What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5367849 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 5367849?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367849?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12919026-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5367849 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 5367849?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5367849?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12919026-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

90 Kiripaka Road, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5367849 — 14-day notice

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

The landlord sought termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant had failed to remedy 14 day notices to remedy, relating to too many people residing at the premises and having a dog at the premises. These issues are in contravention of his tenancy agreement.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

In this case that would mean showing that more likely than not the tenant had a dog at the premises and that more likely than not there were too many people residing at the premises.

In a disputed case, where one party makes a claim and the other party disputes it, in order to prove the claim to the required standard, there needs to be some kind of objective evidence that supports the applicant’s claim.

With regard to the dog being on the premises there is no such objective evidence. The tenant says that the dog has been impounded and will be going to live at his brother’s place, and there is no evidence to show that that is not so.

With regard to too many people living at the premises, the tenant acknowledges that his brother has been staying there from time to time and that currently he has another person staying. He says that his brother is no longer staying

The tenancy agreement provides that two adults and one child may reside at the premises. There is no stipulation as to who these people might be. It has been acknowledged that the tenant’s daughter, while originally on the tenancy agreement, has not been residing there since November 2021. The landlord is aware of this and yet has not varied the tenancy agreement. On the face of it then, the tenant is entitled to have one other adult staying with him, so long as he is not subletting the tenancy.

The landlord has not provided any evidence that there are more than two adults and one child at the premises, or that the tenant is subletting. This part of their claim against the tenant is therefore also dismissed.

With regard to suppression of names, s95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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.

I am allowing the tenant’s application for suppression of his name pursuant to s95A(3) – he has wholly succeeded in his defence to this claim.

Pursuant to s95A(1) I am also allowing the landlord’s application for suppression of their name. This is because I accept that social housing providers have particular sensitivities and needs for privacy which outweigh any public interest in publication of their name. C ter Haar 24 December 2025

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant’s names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The landlord sought termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant had failed to remedy 14 day notices to remedy, relating to too many people residing at the premises and having a dog at the premises. These issues are in contravention of his tenancy agreement.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
In this case that would mean showing that more likely than not the tenant had a dog at the premises and that more likely than not there were too many people residing at the premises.
In a disputed case, where one party makes a claim and the other party disputes it, in order to prove the claim to the required standard, there needs to be some kind of objective evidence that supports the applicant’s claim.
With regard to the dog being on the premises there is no such objective evidence. The tenant says that the dog has been impounded and will be going to live at his brother’s place, and there is no evidence to show that that is not so.
With regard to too many people living at the premises, the tenant acknowledges that his brother has been staying there from time to time and that currently he has another person staying. He says that his brother is no longer staying
The tenancy agreement provides that two adults and one child may reside at the premises. There is no stipulation as to who these people might be. It has been acknowledged that the tenant’s daughter, while originally on the tenancy agreement, has not been residing there since November 2021. The landlord is aware of this and yet has not varied the tenancy agreement. On the face of it then, the tenant is entitled to have one other adult staying with him, so long as he is not subletting the tenancy.
The landlord has not provided any evidence that there are more than two adults and one child at the premises, or that the tenant is subletting. This part of their claim against the tenant is therefore also dismissed.
With regard to suppression of names, s95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order 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.
I am allowing the tenant’s application for suppression of his name pursuant to s95A(3) – he has wholly succeeded in his defence to this claim.
Pursuant to s95A(1) I am also allowing the landlord’s application for suppression of their name. This is because I accept that social housing providers have particular sensitivities and needs for privacy which outweigh any public interest in publication of their name. C ter Haar 24 December 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5367849 — 14-day notice at 90 Kiripaka Road, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5367849 — 14-day notice at 90 Kiripaka Road, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions