What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4625276?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Mandy Hauraki at 15 Stadium Lane, Whitiora, Hamilton 3200 is

How much money was awarded in case 4625276?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4625276?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4625276?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10096794-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4625276?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Mandy Hauraki at 15 Stadium Lane, Whitiora, Hamilton 3200 is

How much money was awarded in case 4625276?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4625276?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4625276?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10096794-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Stadium Lane, Whitiora, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4625276 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Mandy Hauraki at 15 Stadium Lane, Whitiora, Hamilton 3200 is terminated, and possession is granted to Peter Robert Sopp and Dianne Constance Sopp as Trustees tor the Sopp Family Trust, at 5.00pm on Friday 5 April 2024.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing but the tenant did not. The matter was heard over two sessions, on 17 January and 15 March 2024.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations relating to parking at the tenancy premises and for payment of the fine incurred by the tenant parking on common property ($138.00). Background
The tenancy commenced on 30 April 2023 for a fixed term to 30 April 2024. The tenancy premises is a unit (unit 15) within Stadium Lane, which is a unit title development containing 20 units. The complex is managed by a body corporate. There is a shared driveway which is common property.
The tenancy agreement includes the operational rules of the body corporate which prohibit any vehicle (from) being parked on any part of the common property unless the body corporate has designated it for vehicle parking or given prior written consent and requires vehicles to be parked in garages. The tenancy premises includes a one car garage.
Within 10 days of the tenancy starting the body corporate contacted the landlord advising there was a car parked outside unit 15 all weekend and enquiring whether the tenant was aware of the body corporate parking rules. The issue has continued with vehicle/s being parked outside the unit that belong to either the tenant or person/s visiting the tenant.
The landlord issued anti-social behaviour notices to the tenant for vehicle/s parking on common property on: i.21 May 2023 at 7.55pm ii.4 July 2023 at 7.20pm iii.6 July 2023
The body corporate issued breach notices to the tenant and landlord for wrongful parking by the tenant or her visitors on: i.2 October 2023 at 6am ii.2 October 2023 at 4pm iii.20 December 2023 at 4.30pm
The landlord issued a 14-day notice to the tenant on 20 December 2022 for breaching the body corporate rules by parking on common property.
The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy on the grounds that: a) three anti-social notices have been issued within a 90-day period, and b) the tenant has failed to remedy the 14-day notice.

Section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out when a tenancy can be terminated on the grounds of anti-social behaviour. However the notices issued by the landlord do not meet the requirements of section 55A and regardless, termination for anti-social behaviour applies only to periodic tenancies and this tenancy is for a fixed term.
Accordingly the tenancy cannot be terminated on the grounds of anti-social behaviour.

Should the tenancy be terminated for breach under section 56?

Under section 56, RTA 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.
The District Court in Huff v City Central Property Management 1 set out factors that are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy under s 56: 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
The tenant has breached her obligations under the tenancy agreement not to park on common property. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission (section 41, RTA). Therefore when people visiting or staying with the tenant park on common property the tenant is breaching her obligation.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 20 December 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach as a vehicle associated with the tenancy premises was parked in the common area on 22 December 2023.
The landlord has provided evidence of a significant number of parking breaches by the tenant and/or persons at the tenancy premises.
Prior to the 14-day notice being served there is ongoing evidence from the start of the tenancy of the landlord advising the tenant of the parking breaches by email. I am satisfied that the landlord has discussed the issue with the tenant both in person and over the phone. In addition the tenant has been served with 1 [2020 ]NZDC 19229 at [61] the three anti-social behaviour notices and the breach notices issued by the body corporate 2 .
The landlord was fined by the body corporate for the tenant’s parking violation that occurred on 29 September 2023. The landlord sought payment of the fine from the tenant, but the tenant did not pay the fine until after the first hearing of this claim.
Following the 14-day notice being issued the evidence establishes that while the number of breaches reduced comparatively, the tenant breached the parking rules on at least five occasions that the landlord has been made aware of. Four of those occasions were after the first hearing (17 January 2024). One of the breaches has resulted in oil from a parked vehicle damaging the asphalted surface of the common area.
I am also convinced by the evidence of two residents in the complex that there have been more breaches than this, but that the residents in the complex have not brought all breaches to the attention of the landlord 3 .
I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the following reasons: a)The evidence is persuasive that the tenant has been repeatedly advised by the landlord not to breach the parking conditions but has continually done so from soon after the tenancy commenced. Accordingly I find there has been persistent failure after she has been given repeated warnings by the landlord. b)Given the number of warnings I find the breaches are deliberately committed and that the tenant is unlikely to comply with their obligations in the future. The tenant did not attend either hearing, which means I have not had the opportunity to hear from the tenant in person. In my adjournment order 4 I stated that the tenant may mitigate the effect of past breaches by not parking in the common area and by paying the landlord defining incurred of $138 before the next hearing. While the tenant paid the fine, the parking breaches have continued. c)I have given careful consideration to the gravity of the breach. The evidence establishes vehicles are parked outside of the tenancy premises in a manner that affects the access to the garage of two other residents, with access for one resident significantly affected. The driveway has yellow ‘no- parking’ lines in all areas other than entrances to garages. There are signs clearly stating only residents’ cars can enter the complex and that other 2 See paragraphs 6 and 7 above 3 The landlord has received complaints from both residents and the body corporate about the continued parking outside unit 15 by the tenant and/or her visitors. 4 Dated 17 January 2024 vehicles parked in the complex may be fined or towed. Vehicles have been parked for varying times outside the tenant’s unit ranging from a short period of car to overnight, and on one occasion for the weekend. A number of photographs presented show more than one vehicle at a time parked on the common property. The parking has, at the least, inconvenienced other residents and is the cause of altercations between the tenant and other residents. The asphalt surface of the common area has now been affected by the tenant’s actions. d)The need for the no-parking rule on common property is clearly evidenced by the photographs of the complex which establish how compact the driveway and entrances to the garages are. It is important for every resident in this complex to meet their parking obligations as failure to do so has an impact on others living there. The actions of the tenant are impacting other residents.
After balancing all of the above factors I find it would be inequitable or unfair not to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord has requested the tenant be given around three weeks to terminate the tenancy and the tenancy is terminated on Friday 5 April 2024.

Order

The tenancy of Mandy Hauraki at 15 Stadium Lane, Whitiora, Hamilton 3200 is terminated, and possession is granted to Peter Robert Sopp and Dianne Constance Sopp as Trustees tor the Sopp Family Trust, at 5.00pm on Friday 5 April 2024.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing but the tenant did not. The matter was heard over two sessions, on 17 January and 15 March 2024.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations relating to parking at the tenancy premises and for payment of the fine incurred by the tenant parking on common property ($138.00). Background
The tenancy commenced on 30 April 2023 for a fixed term to 30 April 2024. The tenancy premises is a unit (unit 15) within Stadium Lane, which is a unit title development containing 20 units. The complex is managed by a body corporate. There is a shared driveway which is common property.
The tenancy agreement includes the operational rules of the body corporate which prohibit any vehicle (from) being parked on any part of the common property unless the body corporate has designated it for vehicle parking or given prior written consent and requires vehicles to be parked in garages. The tenancy premises includes a one car garage.
Within 10 days of the tenancy starting the body corporate contacted the landlord advising there was a car parked outside unit 15 all weekend and enquiring whether the tenant was aware of the body corporate parking rules. The issue has continued with vehicle/s being parked outside the unit that belong to either the tenant or person/s visiting the tenant.
The landlord issued anti-social behaviour notices to the tenant for vehicle/s parking on common property on: i.21 May 2023 at 7.55pm ii.4 July 2023 at 7.20pm iii.6 July 2023
The body corporate issued breach notices to the tenant and landlord for wrongful parking by the tenant or her visitors on: i.2 October 2023 at 6am ii.2 October 2023 at 4pm iii.20 December 2023 at 4.30pm
The landlord issued a 14-day notice to the tenant on 20 December 2022 for breaching the body corporate rules by parking on common property.
The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy on the grounds that: a) three anti-social notices have been issued within a 90-day period, and b) the tenant has failed to remedy the 14-day notice.

Section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out when a tenancy can be terminated on the grounds of anti-social behaviour. However the notices issued by the landlord do not meet the requirements of section 55A and regardless, termination for anti-social behaviour applies only to periodic tenancies and this tenancy is for a fixed term.
Accordingly the tenancy cannot be terminated on the grounds of anti-social behaviour.

Should the tenancy be terminated for breach under section 56?

Under section 56, RTA 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.
The District Court in Huff v City Central Property Management 1 set out factors that are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy under s 56: 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
The tenant has breached her obligations under the tenancy agreement not to park on common property. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission (section 41, RTA). Therefore when people visiting or staying with the tenant park on common property the tenant is breaching her obligation.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 20 December 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach as a vehicle associated with the tenancy premises was parked in the common area on 22 December 2023.
The landlord has provided evidence of a significant number of parking breaches by the tenant and/or persons at the tenancy premises.
Prior to the 14-day notice being served there is ongoing evidence from the start of the tenancy of the landlord advising the tenant of the parking breaches by email. I am satisfied that the landlord has discussed the issue with the tenant both in person and over the phone. In addition the tenant has been served with 1 [2020 ]NZDC 19229 at [61] the three anti-social behaviour notices and the breach notices issued by the body corporate 2 .
The landlord was fined by the body corporate for the tenant’s parking violation that occurred on 29 September 2023. The landlord sought payment of the fine from the tenant, but the tenant did not pay the fine until after the first hearing of this claim.
Following the 14-day notice being issued the evidence establishes that while the number of breaches reduced comparatively, the tenant breached the parking rules on at least five occasions that the landlord has been made aware of. Four of those occasions were after the first hearing (17 January 2024). One of the breaches has resulted in oil from a parked vehicle damaging the asphalted surface of the common area.
I am also convinced by the evidence of two residents in the complex that there have been more breaches than this, but that the residents in the complex have not brought all breaches to the attention of the landlord 3 .
I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the following reasons: a)The evidence is persuasive that the tenant has been repeatedly advised by the landlord not to breach the parking conditions but has continually done so from soon after the tenancy commenced. Accordingly I find there has been persistent failure after she has been given repeated warnings by the landlord. b)Given the number of warnings I find the breaches are deliberately committed and that the tenant is unlikely to comply with their obligations in the future. The tenant did not attend either hearing, which means I have not had the opportunity to hear from the tenant in person. In my adjournment order 4 I stated that the tenant may mitigate the effect of past breaches by not parking in the common area and by paying the landlord defining incurred of $138 before the next hearing. While the tenant paid the fine, the parking breaches have continued. c)I have given careful consideration to the gravity of the breach. The evidence establishes vehicles are parked outside of the tenancy premises in a manner that affects the access to the garage of two other residents, with access for one resident significantly affected. The driveway has yellow ‘no- parking’ lines in all areas other than entrances to garages. There are signs clearly stating only residents’ cars can enter the complex and that other 2 See paragraphs 6 and 7 above 3 The landlord has received complaints from both residents and the body corporate about the continued parking outside unit 15 by the tenant and/or her visitors. 4 Dated 17 January 2024 vehicles parked in the complex may be fined or towed. Vehicles have been parked for varying times outside the tenant’s unit ranging from a short period of car to overnight, and on one occasion for the weekend. A number of photographs presented show more than one vehicle at a time parked on the common property. The parking has, at the least, inconvenienced other residents and is the cause of altercations between the tenant and other residents. The asphalt surface of the common area has now been affected by the tenant’s actions. d)The need for the no-parking rule on common property is clearly evidenced by the photographs of the complex which establish how compact the driveway and entrances to the garages are. It is important for every resident in this complex to meet their parking obligations as failure to do so has an impact on others living there. The actions of the tenant are impacting other residents.
After balancing all of the above factors I find it would be inequitable or unfair not to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord has requested the tenant be given around three weeks to terminate the tenancy and the tenancy is terminated on Friday 5 April 2024.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4625276 — 14-day notice at 15 Stadium Lane, Whitiora, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4625276 — 14-day notice at 15 Stadium Lane, Whitiora, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for breach under section 56?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for breach under section 56?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated under the anti-social behaviour notices?

Should the tenancy be terminated for breach under section 56?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated under the anti-social behaviour notices?

Should the tenancy be terminated for breach under section 56?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions