What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5544219 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 5544219?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5544219?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5544219?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14089270-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5544219 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 5544219?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5544219?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5544219?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14089270-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5544219 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Tribunal finds that the landlord entered the premises unlawfully.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Wang represented the landlord.
The tenant wants the Tribunal to decide if the landlord breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) because of the way it dealt with a missing key and carried out a welfare check. The landlord has applied to end the tenancy. The questions I have to decide are: • Was there a breach relating to the keys? • Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully? • Can I end the tenancy?

Was there a breach relating to the keys?

The tenant claims the landlord withheld replacement keys when he lost his key. He said this caused severe hardship because he could not leave his room and get food. The landlord said it replied to the email about a lost key by asking the tenant to check and get back to them if the key really was lost. The tenant did not reply for around a week so the landlord assumed the tenant had found his key. On 14 May 2026, when it became clear the key was still lost, the landlord gave the tenant the spare key. The landlord then tried to arrange for the lock to be changed but the tenant refused. Resolving this issue was not easy because the tenant’s mental health was deteriorating. I do not find there was any breach by the landlord here and this claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

The tenant claims the landlord entered his apartment without proper notice or consent three or four times in April and May 2026. One of these times was when the landlord unlocked the door and called out. A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
The landlord said it carried out a routine inspection in April and gave proper notice to the tenant about that. On 12 May 2026 the tenant’s mother called the landlord in tears because she had not been able to contact the tenant for some time. The landlord tried calling the tenant and then went the apartment. The landlord knocked and then unlocked the door and called out when the tenant did not answer. Days later the tenant was admitted to hospital for acute medical care. The landlord provided a statement from the tenant’s mother confirming the request for a welfare check. The landlord maintains there was no breach of section 48 RTA because there was an emergency.
The landlord said it did not consider contacting the police to do a welfare check because the police have more important things to do. The landlord said it has a pastoral care role because the tenant was a university student when he signed the tenancy agreement. I am aware that there are rules for pastoral care for student accommodation, but the landlord could not provide me with any information at the hearing as to what exactly the legislation requires.
I am not persuaded the landlord was allowed to enter the apartment because the tenant’s mother was worried. There was no emergency at the time. The police carry out welfare checks as a routine part of their role and they should have been called instead. I find the landlord did not enter because of an emergency and this was a breach of section 48 RTA.
The tenant asked if I could make an order for compensation. I will not do that here because it was clear the tenant was struggling with his mental health and he was admitted to hospital soon after. This should be taken into account.

Can I end the tenancy?

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because of: • the tenant’s anti social behaviour • the breach of the duty to keep the apartment reasonably clean • the tenant breaching the quiet enjoyment of other tenants • smoking inside and use of cannabis • safety concerns for contractors, staff and other tenants.
I cannot end the tenancy because of anti-social behaviour because the tenant is not on a periodic tenancy. This claim is dismissed. See section 55A RTA.
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. 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. See section 56(1) RTA.
The landlord has not served any notices for the breach of failing to keep the apartment reasonably clean and tidy. I would expect notices to be served for a breach like this because the breach can be remedied by cleaning. I find the landlord has not followed the proper procedure, so this claim is dismissed.
Where a 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.
The landlord submitted the tenant has disturbed and frightened the other tenants living in the building. A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) RTA.
The landlord showed me photos from the CCTV recordings which he said show the tenant looking like a homeless person, walking around in bare feet and a cap and a hoodie, walking aimlessly around the communal lounge, and following another tenant into the building looking like a homeless person, without using the swipe card, and looking through their window. I am not persuaded that any of these are breaches of the RTA and even if they were breaches they would not be serious enough to warrant ending the tenancy without giving a notice first. The claims relating to disturbing the neighbours is dismissed.
The landlord is concerned that the tenant has smoked inside and smoked cannabis in the common areas. I was provided with a photo from the CCTV recording showing the tenant walking out of the lift with a cigarette in his mouth. The tenant said the cigarette is not lit and he is carrying it in his mouth. It is not clear from this photo that the tenant is smoking.
The tenant said he has not smoked cannabis in the apartment or in the communal areas. Last week the landlord watched the tenant smoking in a communal area and collected his butts. He arranged for a drug sniffing dog to check the building a few days later. The landlord put the butt in the communal lounge and the drug dog sat next to it. I was provided with a copy of the drug dog report. The landlord said this proves the tenant has used cannabis in the premises. The landlord said the cannabis use is illegal and it is a breach of the RTA.
I find the landlord has not proved the tenant was smoking inside or that the butt collected from a communal ashtray proves the tenant was smoking cannabis. These claims are dismissed.
The landlord provided me with a statement from contractors who said they asked the tenant if he was smoking cannabis, and in response the tenant swore at them. The landlord said the altercation with the contractors proves the tenant is not stable and it is not safe for other tenants, contractors and staff if the tenant is allowed to continue living in the apartment. I am not persuaded the landlord has proved there was an altercation, or that I can draw the conclusion it is not safe for the staff and the other tenants if the tenancy continues. The landlord has not proved these breaches, so I cannot end the tenancy under section 56 RTA.
The application to end the tenancy is dismissed. Other orders
No order is made for reimbursing the filing fee because the tenant has only been partly successful with his claim.
There are applications for 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.
The tenant’s application is successful because he is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Tribunal finds that the landlord entered the premises unlawfully.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Wang represented the landlord.
The tenant wants the Tribunal to decide if the landlord breached the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) because of the way it dealt with a missing key and carried out a welfare check. The landlord has applied to end the tenancy. The questions I have to decide are: • Was there a breach relating to the keys? • Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully? • Can I end the tenancy?

Was there a breach relating to the keys?

The tenant claims the landlord withheld replacement keys when he lost his key. He said this caused severe hardship because he could not leave his room and get food. The landlord said it replied to the email about a lost key by asking the tenant to check and get back to them if the key really was lost. The tenant did not reply for around a week so the landlord assumed the tenant had found his key. On 14 May 2026, when it became clear the key was still lost, the landlord gave the tenant the spare key. The landlord then tried to arrange for the lock to be changed but the tenant refused. Resolving this issue was not easy because the tenant’s mental health was deteriorating. I do not find there was any breach by the landlord here and this claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

The tenant claims the landlord entered his apartment without proper notice or consent three or four times in April and May 2026. One of these times was when the landlord unlocked the door and called out. A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
The landlord said it carried out a routine inspection in April and gave proper notice to the tenant about that. On 12 May 2026 the tenant’s mother called the landlord in tears because she had not been able to contact the tenant for some time. The landlord tried calling the tenant and then went the apartment. The landlord knocked and then unlocked the door and called out when the tenant did not answer. Days later the tenant was admitted to hospital for acute medical care. The landlord provided a statement from the tenant’s mother confirming the request for a welfare check. The landlord maintains there was no breach of section 48 RTA because there was an emergency.
The landlord said it did not consider contacting the police to do a welfare check because the police have more important things to do. The landlord said it has a pastoral care role because the tenant was a university student when he signed the tenancy agreement. I am aware that there are rules for pastoral care for student accommodation, but the landlord could not provide me with any information at the hearing as to what exactly the legislation requires.
I am not persuaded the landlord was allowed to enter the apartment because the tenant’s mother was worried. There was no emergency at the time. The police carry out welfare checks as a routine part of their role and they should have been called instead. I find the landlord did not enter because of an emergency and this was a breach of section 48 RTA.
The tenant asked if I could make an order for compensation. I will not do that here because it was clear the tenant was struggling with his mental health and he was admitted to hospital soon after. This should be taken into account.

Can I end the tenancy?

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because of: • the tenant’s anti social behaviour • the breach of the duty to keep the apartment reasonably clean • the tenant breaching the quiet enjoyment of other tenants • smoking inside and use of cannabis • safety concerns for contractors, staff and other tenants.
I cannot end the tenancy because of anti-social behaviour because the tenant is not on a periodic tenancy. This claim is dismissed. See section 55A RTA.
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. 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. See section 56(1) RTA.
The landlord has not served any notices for the breach of failing to keep the apartment reasonably clean and tidy. I would expect notices to be served for a breach like this because the breach can be remedied by cleaning. I find the landlord has not followed the proper procedure, so this claim is dismissed.
Where a 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.
The landlord submitted the tenant has disturbed and frightened the other tenants living in the building. A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) RTA.
The landlord showed me photos from the CCTV recordings which he said show the tenant looking like a homeless person, walking around in bare feet and a cap and a hoodie, walking aimlessly around the communal lounge, and following another tenant into the building looking like a homeless person, without using the swipe card, and looking through their window. I am not persuaded that any of these are breaches of the RTA and even if they were breaches they would not be serious enough to warrant ending the tenancy without giving a notice first. The claims relating to disturbing the neighbours is dismissed.
The landlord is concerned that the tenant has smoked inside and smoked cannabis in the common areas. I was provided with a photo from the CCTV recording showing the tenant walking out of the lift with a cigarette in his mouth. The tenant said the cigarette is not lit and he is carrying it in his mouth. It is not clear from this photo that the tenant is smoking.
The tenant said he has not smoked cannabis in the apartment or in the communal areas. Last week the landlord watched the tenant smoking in a communal area and collected his butts. He arranged for a drug sniffing dog to check the building a few days later. The landlord put the butt in the communal lounge and the drug dog sat next to it. I was provided with a copy of the drug dog report. The landlord said this proves the tenant has used cannabis in the premises. The landlord said the cannabis use is illegal and it is a breach of the RTA.
I find the landlord has not proved the tenant was smoking inside or that the butt collected from a communal ashtray proves the tenant was smoking cannabis. These claims are dismissed.
The landlord provided me with a statement from contractors who said they asked the tenant if he was smoking cannabis, and in response the tenant swore at them. The landlord said the altercation with the contractors proves the tenant is not stable and it is not safe for other tenants, contractors and staff if the tenant is allowed to continue living in the apartment. I am not persuaded the landlord has proved there was an altercation, or that I can draw the conclusion it is not safe for the staff and the other tenants if the tenancy continues. The landlord has not proved these breaches, so I cannot end the tenancy under section 56 RTA.
The application to end the tenancy is dismissed. Other orders
No order is made for reimbursing the filing fee because the tenant has only been partly successful with his claim.
There are applications for 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.
The tenant’s application is successful because he is the most successful party. The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest when landlords breach the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5544219 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5544219 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach relating to the keys?

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

Can I end the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Was there a breach relating to the keys?

Did the landlord enter the premises unlawfully?

Can I end the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.