another application for termination.

The landlord states that the 27 May 2025 notice was not part of, or discussed, in the mediation. Had it been, section 80 of the Act and the common law doctrine of res judicata, which prevents a party from bringing a claim that has already been determined by a Court or Tribunal, may have applied.

In support of their claim that the tenant has failed to remedy the notice issued on 27 May 2025, the landlord has provided inspection reports from 10 February 2025, and 04 August 2025, both of which contain photographs of the interior and exterior of the property. The landlord acknowledges that the tenant has addressed some of the issues in the notice but maintains that others remain outstanding. While there has been a small improvement, the landlord states the property remains not reasonably clean and tidy.

The tenant acknowledges that there have been issues with damage and rubbish. The tenant states they are a single parent and that they reside at the property with their six children aged between 4 and 14. The tenant explained that their 14-year-old had recently returned to their care, that they suffered anger management issues due to past trauma and was responsible for the damage. However, they stated the child was now receiving counselling and support.

The tenant stated that the council had recently provided rubbish bins to the residents in the area, whereas previously they were required to purchase pre- paid bags from the supermarket. They state this had made a significant difference in their ability to dispose of rubbish. However, they accepted that some items of broken furniture and other household items remained at the property. The dog has been rehomed, although the kennel has yet to be removed. Analysis and decision.

This is the first application for termination that has made it to the Tribunal. The earlier application was resolved at mediation.

The Act does not require the property to be kept in spotless or an immaculate condition. The reasonably clean and tidy standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no precise test. Whether the tenant has failed to meet their obligations will involve an objective assessment of the evidence.

The issue in this case is whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the property is not being maintained in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and, if so, whether it would be inequitable to refuse termination.

The most recent inspection report of 04 August 2025 shows several rubbish bags and other assorted items remaining outside the property. In my objective assessment, the tenant has failed to maintain the exterior of the property in a reasonably tidy condition. However, by a narrow margin, I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes that the tenant has necessarily failed to meet their obligations concerning the cleanliness of the interior of the property, although there is clearly room for improvement.

While I am satisfied there has been a breach, I am not satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse termination. The breach does not appear to be deliberate. The provision of council bins will likely assist in mitigating the rubbish build up. In my view the state of uncleanliness must reach a level where it is posing demonstrable risk to the health and safety of the tenant or the neighbours. Apart from the landlord’s assertions there was no independent evidence. Objectively assessed, the rubbish at the property has not reached a level that poses a demonstrable risk to health and safety. In this case termination would not be a proportionate response to the breach.

The application for termination is dismissed.

The tenant is reminded that each case will be determined on its facts, and that any subsequent application for termination on similar grounds may have a different outcome. The tenant is strongly encouraged to continue engaging with available support to maintain the tenancy. Name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The tenant has been substantially successful in these proceedings. Their name, and the address of the property is suppressed.

Reasons

Mr Campbell appeared for the landlord. The tenant appeared. Both appeared by telephone.

The tenancy commenced on 13 April 2022 and is periodic. The landlord believes that the tenant has breached the provisions of the Act and the terms of the agreement.

On 27 May 2025, the landlord issued a 14-day breach notice to remedy issues concerning damage, cleaning, and rubbish removal by 18 June 2025. The landlord claims that the notice was not remedied.

On 08 August 2025, the landlord filed a claim seeking termination of the tenancy.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

This is the first application for termination that has made it to the Tribunal. The earlier application was resolved at mediation.

The application for termination is dismissed.

The tenant has been substantially successful in these proceedings. Their name, and the address of the property is suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5321400 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5321400 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions