What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5532496 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Room E, Unit/Flat Flat 1, 9i The

How much money was awarded in case 5532496?

2. Michael Valance Tuhiwai Must By: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5532496?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5532496?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13857191-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5532496 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Room E, Unit/Flat Flat 1, 9i The

How much money was awarded in case 5532496?

2. Michael Valance Tuhiwai Must By: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5532496?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5532496?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13857191-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room E, Unit/Flat Flat 1, 9i The Avenue, Albany, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5532496 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5532496. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. Michael Valance Tuhiwai must by	$28.00		2. Michael Valance Tuhiwai must by

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Room E, Unit/Flat Flat 1, 9i The Avenue, Albany, Auckland 0632 is terminated, and possession is granted to Buildcorp Management Limited, at 11.59pm on Monday 20 July 2026.

[The tenant/s] must by $28 from the bond to the landlord immediately being reimbursement of the filing fee.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $28.00 (BN-55069537) to Buildcorp Management Limited immediately. The balance of the bond is to remain with the Bond Centre.

The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

The tenant did not connect to the MS Teams link provided to them and nor did they connect via telephone as instructed in the Notice of Hearing sent to them. The tenant was phoned on the phone number provided; however the phone call went to voice mail. The hearing proceeded in their absence.

This is a fixed-term, room-by-room tenancy that commenced on 22 May 2026 and has a contractual end date of 20 August 2026.

The landlord had applied for termination of the tenancy due to rent arrears, however on the tenant being served with a 14-day notice in respect of rent arrears the rent arrears were remedied.

The landlord seeks termination for a breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord says the tenant has breached his obligation to not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants.

The claim for rent arrears was withdrawn. The landlord also applied for payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: • ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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 more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. 2 Termination under section 56

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. 3 Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord is required to serve a 14-day notice to 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 2 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55. 3 RTA, section 56(1). remedy the breach on the tenant and prove that the tenant has not remedied the breach. Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone. However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion 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 4 , the District Court considered whether breach of s 48(4)(b) RTA (refusal to allow entry) was capable of remedy: • ...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. • 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. (emphasis added).

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.

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management 5 the Court also needed to consider the extent of section 56(1)(c) RTA, which requires consideration of whether the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that 4 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 at [46]-[47] 5 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe) at [61]., it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. The Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant, being: a) The history of the tenancy. b) Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c) Whether the history of breaches was such it was 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.

The issues I need to consider in respect of termination under s 56 of the RTA are: a. Has the tenant breached any obligation to the landlord? 6 b. If the breach is capable of remedy, has the landlord issued a 14-day notice to remedy which the tenant has not complied with 7 c. That the breach was of such significance, that it would be inequitable (unfair) not to terminate the tenancy? 8

Has the tenant breached any obligation to the landlord?

Section 40 (2) (c) RTA says the tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal decision of Joseph-Gordon v Housing New Zealand 9 provides helpful commentary: • ...the concept of reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the use of the premises is a fundamental requirement under tenancy law. It involves the right to live and enjoy the premises in peace and without reasonable disturbance. Premises extends to non-exclusive areas such as shared lawns, gardens and facilities. Under the law tenants have the right to quiet enjoyment but they also have a responsibility to ensure their behaviour and the behaviour of their visitors do 6 RTA, 56(1)(a). 7 RTA, s 56(1)(b). 8 RTA, s 56(1)(a). 9 Joseph-Gordon v Housing New Zealand [2019] NZTT 4177138 not interfere with their neighbour’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy. Quiet enjoyment under the law is qualified by the concept of reasonableness. This may mean that some potentially unpleasant disputes or differences of opinion between tenants or a personality conflict with your neighbour will unlikely qualify as an infringement of reasonable quiet enjoyment.

The landlord says the tenant has breached his obligation to not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants.

The landlord says that the other tenants (who rent other rooms in the premises and share the common area) have complained that the tenant steals their food, uses their belongings without asking or cleaning them and has taken the shared couch from the common area for another person to use to sleep in his room. The landlord provided an email from one of the tenants dated 8 June 2026 outlining the concerns noted above. A 14-day notice to remedy the breach was issued on the tenant on 9 June 2026.

After the 14-day breach notice was served on the tenant, the landlord received further emails from the tenants setting out the following concerns: a. 4 July 2026 - a concern from one of the other tenants that the tenant has set up his room in the common area. b. 2 July 2026- a concern that the tenant was loudly watching soccer with a friend in the common area and leaving rubbish and dirty dishes in the common area. c. 30 June 2026 –a concern that the tenant was sleeping in the common area and leaving the oven on all night. d. 29 June 2026 – a concern about the tenant throwing food in the backyard, requiring it to be cleaned up. e. 28 June 2026 – a concern that the tenant used one of the other tenant’s mugs. placing a powder and water in it and leaving it in the kitchen and stealing other tenant’s belongings f. 22 June 2026 – the tenant stealing other tenant’s food and playing music loudly.

These emails were provided in evidence.

The landlord says other neighboring tenants have complained about a banging noise coming from the premises, which the landlord believes is weights being dropped by the tenant.

The landlord says she has a responsibility to the other tenants to ensure they are safe and happy. She says they are feeling very unsafe and unhappy and want to leave.

I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the tenant has breached his obligation to not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises. The other tenant’s concerns do not amount to minor or trivial matters, but include theft and damage of their belongings, which would be a serious interference in their use of their home.

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Given the nature and impact of the breaches in respect of the behavior towards the other tenants I consider the breaches are not capable of remedy, however the landlord did serve the tenant with a14-day notice on 9 June 2026 and the breaches have persisted. Inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy

Having determined that the tenant has breached his obligations, and the breaches are not capable of remedy I will address each factor set out in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management in turn below in considering whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. a. the history of the tenancy: This tenancy commenced in May 2026 and the issues have arisen almost immediately. b. whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings: The tenant has been issued with one warning notice for breaching his obligations and the landlord said she has spoken to the tenant and despite this his negative behaviour continues. c. whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future: I consider that there is a risk of ongoing non-compliance, given the persistent nature of the behaviour. The tenant did not attend the hearing to provide any reassurance that he would meet his obligations moving forward. d. whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed: I consider the breach is most likely deliberate, given the nature of the breaches. e. the conduct of the landlord: I am confident the landlord has taken all reasonable steps to address the concerns, however the situation has become untenable. I consider that the conduct of the landlord has been appropriate. f. the gravity of the breach: I consider the breaches are serious. Other neighbouring tenants are worried for their safety. g. whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach: I consider that termination is a proportionate response to the breaches. Tenants should be able to live in the knowledge their personal belongings will not be taken and they should be able to have free use of their common areas.

The tenancy is terminated. I am aware the landlord and the other tenant’s seek immediate termination of the tenancy. In setting the termination date I have allowed a short time for the tenant to make alternative living arrangements, while balancing the real risk to the other tenant’s property from this tenant. Filing fee

The landlord sought reimbursement of the filing fee and because they have been wholly successful in their claim, I have ordered that the filing fee is reimbursed to the landlord and paid from the bond. 10 Suppression

The landlord did not seek name suppression

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5532496. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. Michael Valance Tuhiwai must by	$28.00		2. Michael Valance Tuhiwai must by

[The tenant/s] must by $28 from the bond to the landlord immediately being reimbursement of the filing fee.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $28.00 (BN-55069537) to Buildcorp Management Limited immediately. The balance of the bond is to remain with the Bond Centre.

The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

This is a fixed-term, room-by-room tenancy that commenced on 22 May 2026 and has a contractual end date of 20 August 2026.

The landlord had applied for termination of the tenancy due to rent arrears, however on the tenant being served with a 14-day notice in respect of rent arrears the rent arrears were remedied.

The claim for rent arrears was withdrawn. The landlord also applied for payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. Relevant legal considerations

The more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. 2 Termination under section 56

Has the tenant breached any obligation to the landlord?

The landlord says the tenant has breached his obligation to not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants.

These emails were provided in evidence.

The landlord says other neighboring tenants have complained about a banging noise coming from the premises, which the landlord believes is weights being dropped by the tenant.

The landlord says she has a responsibility to the other tenants to ensure they are safe and happy. She says they are feeling very unsafe and unhappy and want to leave.

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

The landlord did not seek name suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 5532496 — Rent arrears at Room E, Unit/Flat Flat 1, 9i The Avenue, Albany, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5532496 — Rent arrears at Room E, Unit/Flat Flat 1, 9i The Avenue, Albany, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant breached any obligation to the landlord?

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant breached any obligation to the landlord?

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions