What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5459071 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5459071?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5459071?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5459071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13588833-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5459071 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5459071?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5459071?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5459071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13588833-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5459071 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant lives in a complex with eight units and some common areas. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under three different parts of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant does not want the tenancy to end. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The questions I have to decide include: • Did the tenant cause substantial damage to the power meter? • Was the tenant engaged in antisocial behaviour on three separate occasions? • Did the tenant breach his obligations under the tenancy by using power taken from the laundry?

Did the tenant cause substantial damage to the power meter?

Section 55(1)(b) RTA provides that the Tribunal can end the tenancy if the tenant has caused substantial damage to the tenancy premises. The landlord submitted that the tenant destroyed a power meter box and the earth wires. The tenant denied the damage and said he noticed the earth wires were loose when he went for a walk and he used a screw driver and a plastic bag to try and fix the earth wires.
The landlord had two witnesses who gave written statements at the time. The witnesses live in the same complex. At the hearing neither witness gave evidence that they saw the tenant damage the power meter box. One witness said he saw the tenant poke the earth wires and assumed he had caused the damage to the power box. The landlord has not proved it was the tenant who caused the damage. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.

Was the tenant engaged in antisocial behaviour on three separate occasions?

In the alternative, the landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of antisocial behaviour from the tenant. The law relating to this is set out in section 55A RTA.
The landlord states that the antisocial behaviour was • urinating outside a neighbour’s unit • harassing and abusing Kainga Ora contractors and staff who were working at the complex and this was reported to the police • damaging the power meter box and causing a power outage to some of the complex, and throwing items onto the road.
When the witness to the urination gave evidence at the hearing today he said he only saw a shadow and assumed it was the tenant. The tenant does not agree he urinated outside his neighbour’s unit. There is insufficient evidence to me to decide there was antisocial behaviour on this occasion.
The Housing Services Manager for the tenant gave evidence at the hearing. He said he was called to the complex on 16 February 2026 because the tenant was yelling at contactors and would not leave them alone to get on with their work. When asked to leave the tenant swore at the manager and at another manager who had come to help. The tenant agreed he went into the unit downstairs where the contractors were working because he was feeling unwell and he wanted them to stop making so much noise. He does not remember swearing at the managers. I am persuaded by the manager’s evidence that there was antisocial behaviour by the tenant on this occasion.
The power box has already been discussed. The witnesses did not see the tenant throw his belongings on the road. The tenant said it made no sense for him to throw his own belongings on the road because they were damaged. It appears the police have charged the tenant with throwing items on the road but that is not clear from the police records released under the Official Information Act. I am not persuaded the landlord has proved there was antisocial behaviour on this occasion.
I do not find the landlord has proved there was antisocial behaviour of three separate occasions. This claim is dismissed. Did the tenant breach his obligations under the tenancy by using power taken from the laundry?
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations as set out in section 56 RTA. The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable (very unfair) to refuse to terminate.
It is agreed evidence the tenant ran an extension cord from the shared laundry to his unit and used the landlord’s power instead of his own. This is a breach capable of remedy. 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.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 15 January 2026 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. The landlord submitted the tenant ran the extension cord from the laundry to his unit a number of times. Using the power paid for by the landlord is a breach of the RTA, because the tenant cannot do anything unlawful, and this would equate to stealing from the landlord. See section 40(20(b) RTA.
The District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy. These are: • The history of the tenancy • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is 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.
History – the landlord said the tenant was known to be disruptive and is on their records as behaving unpredictably. The landlord said it believes the tenant dropped a rock onto a contractor’s vehicle in February 2026 and the police have laid charges about this. The tenant denied damaging the vehicle and said he was being blamed for many things. There was no witness evidence about the damage and the report written by the contractor on the day does not name the tenant.
The tenant was in hospital because of an acute mental health admission in March 2026. The tenant explained what happened during the hearing and said he had been trying to change his behaviour around his tenancy since he got out of hospital.
Warnings – the tenant was warned a number of times about running an extension cord from the laundry to his unit. He was served a notice in January asking him to stop. He continued to use the power. The tenant said he did this because there was a mix up with power meters and he had been paying for his neighbour’s power and the landlord had not done anything to fix this problem. As a result the tenant decided to cancel his own power account and use the landlord’s power instead. He said he had been doing this for some time and agreed he had been told to stop more than once. He has stopped now and has his own power account again.
Likely to comply – It seems the issue of the wrong power meters has not been resolved but the tenant is paying for his own power and has stopped using the landlord’s power. The tenant said he wants to stay in the unit and he would hate to be homeless.
Deliberate – this breach was calculated and deliberately committed over a period of time, despite verbal and written warnings.
Landlord’s conduct – the tenant said the issue with the wrong power accounts is unresolved but this was not discussed at the hearing. From the paperwork and the evidence submitted it seems the landlord has acted reasonably.
The gravity of the breach – deliberately taking the landlord’s power is a serious breach.
Termination – I am not persuaded that termination is a proportionate response to the breach on this occasion. If I weigh the seriousness of the breach against the tenant’s recent change of behaviour and the acute mental health issues I find that it would be very unfair to end the tenancy right now. This claim is dismissed. Suppression
Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. I have used my discretion to allow suppression for the tenant. This is because I have not terminated the tenancy and because I have referred to his recent mental health issues in my order.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant lives in a complex with eight units and some common areas. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under three different parts of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The tenant does not want the tenancy to end. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The questions I have to decide include: • Did the tenant cause substantial damage to the power meter? • Was the tenant engaged in antisocial behaviour on three separate occasions? • Did the tenant breach his obligations under the tenancy by using power taken from the laundry?

Did the tenant cause substantial damage to the power meter?

Section 55(1)(b) RTA provides that the Tribunal can end the tenancy if the tenant has caused substantial damage to the tenancy premises. The landlord submitted that the tenant destroyed a power meter box and the earth wires. The tenant denied the damage and said he noticed the earth wires were loose when he went for a walk and he used a screw driver and a plastic bag to try and fix the earth wires.
The landlord had two witnesses who gave written statements at the time. The witnesses live in the same complex. At the hearing neither witness gave evidence that they saw the tenant damage the power meter box. One witness said he saw the tenant poke the earth wires and assumed he had caused the damage to the power box. The landlord has not proved it was the tenant who caused the damage. This claim is not proved and it is dismissed.

Was the tenant engaged in antisocial behaviour on three separate occasions?

In the alternative, the landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of antisocial behaviour from the tenant. The law relating to this is set out in section 55A RTA.
The landlord states that the antisocial behaviour was • urinating outside a neighbour’s unit • harassing and abusing Kainga Ora contractors and staff who were working at the complex and this was reported to the police • damaging the power meter box and causing a power outage to some of the complex, and throwing items onto the road.
When the witness to the urination gave evidence at the hearing today he said he only saw a shadow and assumed it was the tenant. The tenant does not agree he urinated outside his neighbour’s unit. There is insufficient evidence to me to decide there was antisocial behaviour on this occasion.
The Housing Services Manager for the tenant gave evidence at the hearing. He said he was called to the complex on 16 February 2026 because the tenant was yelling at contactors and would not leave them alone to get on with their work. When asked to leave the tenant swore at the manager and at another manager who had come to help. The tenant agreed he went into the unit downstairs where the contractors were working because he was feeling unwell and he wanted them to stop making so much noise. He does not remember swearing at the managers. I am persuaded by the manager’s evidence that there was antisocial behaviour by the tenant on this occasion.
The power box has already been discussed. The witnesses did not see the tenant throw his belongings on the road. The tenant said it made no sense for him to throw his own belongings on the road because they were damaged. It appears the police have charged the tenant with throwing items on the road but that is not clear from the police records released under the Official Information Act. I am not persuaded the landlord has proved there was antisocial behaviour on this occasion.
I do not find the landlord has proved there was antisocial behaviour of three separate occasions. This claim is dismissed. Did the tenant breach his obligations under the tenancy by using power taken from the laundry?
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations as set out in section 56 RTA. The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable (very unfair) to refuse to terminate.
It is agreed evidence the tenant ran an extension cord from the shared laundry to his unit and used the landlord’s power instead of his own. This is a breach capable of remedy. 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.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 15 January 2026 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. The landlord submitted the tenant ran the extension cord from the laundry to his unit a number of times. Using the power paid for by the landlord is a breach of the RTA, because the tenant cannot do anything unlawful, and this would equate to stealing from the landlord. See section 40(20(b) RTA.
The District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy. These are: • The history of the tenancy • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is 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.
History – the landlord said the tenant was known to be disruptive and is on their records as behaving unpredictably. The landlord said it believes the tenant dropped a rock onto a contractor’s vehicle in February 2026 and the police have laid charges about this. The tenant denied damaging the vehicle and said he was being blamed for many things. There was no witness evidence about the damage and the report written by the contractor on the day does not name the tenant.
The tenant was in hospital because of an acute mental health admission in March 2026. The tenant explained what happened during the hearing and said he had been trying to change his behaviour around his tenancy since he got out of hospital.
Warnings – the tenant was warned a number of times about running an extension cord from the laundry to his unit. He was served a notice in January asking him to stop. He continued to use the power. The tenant said he did this because there was a mix up with power meters and he had been paying for his neighbour’s power and the landlord had not done anything to fix this problem. As a result the tenant decided to cancel his own power account and use the landlord’s power instead. He said he had been doing this for some time and agreed he had been told to stop more than once. He has stopped now and has his own power account again.
Likely to comply – It seems the issue of the wrong power meters has not been resolved but the tenant is paying for his own power and has stopped using the landlord’s power. The tenant said he wants to stay in the unit and he would hate to be homeless.
Deliberate – this breach was calculated and deliberately committed over a period of time, despite verbal and written warnings.
Landlord’s conduct – the tenant said the issue with the wrong power accounts is unresolved but this was not discussed at the hearing. From the paperwork and the evidence submitted it seems the landlord has acted reasonably.
The gravity of the breach – deliberately taking the landlord’s power is a serious breach.
Termination – I am not persuaded that termination is a proportionate response to the breach on this occasion. If I weigh the seriousness of the breach against the tenant’s recent change of behaviour and the acute mental health issues I find that it would be very unfair to end the tenancy right now. This claim is dismissed. Suppression
Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. I have used my discretion to allow suppression for the tenant. This is because I have not terminated the tenancy and because I have referred to his recent mental health issues in my order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5459071 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5459071 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant cause substantial damage to the power meter?

Was the tenant engaged in antisocial behaviour on three separate occasions?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant cause substantial damage to the power meter?

Was the tenant engaged in antisocial behaviour on three separate occasions?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions