What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5192931?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Chloe Te Wiki at 37 Breckons Avenue, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

How much money was awarded in case 5192931?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5192931?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5192931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11861462-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5192931?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Chloe Te Wiki at 37 Breckons Avenue, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

How much money was awarded in case 5192931?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5192931?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5192931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11861462-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

37 Breckons Avenue, Nawton, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5192931 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Chloe Te Wiki at 37 Breckons Avenue, Nawton, Hamilton 3200 is terminated, and possession is granted to Linkpeople Limited, at 11.59pm on Tuesday 3 June 2025
Chloe Te Wiki must pay Linkpeople Limited $27.00 immediately being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 10 November 2020.
The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy on the grounds the tenant has breached her obligations under the RTA in relation to cleanliness, damage and smoke alarms.
The tenant opposes the application for termination. 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 (DC) TT233/02, 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. 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. 1
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.
I therefore need to consider the three requirements set out in the RTA in order for me to order termination, which are in summary: (a)The tenant must have breached some legal obligation to the landlord; 2 and (b)If the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord issued a 14 day notice to remedy which the tenant has not complied with; 3 and (c)That the breach was of such significance, that it would be 1 See section 56(1) of the RTA. 2 See section 56(1)(a) of the RTA 3 See section 56(1)(b) of the RTA. inequitable (unfair) not to terminate the tenancy. 4

Has the tenant breached any obligations to the landlord?

The landlord says the tenant has breached their obligations by: a. failing to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, 5 and b. intentionally or carelessly damaging the premises, or permitting any other person to damage the premises , 6 c. causing or permitting any interference with, or rendering inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. 7 The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire”, which covers smoke alarms. Cleaning
The landlord provided a pre tenancy inspection report which confirmed the premises was reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy and in a good state of repair, with no apparent damage.
The landlord provided photographs which confirm that the premises has not met the standard of being reasonably clean and tidy a number of times since January 2024. The photographs were taken at inspections on 15 January 2024, 26 August 2024 and 3 February 2025. The photographs show over this period that there has been a persistent issue with a lot of rubbish in and outside the premises (including dirty nappies on the floor), the carpets were unvacuumed and stained and walls were marked and grubby.
I find that the tenant has breached her obligations by failing to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Damage
At each inspection referred to above the photographs show significant wall damage and damages to the doors. The damage includes large holes and cracks in walls and doors and what appears to be scribbles over the walls. Invoices for the repairs were provided by the landlord. 4 See section 56(1)(a) of the RTA. 5 See section 40 (1) (c) of the RTA 6 See section 40(2)(a) of the RTA. 7 See section 40 (2)(ab) of the RTA.
The tenant accepts the damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant says the wall and door damage was exacerbated by a persistent dampness issue in the home. I am not satisfied on the evidence that this is the case. The photographs do not show the walls were deteriorating from dampness and the landlord provided invoices showing the walls and doors had been repaired a number of times. I expect any contractor would have noted issues of dampness in the invoice.
I find that the tenant has breached her obligations by causing or allowing others in her home to cause significant damage to the premises. Smoke alarms
The landlord says the tenant removed the smoke alarms. The property manager gave evidence that he personally installed the smoke alarms in all rooms in the premises in September 2024. The property manager checked the landlord’s records to confirm this date. He says when he inspected the premises in February 2025 the smoke alarms had been taken down. The tenant disputed this evidence, suggesting that a contractor had attended at the premises and not installed the smoke alarms as he had been contracted to do. I prefer the evidence of the landlord who was able to specify the date and confirmed he installed the smoke alarms personally.
I find that the tenant has breached her obligations by removing the installed smoke alarms.

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Where a breach is established and the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must give the tenant a notice to remedy, which the tenant does not remedy within 14 days. The breaches were capable of remedy. The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 11 February 2025. The expiry date was 25 February 2025. Cleaning
The landlord provided a photograph of rubbish still at the premises (in front of the broken front door) taken on 6 May 2025. The tenant said she had arranged a skip bin to remove rubbish at the premises but as I understand it, that process was still underway. I therefore find that the tenant did not remedy this breach within the required period. Damage
The tenant also confirmed she has not repaired the wall damage or removed all the drawings on the walls. I therefore find that the tenant did not remedy this breach within the required period. Smoke alarms
The tenant confirmed at the hearing that the smoke alarms were not currently installed. I therefore find that the tenant did not remedy this breach within the required period. Inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management 8 the Court needed to consider the extent of section 56(1)(c), which requires consideration of whether 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.
The Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant in that case, 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. 8 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe) at [61].,
Having regard to these factors I note: (a)The history of the tenancy: The tenancy has been long, commencing in 2020. The landlord says the concerns around cleaning and damage started in at least January 2024. It would be unfair to allow this to continue. The tenant has also been served a notice in relation to anti-social behavior on 24 February 2025. (b)Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings: The landlord’s evidence was that there have been many breaches in relation to cleanliness and damage. 14-day notices were issued on 25 January 2024, 4 September 2024 and 11 February 2025. (c)Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future: I consider the tenant is unlikely to be able to meet her obligations moving forward and there is therefore a risk of further deterioration from damage and lack of smoke alarms to the property. (d)Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed: I consider the breach is most likely deliberate, in the sense that the tenant makes decisions around how she deals with her belongings and rubbish, and how she manages those in her home, but I am also sure the tenant did not set out on a deliberate course intending to breach her obligations. (e)The conduct of the landlord: I consider that the conduct of the landlord has been very good. The landlord has gone well beyond what a landlord would be expected to do in supporting the tenant to repair the damage caused at different times. I consider the landlord has acted appropriately in bringing the claim to the Tribunal. (f)The gravity of the breach: Allowing the premises to remain in an unclean state and causing damage to the property are serious breaches of the tenants’ obligations. Removing smoke alarms puts the occupants lives at risk. (g)Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach: I consider that termination is a proportionate response to the breaches. The landlord is a social housing provider and the premises ought to be available for tenants who will not leave it unclean or cause or risk damage to it.
For these reasons I consider it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Termination under section 55
In the alternative, the landlord seeks an order terminating the tenancy due specifically to the damage I have referred to above. An order for termination for damage may be made under section 55 of the RTA. 9
I note section 56(2) of the RTA confirms that if the landlord applies to terminate the tenancy under section 56, if at the time of determining the matter the landlord could have made an application under section 55, the Tribunal shall determine the matter as if the application has been made under section 55.
Section 55 is also a general termination provision, which confirms at section 55(1)(b) that the Tribunal shall order termination of the tenancy if “the tenant has caused, or has permitted any other person to cause, or has threatened to cause, substantial damage to the premises. In terms of the necessary standard that needs to be met, “substantial damage” must be noteworthy and of considerable amount or value or of ample or considerable quantity or dimensions. 10
Based on the photographs taken at the three different inspections, I consider that the tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises. I consider the damage is noteworthy and of considerable amount or value.
Accordingly, even if I was wrong in my assessment regarding a termination under section 56, I would nevertheless have ordered termination under section 55. Conclusion
The tenancy is terminated. The termination date is to be Tuesday 3 June 2025. 9 The notice of hearing records the claim for termination as under s 55 and s 56 of the RTA. 10 See Morton v Barnhorn, TT189 & 302/97, DC Dunedin, 27 April 1997. Filing fee
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00. Suppression
The landlord sought name suppression however this is declined as there is a public interest in publishing matters that relate to social housing providers. 11 The tenant did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5192931 — 14-day notice at 37 Breckons Avenue, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5192931 — 14-day notice at 37 Breckons Avenue, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the tenant breached any obligations 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 obligations to the landlord?

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions