What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5389821 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5389821?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389821?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389821?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12918565-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5389821 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5389821?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389821?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389821?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12918565-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5389821 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy commenced on 29 May 2025 and is current. On 15 November 2025, the landlord filed a claim seeking termination for failing to remedy two fourteen- day breach notices, both issued on 23 August 2025. The landlord has produced a 14-day breach notice for rent arrears and an up-to-date rent summary. However, the landlord advises that they are no longer seeking termination for rent arrears.

The landlord states they are seeking an order that the tenant remove a dog kept at the property contrary to the agreement. Although a second 14-day notice is referred to in the application it has not been provided. There is another document produced in the form of an unsigned statement in which the landlord refers to a dog, rubbish, antisocial behaviour, and operating a business. However, the statement is not a 14-day notice, nor does the landlord claim it to be one.

The landlord states that the claim was referred to mediation, where the matters in the statement were discussed, and believed that a 14-day breach notice was not required. There is no other evidence. Law

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 s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act)).

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.

Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant to remedy the breach, although the Tribunal may consider whether a warning should have been given when determining whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. Decision

Keeping a dog contrary to the agreement is a breach that is capable of remedy and therefore requires a 14 day notice to be issued. Without a valid 14 day notice the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to make any orders in respect of that breach.

During the hearing the tenant expressed the importance of maintaining the tenancy. Moving forward it would be prudent for the tenant to meet their obligations under the tenancy agreement. Although each case will be dealt with on the facts, should the landlord serve a notice, and the tenant fail to comply, the outcome may be different. Name suppression

Both parties seek 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 the 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 wholly successful and the Tribunal orders suppression of their name and the address of the property.

The landlord provides accommodation to people who have recently been released from prison and need a stable address. While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the landlord. There is a risk of stigma to the landlord and those who they accommodate if the landlord were identified. Upon careful consideration, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in section 95A (4). The Tribunal also orders suppression of the landlord’s name.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 29 May 2025 and is current. On 15 November 2025, the landlord filed a claim seeking termination for failing to remedy two fourteen- day breach notices, both issued on 23 August 2025. The landlord has produced a 14-day breach notice for rent arrears and an up-to-date rent summary. However, the landlord advises that they are no longer seeking termination for rent arrears.
The landlord states they are seeking an order that the tenant remove a dog kept at the property contrary to the agreement. Although a second 14-day notice is referred to in the application it has not been provided. There is another document produced in the form of an unsigned statement in which the landlord refers to a dog, rubbish, antisocial behaviour, and operating a business. However, the statement is not a 14-day notice, nor does the landlord claim it to be one.
The landlord states that the claim was referred to mediation, where the matters in the statement were discussed, and believed that a 14-day breach notice was not required. There is no other evidence. Law
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 s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act)).
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.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant to remedy the breach, although the Tribunal may consider whether a warning should have been given when determining whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. Decision
Keeping a dog contrary to the agreement is a breach that is capable of remedy and therefore requires a 14 day notice to be issued. Without a valid 14 day notice the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to make any orders in respect of that breach.
During the hearing the tenant expressed the importance of maintaining the tenancy. Moving forward it would be prudent for the tenant to meet their obligations under the tenancy agreement. Although each case will be dealt with on the facts, should the landlord serve a notice, and the tenant fail to comply, the outcome may be different. Name suppression
Both parties seek 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 the 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 wholly successful and the Tribunal orders suppression of their name and the address of the property.
The landlord provides accommodation to people who have recently been released from prison and need a stable address. While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the landlord. There is a risk of stigma to the landlord and those who they accommodate if the landlord were identified. Upon careful consideration, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in section 95A (4). The Tribunal also orders suppression of the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389821 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389821 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions