What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4669891?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4669891?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4669891?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4669891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9426330-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4669891?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4669891?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4669891?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4669891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9426330-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

76 Bainfield Road, Waikiwi, Invercargill 9810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4669891 — Tenancy dispute

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Noel Peachey and Jill Peachey at 76 Bainfield Road, Waikiwi, Invercargill 9810 is terminated, and possession is granted to Bayleys Property Management - As Agent For Philip And Rhonda Woodhall-Martin, at 5pm on Tuesday 19 September 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The applicant was represented by Ms Collis and Ms Wilson. Mr and Mrs Peachey appeared together in person.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
At the outset Mr Peachy advised that his lawyer could not there today and he sought an adjournment. He advised that he spent some time with his lawyer who spoke to tenancy services and “sent off” the paper work, in reference to an application to represent Mr and Mrs Peachey.
I stood the case down for him to contact his lawyer, but the call went to answer phone. I made enquiries to Tenancy Services who confirm that there had definitely not been an application for representation filed.
Given the type of application before me, the application must proceed without delay. Given that there has been no application to represent filed I must proceed today.

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 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.
I heard evidence from Mr and Mrs Peachey, the neighbouring tenant and briefly from her caregiver.
This is an unfortunate situation. Mr and Mrs Peachy reside in the middle of two stand alone units. Mr Peachey is full time carer to his wife who in a wheelchair.
The application to terminate is due to an incident that involved the occupant of the first unit. She too is in a wheelchair and has a caregiver.
Mr Peachy gave evidence that there has been issues since their previous carer ceased to work for them and started working for the neighbouring tenant. That tenant and Mr Peachey had a good friendship until that time.
There was some confusion between the parties about what orders are in place and what convictions Mr Peachy is facing. However, what is clear is that there is definitely unpleasant issues between the two houses. Mr peachy advised that he has a restraining order against the neighbouring tenant’s carer, not the tenant. He is facing criminal charges in the District Court involving the most recent threat and has also spent a night in the police cells and has been in his words ‘locked up about four times”. There appears to be trespass notices in place to ensure Mr Peachey does not attend the property of the tenant and the carers own property.
Mr Peachey states that he has made numerous complaints to the police about the tenant and her carer, and they have no acted on them.
He is defending all charges. However, he accepts in relation to the video evidence of the latest incident, that he was frustrated in the video when he made the threat.
The threat is serious and has been taken seriously by the police who have laid charges. There is evidence of previous notices given to Mr Peachy for breaches of the Act regarding complaints from neighbours. This last threat is what has lead to this application before me today.
The tenant has breached their obligations by making a serious threat to the neighbour at the same time striking the tenants letterboxes with looks like a long bar. He accepts he was frustrated and as stated is facing criminal charges for this offending.
The breach is not capable of remedy because of the serious nature of the threat that cannot be undone.
On the evidence before me, It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
I am therefore required to terminate accordingly.
Both parties had the opportunity to present their case and Mr Peachy confirmed he had done so.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Noel Peachey and Jill Peachey at 76 Bainfield Road, Waikiwi, Invercargill 9810 is terminated, and possession is granted to Bayleys Property Management - As Agent For Philip And Rhonda Woodhall-Martin, at 5pm on Tuesday 19 September 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The applicant was represented by Ms Collis and Ms Wilson. Mr and Mrs Peachey appeared together in person.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
At the outset Mr Peachy advised that his lawyer could not there today and he sought an adjournment. He advised that he spent some time with his lawyer who spoke to tenancy services and “sent off” the paper work, in reference to an application to represent Mr and Mrs Peachey.
I stood the case down for him to contact his lawyer, but the call went to answer phone. I made enquiries to Tenancy Services who confirm that there had definitely not been an application for representation filed.
Given the type of application before me, the application must proceed without delay. Given that there has been no application to represent filed I must proceed today.

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 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.
I heard evidence from Mr and Mrs Peachey, the neighbouring tenant and briefly from her caregiver.
This is an unfortunate situation. Mr and Mrs Peachy reside in the middle of two stand alone units. Mr Peachey is full time carer to his wife who in a wheelchair.
The application to terminate is due to an incident that involved the occupant of the first unit. She too is in a wheelchair and has a caregiver.
Mr Peachy gave evidence that there has been issues since their previous carer ceased to work for them and started working for the neighbouring tenant. That tenant and Mr Peachey had a good friendship until that time.
There was some confusion between the parties about what orders are in place and what convictions Mr Peachy is facing. However, what is clear is that there is definitely unpleasant issues between the two houses. Mr peachy advised that he has a restraining order against the neighbouring tenant’s carer, not the tenant. He is facing criminal charges in the District Court involving the most recent threat and has also spent a night in the police cells and has been in his words ‘locked up about four times”. There appears to be trespass notices in place to ensure Mr Peachey does not attend the property of the tenant and the carers own property.
Mr Peachey states that he has made numerous complaints to the police about the tenant and her carer, and they have no acted on them.
He is defending all charges. However, he accepts in relation to the video evidence of the latest incident, that he was frustrated in the video when he made the threat.
The threat is serious and has been taken seriously by the police who have laid charges. There is evidence of previous notices given to Mr Peachy for breaches of the Act regarding complaints from neighbours. This last threat is what has lead to this application before me today.
The tenant has breached their obligations by making a serious threat to the neighbour at the same time striking the tenants letterboxes with looks like a long bar. He accepts he was frustrated and as stated is facing criminal charges for this offending.
The breach is not capable of remedy because of the serious nature of the threat that cannot be undone.
On the evidence before me, It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
I am therefore required to terminate accordingly.
Both parties had the opportunity to present their case and Mr Peachy confirmed he had done so.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4669891 — Tenancy dispute at 76 Bainfield Road, Waikiwi, Invercargill 9810

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4669891 — Tenancy dispute at 76 Bainfield Road, Waikiwi, Invercargill 9810

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions