What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4629970 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4629970?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4629970?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4629970?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9323794-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4629970 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4629970?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4629970?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4629970?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9323794-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4629970 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely. The tenant had attended the courthouse and had her documents with her.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The application referred to two grounds: a. Exceeding the maximum number of tenants specified in the tenancy agreement b. Damage to the walls and doors of the property.
At the hearing the landlord advised that the first ground was no longer in issue, and so I must decide whether the tenancy should be terminated because of the damage.
The breaches concern damage to the property by the tenant’s teenage son.
In December 2022 the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant in relation to some damage. The parties attended a mediation and an order for repair was made by consent.
However, when the landlord conducted an inspection in July this year, they discovered new holes in the doors and walls. He was unsure of the number of holes, but from the photos provided, it appeared to be 5 holes. The landlord provided photographs to the Tribunal.
The landlord wants to terminate the tenancy because they do not want their property continually damaged.
The tenant is very apologetic. She said that since this damage, her son has been doing various courses to help him with his emotions. She had letters from the organisation and from the school with her.
I decided to give her an opportunity to email the documents to the Remote Tenancy email address and send them to the landlord to give him an opportunity to comment.
I agree with the landlord that some of these interventions had started or been completed before this second lot of damage. They do not instil a great deal of confidence that there will not be repeats. Sadly, the endorsements that some have made about the boy’s leadership qualities are not consistent with his behaviour in the premises.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
Where the 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.
There are three parts to section 56. Under section 56(1)(a), I must first be satisfied that the tenant has committed a breach of the provisions of the tenancy agreement or of the Act. The tenant does not dispute this. Under section 40(2), the tenant shall not intentionally or carelessly damage or permit any other person to damage the property.
The next part to section 56 is that in the case of a breach capable of remedy, the applicant has given the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given.
Although it is not acceptable that there has been further damage to the property, I do not consider that the damage is a breach that is not capable of remedy. The damage can be repaired. No notice to remedy has been issued for the second lot of holes. That said, it appears that some repair has taken place. They have been plastered, but no painting or wallpapering has been done to complete the job. The landlord may like to issue a notice to have the repair completed so that the damage is not visible.
Therefore I find that section 56(1)(b)(i) has not been met. The application is therefore dismissed on that basis.
Even if it were a breach not capable of remedy, I must consider the next part of section 56; is the breach of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order. While it is understandable that the landlords want to protect their asset, the breach is not of a nature or extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make the order terminating the tenancy. The application is also dismissed on that basis.
The tenant and her son must understand that although this application has been dismissed, it may be that any further damage will lead to a further application either under this section of the Act or another one.
The tenant is also reminded of her obligations under section 40(1)(d) to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises.
Because the tenant has been successful, I order non-publication of her name.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely. The tenant had attended the courthouse and had her documents with her.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The application referred to two grounds: a. Exceeding the maximum number of tenants specified in the tenancy agreement b. Damage to the walls and doors of the property.
At the hearing the landlord advised that the first ground was no longer in issue, and so I must decide whether the tenancy should be terminated because of the damage.
The breaches concern damage to the property by the tenant’s teenage son.
In December 2022 the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant in relation to some damage. The parties attended a mediation and an order for repair was made by consent.
However, when the landlord conducted an inspection in July this year, they discovered new holes in the doors and walls. He was unsure of the number of holes, but from the photos provided, it appeared to be 5 holes. The landlord provided photographs to the Tribunal.
The landlord wants to terminate the tenancy because they do not want their property continually damaged.
The tenant is very apologetic. She said that since this damage, her son has been doing various courses to help him with his emotions. She had letters from the organisation and from the school with her.
I decided to give her an opportunity to email the documents to the Remote Tenancy email address and send them to the landlord to give him an opportunity to comment.
I agree with the landlord that some of these interventions had started or been completed before this second lot of damage. They do not instil a great deal of confidence that there will not be repeats. Sadly, the endorsements that some have made about the boy’s leadership qualities are not consistent with his behaviour in the premises.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
Where the 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.
There are three parts to section 56. Under section 56(1)(a), I must first be satisfied that the tenant has committed a breach of the provisions of the tenancy agreement or of the Act. The tenant does not dispute this. Under section 40(2), the tenant shall not intentionally or carelessly damage or permit any other person to damage the property.
The next part to section 56 is that in the case of a breach capable of remedy, the applicant has given the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given.
Although it is not acceptable that there has been further damage to the property, I do not consider that the damage is a breach that is not capable of remedy. The damage can be repaired. No notice to remedy has been issued for the second lot of holes. That said, it appears that some repair has taken place. They have been plastered, but no painting or wallpapering has been done to complete the job. The landlord may like to issue a notice to have the repair completed so that the damage is not visible.
Therefore I find that section 56(1)(b)(i) has not been met. The application is therefore dismissed on that basis.
Even if it were a breach not capable of remedy, I must consider the next part of section 56; is the breach of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order. While it is understandable that the landlords want to protect their asset, the breach is not of a nature or extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make the order terminating the tenancy. The application is also dismissed on that basis.
The tenant and her son must understand that although this application has been dismissed, it may be that any further damage will lead to a further application either under this section of the Act or another one.
The tenant is also reminded of her obligations under section 40(1)(d) to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises.
Because the tenant has been successful, I order non-publication of her name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4629970 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4629970 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions