What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5257381?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5257381?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257381?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257381?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11945691-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5257381?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5257381?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257381?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257381?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11945691-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 1, 126 Vincent Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5257381 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 June 2025.
The landlord has applied to terminate the tenancy under section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

TERMINATION

The law

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. 2
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 [23 September 2020], the District Court held that the following factors are relevant to an assessment whether it is inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy b. Whether there has 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 Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord claims the tenant has failed to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy 3 , and has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1)(b). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(c). landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants. 4
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant previously moved his personal fridge and a box of personal belongings and rubbish into the shared kitchen. The landlord submitted photographs of the tenant’s fridge and a box of their personal belongings and rubbish in the shared kitchen.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant also brought supermarket trollies into the premises and left them in the hallway, which is shared by other tenants. The landlord claims this has created a nuisance and safety risk to other tenants. The landlord submitted a photograph of a trolly in the hallway.
The landlord gave evidence that when asked to remove their fridge from the common kitchen, the tenant then stored it next to the hot water cylinder in the hot water cupboard. The landlord submitted a photograph and claims that this creates a safety concern. The landlord also claims tradespeople have not been able to assess the hot water cylinder.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant has stored rubbish and personal belongings in a storage cupboard in the hallway. The landlord claims this cupboard is meant to only store a shared vacuum and mop. The landlord submitted a photograph of the storage cupboard, which appears full of the tenant’s personal belongings and rubbish.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant has disturbed the peace and comfort of other tenants by drying dirty clothes in the shared laundry facility, which causes it to smell and detracts other tenants from using it.
The landlord submitted an email from another tenant dated 16 May 2025 complaining about the rubbish brought into the premises by the tenant, which they say has caused a flea and bed bug infestation. The email also included photographs of what appear to be flea or bed bug bites on the other tenant.
The landlord sent the tenant three 14 day notices on 21 April 2025, 22 April 2025, 8 May 2025 regarding the above matters. The landlord claims the tenant has failed to remedy any of the issues within the required timeframe.
The landlord gave evidence that they have not been to the premises since the most recent 14 day notice sent on 8 May 2025. 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(2)(c). Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant accepts that they previously stored their fridge and a box of personal belongings and rubbish in the shared kitchen. The tenant also accepts that they previously brought a trolley into the premises and left it in the hallway.
The tenant gave evidence that upon receiving the landlord’s first two 14-day notices sent on 21 and 22 April 2025, the tenant immediately remedied the issues. The tenant claims they removed their fridge and rubbish from the shared kitchen and placed the trolley in their bedroom. The tenant also claims that they cleared the storage cupboard.
The tenant denies ever drying dirty clothes in the drier in the laundry and gave evidence that they have only ever dried clean clothes in the drier.
The tenant accepts that their personal fridge remains next to the hot water cylinder in the hot water cupboard but claims this is because they have experienced a problem with cockroaches in their bedroom when the fridge is kept there. The tenant requested the Tribunal to declare whether the tenant was permitted to store their fridge next to the hot water cylinder. Analysis
On the basis of the photographs submitted by the landlord, I find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has failed to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and in doing so, has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the landlord’s other tenants. There are photographs of the tenant’s personal belongings and rubbish in the common kitchen. There are also photographs of the storage cupboard, which is cluttered with the tenant’s personal belongings and rubbish. There are also photographs of a trolly in the middle of the hallway.
I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has ever dried dirty laundry in the drier. The landlord submitted an email sent from another tenant on 16 May 2025 complaining about this however, the tenant denies doing it and the other tenant was not available to be cross-examined.
The landlord sent the tenant three 14-day notices. I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has failed to remedy most of the breaches within the timeframe required in each of the landlord’s 14-day notices.
In the notices dated 21 and 22 April 2025, the landlord complains about the tenant keeping their fridge and a box of personal belongings and rubbish in the shared kitchen. The landlord also complains about the storage of a supermarket trolly in shared spaces. The tenant claims that they immediately remedied these issues and the landlord’s email sent to the tenant on 23 April 2025 suggest this is true. In their email, the landlord acknowledges the effort the tenant has made in keeping shared spaces cleaner and states “it has made a noticeable difference.”
On 8 May 2025, the landlord sent the tenant a 14-day notice complaining about the storage of personal belongings and rubbish in the storage cupboard. The landlord also submitted an email sent by another tenant on 16 May 2025, which shows the storage cupboard full of the tenant’s personal belongings and rubbish. The tenant claims they cleared the storage cupboard within the required timeframe, being 22 May 2025. The landlord has not visited the premises since 8 May 2025 and the email from the other tenant was sent before the deadline to comply with the 14-day notice. In these circumstances, the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did not clear the storage cupboard within 14 days of the notice being sent.
The only breach I find the tenant has not remedied within a reasonable timeframe is the storage of their fridge next to the hot water cylinder in the hot water cupboard. I find this breaches the tenant’s obligations to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and not to interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the landlord’s other tenants. The hot water cylinder and cupboard is a common area and I accept that it is a disturbance to other tenants to have the tenant’s fridge kept there, especially if the tenant is using the fridge to store food and is coming and going from their bedroom to the fridge regularly. The storage of the tenant’s fridge next to the hot water cylinder is also a safety concern. The tenant should move the fridge back into their bedroom.
Although the landlord has not visited the premises since 8 May 2025, the tenant accepts that their fridge remains next to the hot water cylinder as at the date of the hearing, which is more than 14 days since the landlord’s 14 day notice sent on 8 May 2025.
Notwithstanding my finding that the tenant has failed to remedy a breach within a reasonable timeframe being no less than 14 days from the date of the landlord’s notice sent on 8 May 2025, I am not convinced it would inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
This tenancy began on 4 July 2024 and is almost one year long. The landlord gave evidence that the tenant regularly pays their rent on time and no evidence of any other unremedied previous breaches was submitted.
I consider the breach was most likely deliberate however, the tenant gave evidence that they were awaiting confirmation from the Tribunal about where they can store the fridge. The answer to this question is that the tenant should store their fridge in their bedroom.
I consider the gravity of the breach to be moderate. If the tenant fails to move their fridge into their bedroom after receiving clarification from the Tribunal that this is where it needs to be stored, then it is likely that the breach may be considered more serious if the landlord were to bring a second application before the Tribunal. For the time being though, I consider the breach to be moderate.
I do not consider that termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
For these reasons, the landlord’s application for termination is dismissed. FILING FEE & SUPPRESSION
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim and therefore, I do not order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord’s written application requested name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim and therefore, I am not required to grant their request for name suppression. 5
I have a residual discretion to grant the landlord name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The facts of this case are relatively ordinary. I cannot think of any special or extraordinary reason why name suppression should be granted.
I have considered the interests of the parties and the public. I find the public interest in publication outweighs the party’s interest in suppression in this case.
I decline to grant the landlord name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257381 — 14-day notice at Room 1, 126 Vincent Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257381 — 14-day notice at Room 1, 126 Vincent Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TERMINATION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TERMINATION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions