How much money was awarded in case 4656809?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4656809?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4656809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9471788-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4656809?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4656809?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4656809?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9471788-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4656809 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4656809 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

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 Jo-ann Henry at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 2pm on Saturday, 21 October 2023.
The landlord has leave to ask the Tribunal for an urgent hearing before me to review the termination date if there are any further incidents of disruption in the neighbourhood.
Jo-ann Henry must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, being the Tribunal filing fee on this application.

Reasons

The landlord attended a hearing on 8 September 2023. Both parties attended a hearing by telephone today. Termination – Anti-Social Behaviour
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission. See s55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord served three anti-social behaviour notices on the tenant. All were served on the same day but related to different incidents.
In Airedale Property Trust v Lawson [2021] NZTT Auckland 4301453 the Tribunal stated: “The purpose of being delivered a notice which expressly sets out the requirements in s 55A(2)(b) is so the tenant has the ability to apply to the Tribunal for orders challenging the notice or to otherwise seek to correct the alleged anti-social behaviour. Otherwise, a landlord could deliver three notices on the same day, for three separate earlier events, all taking place on different days, and the tenant has had no opportunity to correct their behaviour I am of the view the tenant did not have the effective right to challenge the fourth notice before the fifth notice was delivered. I therefore find that it would be unfair to terminate under s 55A, given two of the three required notices were delivered on the same date.”
Applying that decision to this situation means that the application for termination under s55A is dismissed. Termination – Breach of Tenant’s Obligations
The landlord also applied for termination for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations 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 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.
The landlord claims that the tenant has breached her obligations by interfering with the reasonable peace and quiet of neighbours. See s40(2)(c) RTA.
At the hearing on 8 September, I heard evidence from the landlord, 2 witnesses and received documentary and video evidence. I heard oral evidence by telephone from three other witnesses today.
Having heard the evidence, I was satisfied that the tenancy should be terminated, and that the landlord had established the grounds for termination under s56 RTA. I have not set out the evidence in detail because Ms Henry advised The Tribunal that she did not oppose the landlord’s application. The tenancy is terminated accordingly.
I explained that the tenancy would be terminated and asked Ms Henry for comment on an appropriate termination date. She did not provide a clear or direct answer but indicated that 21 October might be the earliest possible date she could move. The landlord indicated that she could work with that, albeit that I noted some reluctance from her.
I have Ordered that the termination date will be 21 October 2023. However, the landlord can ask the Tribunal for an urgent hearing before me to review the termination date if there are any further incidents of disruption in the neighbourhood.
As the landlord was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

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 Jo-ann Henry at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 2pm on Saturday, 21 October 2023.

The landlord has leave to ask the Tribunal for an urgent hearing before me to review the termination date if there are any further incidents of disruption in the neighbourhood.

Jo-ann Henry must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, being the Tribunal filing fee on this application.

Reasons

The landlord attended a hearing on 8 September 2023. Both parties attended a hearing by telephone today. Termination – Anti-Social Behaviour

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission. See s55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord served three anti-social behaviour notices on the tenant. All were served on the same day but related to different incidents.

In Airedale Property Trust v Lawson [2021] NZTT Auckland 4301453 the Tribunal stated: “The purpose of being delivered a notice which expressly sets out the requirements in s 55A(2)(b) is so the tenant has the ability to apply to the Tribunal for orders challenging the notice or to otherwise seek to correct the alleged anti-social behaviour. Otherwise, a landlord could deliver three notices on the same day, for three separate earlier events, all taking place on different days, and the tenant has had no opportunity to correct their behaviour I am of the view the tenant did not have the effective right to challenge the fourth notice before the fifth notice was delivered. I therefore find that it would be unfair to terminate under s 55A, given two of the three required notices were delivered on the same date.”

Applying that decision to this situation means that the application for termination under s55A is dismissed. Termination – Breach of Tenant’s Obligations

The landlord also applied for termination for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations 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 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.

The landlord claims that the tenant has breached her obligations by interfering with the reasonable peace and quiet of neighbours. See s40(2)(c) RTA.

At the hearing on 8 September, I heard evidence from the landlord, 2 witnesses and received documentary and video evidence. I heard oral evidence by telephone from three other witnesses today.

Having heard the evidence, I was satisfied that the tenancy should be terminated, and that the landlord had established the grounds for termination under s56 RTA. I have not set out the evidence in detail because Ms Henry advised The Tribunal that she did not oppose the landlord’s application. The tenancy is terminated accordingly.

I explained that the tenancy would be terminated and asked Ms Henry for comment on an appropriate termination date. She did not provide a clear or direct answer but indicated that 21 October might be the earliest possible date she could move. The landlord indicated that she could work with that, albeit that I noted some reluctance from her.

I have Ordered that the termination date will be 21 October 2023. However, the landlord can ask the Tribunal for an urgent hearing before me to review the termination date if there are any further incidents of disruption in the neighbourhood.

As the landlord was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4656809 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4656809 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions