What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5511915 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 5511915?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5511915?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5511915?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13847478-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5511915 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 5511915?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5511915?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5511915?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13847478-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5511915 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5511915 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5511915 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 am on Friday 10 July 2026.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing on 2 July 2026.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link or by telephone. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given.
The tenancy commenced on 5 March 2026.The premises were new at the commencement of this tenancy. It is a fixed term tenancy due to end on 4 March 2027. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. The Tribunal is not required to ascertain the truth of the matter, but whether it is satisfied that the allegation is more likely than not.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
The landlord’s claims are; • The landlord seeks to terminate the tenancy as a result of having served 3 anti-social behaviour notices on the tenant (s.55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)). • The landlord seeks to terminate the tenancy as a result of the tenant failing to comply with a 14-day breach notice (s.56(1)(b) RTA). • The landlord seeks to terminate the tenancy as a result of the tenant having committed a breach of the RTA or of the tenancy agreement which is incapable of remedy (s.56(1)(a) RTA). • Reimbursement of the filing fee. Anti-Social Behaviour
Section 55A RTA provides that a landlord under a periodic tenancy may apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour where three qualifying notices have been served on the tenant. This is a fixed term tenancy and not a periodic tenancy as required under s.55A RTA. The procedure set out in that section is not available to the landlord. The notices served are invalid and the claim under s.55A RTA is dismissed. Termination for breach capable of remedy
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
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.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the premises on 23 April 2026. The landlord claims that the tenant has breached their obligations by failing to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Photos of the premises taken at the inspection were provided in evidence.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 24 April 2026.
The notice provided that; “This letter is not an eviction notice. It is a notice giving you until 07/ 05 / 2026 to remedy the situation by doing the following: • Clean ALL stains off the carpet. There are clearly caused by children carrying food around the house and very easily prevented by ensuring food is not carried through the house. I suggest you get a professional cleaner in to sort out the stains before they become permanent. Failing to remove all stains will result in our engagement of a professional cleaner and we will charge you for the cost. • Clean all marks off walls including the pen mark, doors and vanity – use sugar soap solution. Any marks that cannot be removed will mean walls will need repainting of which you will be charged for if it exceeds your bond amount. • Clean out the kitchen cupboards • Clean the front door, back door, ranch slider and fence • Clean downstairs floors • Clean skirtings • Clean the shower and ensure there are no marks, mould and water residue I will be back to review the property on the 8th May at 10am.”
The landlord carried out a further inspection of the premises on 8 May 2026. Photos of the premises were provided in evidence. The photos show that the condition of the premises at that time was if anything worse that when the notice was first served. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
Having found that the breach was not remedied, I must then consider if the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court 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: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was 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.
This is a very short tenancy. There is a history during that time of the tenant not caring for the premises. The tenant excuses the condition by saying it is fair wear and tear where premises are lived in. The photos of the inspections carried out on 23 April 2026 and 8 May 2026 show that the premises have not been kept reasonably clean and tidy as is required by s.40(1)(c) RTA.
The preliminary breach may have been inadvertent, but the failure to comply in any manner with the 14-day notice is deliberate.
The landlord’s conduct is not relevant in the circumstances of this hearing.
The tenant’s failure to take any steps to resolve the problem leaves me with no confidence that the tenant will comply with their obligations on the future. The poor state of the property after such a short period is of concern.
Is the gravity of the breach such that termination of the tenancy is disproportionate? The tenancy had lasted less than two months when the breach notice was issued. The photos from the inspection on 8 May 2026 show that the premises are not reasonably clean and tidy. The carpets are stained; the walls are marked and damaged. Curtains are damaged. The condition as shown is not “fair wear and tear” as suggested by the tenant. In those circumstances, I consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The tenancy is terminated. Termination for breach incapable of remedy
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) RTA).
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.
There are two types of obligation on a tenant: positive covenants and negative covenants. Positive covenants are things the tenant is required to do, such as paying rent. Negative covenants are things that a tenant must not do, such as breaching the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours.
Breach of a positive covenant can be remedied by requiring the tenant to do the thing they were supposed to do, such as paying the unpaid rent.
The situation is not as straightforward with breach of a negative covenant, as it may not be possible to undo the thing the tenant did which they should not have done. In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered whether breach of s 48(4)(b) RTA (refusal to allow entry) was capable of remedy: [46] Section 48(4)(b) imposes a negative obligation on the tenant. Several cases have held that breach of a negative covenant in a tenancy agreement is not capable of remedy in terms of s56(1)(b). The breach irremediably arises when the specified failure occurs. [47] It is not always the case, however, that breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. Whether a negative covenant is capable of remedy will depend on the nature of the breach, and when viewed within the context of s56(1)(b)(i), whether the harm that might be caused by the breach can be effectively remedied within a reasonable period of not less than 14 days.
It follows that a breach of a negative covenant would be capable of remedy where the effect of the breach can be remedied. Where however the breach, or the harmful effect of the breach, is serious, it may not be capable of remedy. The same may apply where there has been a persistent series of breaches, for example, where a tenant has repeatedly breached the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours.
The landlord says that the tenant has breached their obligations by causing or permitting interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of other persons residing in the neighbourhood (S.40(2)(c) RTA.
The specific incidents complained of are; • The landlord says that neighbours complained of marijuana being used by the tenants. No supporting evidence or statement was provided. • On 27 April 2026, the tenant’s brother was seen riding a motorbike on the footbath close to the entrance of other houses with a child as a passenger. No helmets were worn. The motorbike was ridden in the children’s play area. The potential for an accident to have occurred is obvious. • When a neighbour complained directly to the tenant’s brother, he became threatening and abusive. He told the neighbour that he would “fuck up your car white bitch.” The neighbour took photos of the motorbike being ridden. • The tenant and other guests approached the neighbour and threatened her if she complained. • Neighbours repeatedly complained of loud music coming from the premises and the tenant swearing loudly at her children so that it could clearly be heard by neighbours.
There has been a persistent series of breaches, where the tenant or her guests (for whose behaviour the tenant is responsible) has repeatedly breached the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours. For fullness, I record that I have not taken into account the claim that the tenant was smoking marijuana as there was simply insufficient supporting evidence.
The breaches are not capable of remedy because of the ongoing effect and persistent nature of the behaviour on the neighbours. The tenancy is terminated.
As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful in this hearing. Suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5511915 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5511915 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

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