What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4531810 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 4531810?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4531810?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4531810?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8947839-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4531810 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 4531810?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4531810?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4531810?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8947839-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4531810 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Caroline Mckenzi Te Tomo at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 12 noon on Monday 15 May 2023.
Caroline Mckenzi Te Tomo must pay the landlord the amount of $20.44 immediately, for the filing fee on this application.
Caroline Mckenzi Te Tomo agrees that the landlord may contact the supplier of the security system installed at the premises by the tenant in order to discuss the best options for removal of the system so as not to damage the premises.

Reasons

The landlord’s representative and the tenant attended the hearing on 8 May 2023.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and the tenancy agreement.
The landlord says that one of the breaches (an assault on a neighbour by one or more people at the tenancy address at the time) is so serious that the tenancy must be terminated.
The tenancy started on 17 February 2023. The tenant and seven named people under the age of 18 years are allowed to live at the premises under the terms of the tenancy agreement. What the law says
The law says that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy if there has been a breach or breaches of the tenancy agreement or of the Act, and it would be unfair to continue the tenancy. See s56(1) RTA. 1
Usually, a landlord must give a tenant a formal notice in writing that warns them that they must stop the breaching behaviour or activity (giving them at least 14 days to do so) and the tenant must have failed to do so. See s56(1)(b) RTA.
However, if the breach is something that cannot be undone or remedied, the landlord does not need to first give this notice.
A tenant is legally responsible for the actions of any person who is in the premises with their permission; see s41 RTA.

What are the breaches that are alleged?

The landlord’s application alleges that:- a. On the evening of 4 March 2023, one of the tenant’s neighbours was assaulted and verbally threatened by one or more people present at the tenancy address, and b. Since the tenant and her whānau have moved in, there have been multiple incidents of loud music and shouting and swearing, during the day and night, to the extent that neighbours have been disturbed and council noise control has been contacted, c. That a dog was (or is) living at the address without the consent of the landlord, d. There are more people living at the address than allowed on the tenancy agreement, e. A bed is sitting directly on the floor without 10 centimetres ventilation beneath it, 1 The wording of section 56 RTA is that the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that 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”. f. Rubbish and old furniture is accumulating outside the house and is not reasonably tidy, g. An external security system and fencing for the dog have been installed without the landlord’s prior consent.
These issues, if proven, are breaches of the following sections of the RTA or tenancy agreement:- a. A tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants or of any other person residing in the neighbourhood – s40(2)(c) RTA, b. No pets are permitted unless the landlord consents – prohibited under the tenancy agreement and see clause 26, c. A maximum of 8 people are allowed to live at the premises – specified in the tenancy agreement and clause 23, d. Bedding and mattresses must be kept at least 10 centimetres off the floor – clause 30 of the additional terms of the tenancy agreement, e. A tenant must keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy – s40(1)(c) RTA, f. A tenant must not make any alteration of renovation to the premises without the prior written consent from the landlord – s42 RTA and clause 4 of the additional terms of the tenancy agreement.

Has the tenant breached the RTA or the tenancy agreement?

I heard oral evidence from the landlord’s property manager, the tenant, and a neighbour (whose name was given in the hearing).
The landlord has also provided:- a. an email from the police confirming that a complaint of assault has been made by the neighbour who gave evidence at the hearing, b. breach notices served on the tenant relating to the breaches specified in paragraphs 9b, 9c, 9d, 9e, 9f, and 9g above, and c. photographs relating to each of the alleged breaches.
I have considered the evidence, and my decisions are:- a. It is proven that the neighbour who gave evidence at the hearing was assaulted by at least one person present at the tenancy address with the permission of the tenant, and probably by more than one person, during an altercation late on the evening of 4 March 2023. The assault caused bleeding and bruising to the head and face of the neighbour. A police complaint has been made. b. I am also satisfied that people at the tenancy address physically and verbally threatened the neighbour and her partner on the same evening, including one person picking up a brick at the time of the altercation, and another person saying to the neighbour more than once: “I’m gonna cut you, bitch” c. It is more probable than not that loud music disturbed the peace and comfort of neighbours on more than one occasion between 17 February 2023 and 4 March 2023, and on 26 April 2023. The tenant accepts that music was too loud at times early in the tenancy. I note that council noise control records only show loud noise on 4 March 2023. Breaches were not proven on all of the dates specified in the breach notices however I find it probable that the playing of loud music is a recurring breach that was not remedied in accordance with the breach notices. d. The tenant accepts that a dog was living at the tenancy address for a time. She says that it has been rehomed. The evidence does not prove that the dog remained after the remedy date given in the breach notice. e. It is not proven that additional people are living at the tenancy address. f. It is proven that a bed in “bedroom 2” remains sitting directly on the floor after the remedy date given in the breach notice. g. It is not proven that unreasonable amounts of rubbish remained at the premises after the remedy date in the breach notice. The tenant moved items of furniture inside into the garage which is acceptable as it is a storage place. h. It is proven that the tenant installed a security system at the premises without the prior consent of the landlord and this has not been remedied by the date given in the breach notice. There is a risk of damage to the premises if it is removed without expert advice and input.
In summary, the tenant is legally responsible for breaches of the RTA and the tenancy agreement. The assault and threats on the neighbour cannot be remedied. The loud music, bed sitting on the floor, and installation of the security system, can be remedied but have not been by the due dates. Would it be unfair (inequitable) to refuse to terminate the tenancy?
Not every breach or breaches of the RTA or tenancy agreement mean that a tenancy should be terminated. The law says that the Tribunal must consider whether they are the types of breaches that mean it would be unfair to let the tenancy continue.
I have considered this carefully. The factors I have weighed up are:- a. Ending the tenancy means that eight people will lose their home. Five of those are children under the age of 14 years. They are not responsible for the breaches, yet they will suffer the loss of secure housing. b. I consider that it is probable that the tenant herself was not directly involved in the assault. She took responsibility at the hearing and understands that she is legally responsible for the behaviour of anyone at the address with her permission. c. The tenant may not be able to prevent further intimidation or threats by people living at or visiting the tenancy address. d. There has been only one incident of loud music since the night of the assault and no other proven breaches of the quiet enjoyment of neighbours or any other serious problems. e. The assault on the neighbour was serious. It resulted in bleeding and bruises and included verbal threats of more violence. f. The neighbour who was assaulted and other neighbours have given evidence that they and their families no longer feel safe in the neighbourhood. g. I would not have terminated the tenancy for the breaches relating to loud music, bed on the floor, and security system. However, they are additional breaches that weigh on the side of terminating the tenancy for the assault and threats.
My decision is that it would be unfair to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The tenancy is terminated as at 12 noon on Monday 15 May 2023.
The tenant has agreed that the landlord may contact the security company to investigate how to remove the system without damage.
The landlord is entitled to return of the filing fee and suppression of name and tenancy address.
I encourage both the landlord and the tenant to communicate with each other and to seek the support of other agencies if there are difficulties during the moving out process.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4531810 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4531810 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What are the breaches that are alleged?

Has the tenant breached the RTA or the tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What are the breaches that are alleged?

Has the tenant breached the RTA or the tenancy agreement?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions