What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4780130 about?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the Tribunal’s order dated 9 February 2024.

How much money was awarded in case 4780130?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4780130?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4780130?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9944960-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4780130 about?

The tribunal order states: This order replaces the Tribunal’s order dated 9 February 2024.

How much money was awarded in case 4780130?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4780130?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4780130?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9944960-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4780130 — 14-day notice

Order

This order replaces the Tribunal’s order dated 9 February 2024.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at 11.59pm on Monday 12 February 2024.
This order may be enforced immediately.

Reasons

Amended Order

This order replaces the Tribunal’s order dated 9 February 2024. That order wrongly gave the date of termination and possession as Friday 9 August 2024. As stated at the hearing and in the reasons given for the order, the Tribunal intended the date of termination and possession to be Friday 9 February 2024.
I have given the date of termination and possession in this order to be Monday 12 February 2024 so as not to give a backdated date. I have ordered that this order may be enforced immediately so as not to prejudice the landlord. Appearances and Application
Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Eder represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Background
The tenant is a young woman who suffers from depression and who has little or no family support.
This tenancy began on 13 July 2023. This is the second landlord application in relation to the tenancy. The landlord’s first application filed in October was for an order that the tenant remove two of the four dogs that she was keeping at the premises.
The background to that application was that the tenant was previously the tenant of another Kāinga Ora property. The tenant moved four dogs into the property without the landlord’s consent. The property was not suitable for dogs, and it became in poor condition.
The landlord then moved the tenant to the premises, which is a stand-alone house with a large, fenced garden suitable for dogs.
The tenant moved an additional two dogs into the premises so that she then had four dogs there. This resulted in some damage to the premises and there were also incidents of the dogs escaping the premises.
The landlord then applied for an order that the tenant remove two of the dogs.
The Tribunal’s order made on 15 November records that the tenant agreed to remove two of the dogs from the premises. The hearing was adjourned to allow time for the landlord to monitor the situation to ensure that the tenant had removed the two dogs and that the premises were not being damaged.
The landlord withdrew the application shortly before the adjourned hearing and after it had made the present application to terminate the tenancy. This Application
The landlord relies on the following three broad grounds for termination: a. The tenant’s failure to comply with breach notices in relation to the dogs at the premises and the condition of the premises. b. The tenant is not living at the premises. It is a term of the tenancy agreement that the tenant lives at the premises and that term is reasonable for a landlord who provides social housing. c. The tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises.
The landlord produced photographs showing the current condition of the premises. They show that they have been substantially damaged and the tenant accepted that. They are also extremely untidy and unclean.
Ms Eder said that the premises have been extensively contaminated by dog urine and faeces. The carpet and other floor coverings will have to be replaced and the floorboards may also have been contaminated. She referred to an overpowering odour of ammonia in the premises from the dog urine. She produced some evidence that the cost of remediating the damage is likely to be as much as $30,000, if not more.
The tenant said that she intends removing the rubbish from the premises and carrying out some repairs. She referred to using a rug doctor to clean the carpets.
On 17 January, the landlord revoked its consent for dogs to be kept at the premises and served the tenant with a breach notice requiring the removal of the dogs from the premises. The tenant confirmed that dogs are still being kept at the premise but that it is her intention to rehome them.
There was evidence from the landlord’s Housing Support Manager for the tenancy, Ms Wanja, that on the many occasions that she has attended at the premises, the tenant was not often there, and it did not appear that she was living there. The tenant contested that.
The landlord’s evidence was that neighbours had reported to them that the tenant has never lived at the premises and that the tenant herself has admitted that she was not living there.
There was an incident on 8 January when three of the tenant’s dogs jumped over the fence into a neighbouring property. This resulted in one of the neighbour’s dogs being injured. The tenant said that one of her dogs was injured at the same time. The tenant was not at the premises at the time.
The landlord has throughout the tenancy offered support to the tenant under the agency [Redacted], but the tenant has not taken that up. Decision
I find that the tenant has not been living at the premises. There is ample evidence that she has been living elsewhere. I also cannot accept that anyone could live at the premises in its present condition. The premises are uninhabitable, in my view.
The tenant has admitted that she has kept dogs at the premises without the landlord’s consent and that is continuing.
The premises have undoubtedly suffered substantial damage during the tenancy. Much of the damage has been caused by the tenant’s dogs. The tenant has caused the damage by failing to prevent the damage.
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 tenant has breached her obligations by failing to keep the premises clean and tidy, by damaging the premises, by keeping dogs on the premises without the landlord’s consent and by not living at the premises.
The landlord has served 14-day notices on the tenant in respect of these breaches and the tenant has not remedied them within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the breaches are serious, they have resulted in substantial damage to the premises and considerable expense for the landlord and there is no realistic way that the tenant can remediate the consequences of them. In my view, unless the tenancy is terminated, the situation will only get worse.
The substantial damage to the premises is alone a ground to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant not living at the premises means that the premises are unoccupied, apart from the tenants’ dogs, which means that the landlord has a property that it could provide to someone on its waiting list but is unable to do so until it has possession of it from the tenant.
For these reasons I have terminated the tenancy and ordered possession to be given to the landlord immediately.

Order

This order replaces the Tribunal’s order dated 9 February 2024.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at 11.59pm on Monday 12 February 2024.
This order may be enforced immediately.

Reasons

Amended Order

This order replaces the Tribunal’s order dated 9 February 2024. That order wrongly gave the date of termination and possession as Friday 9 August 2024. As stated at the hearing and in the reasons given for the order, the Tribunal intended the date of termination and possession to be Friday 9 February 2024.
I have given the date of termination and possession in this order to be Monday 12 February 2024 so as not to give a backdated date. I have ordered that this order may be enforced immediately so as not to prejudice the landlord. Appearances and Application
Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Eder represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Background
The tenant is a young woman who suffers from depression and who has little or no family support.
This tenancy began on 13 July 2023. This is the second landlord application in relation to the tenancy. The landlord’s first application filed in October was for an order that the tenant remove two of the four dogs that she was keeping at the premises.
The background to that application was that the tenant was previously the tenant of another Kāinga Ora property. The tenant moved four dogs into the property without the landlord’s consent. The property was not suitable for dogs, and it became in poor condition.
The landlord then moved the tenant to the premises, which is a stand-alone house with a large, fenced garden suitable for dogs.
The tenant moved an additional two dogs into the premises so that she then had four dogs there. This resulted in some damage to the premises and there were also incidents of the dogs escaping the premises.
The landlord then applied for an order that the tenant remove two of the dogs.
The Tribunal’s order made on 15 November records that the tenant agreed to remove two of the dogs from the premises. The hearing was adjourned to allow time for the landlord to monitor the situation to ensure that the tenant had removed the two dogs and that the premises were not being damaged.
The landlord withdrew the application shortly before the adjourned hearing and after it had made the present application to terminate the tenancy. This Application
The landlord relies on the following three broad grounds for termination: a. The tenant’s failure to comply with breach notices in relation to the dogs at the premises and the condition of the premises. b. The tenant is not living at the premises. It is a term of the tenancy agreement that the tenant lives at the premises and that term is reasonable for a landlord who provides social housing. c. The tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises.
The landlord produced photographs showing the current condition of the premises. They show that they have been substantially damaged and the tenant accepted that. They are also extremely untidy and unclean.
Ms Eder said that the premises have been extensively contaminated by dog urine and faeces. The carpet and other floor coverings will have to be replaced and the floorboards may also have been contaminated. She referred to an overpowering odour of ammonia in the premises from the dog urine. She produced some evidence that the cost of remediating the damage is likely to be as much as $30,000, if not more.
The tenant said that she intends removing the rubbish from the premises and carrying out some repairs. She referred to using a rug doctor to clean the carpets.
On 17 January, the landlord revoked its consent for dogs to be kept at the premises and served the tenant with a breach notice requiring the removal of the dogs from the premises. The tenant confirmed that dogs are still being kept at the premise but that it is her intention to rehome them.
There was evidence from the landlord’s Housing Support Manager for the tenancy, Ms Wanja, that on the many occasions that she has attended at the premises, the tenant was not often there, and it did not appear that she was living there. The tenant contested that.
The landlord’s evidence was that neighbours had reported to them that the tenant has never lived at the premises and that the tenant herself has admitted that she was not living there.
There was an incident on 8 January when three of the tenant’s dogs jumped over the fence into a neighbouring property. This resulted in one of the neighbour’s dogs being injured. The tenant said that one of her dogs was injured at the same time. The tenant was not at the premises at the time.
The landlord has throughout the tenancy offered support to the tenant under the agency [Redacted], but the tenant has not taken that up. Decision
I find that the tenant has not been living at the premises. There is ample evidence that she has been living elsewhere. I also cannot accept that anyone could live at the premises in its present condition. The premises are uninhabitable, in my view.
The tenant has admitted that she has kept dogs at the premises without the landlord’s consent and that is continuing.
The premises have undoubtedly suffered substantial damage during the tenancy. Much of the damage has been caused by the tenant’s dogs. The tenant has caused the damage by failing to prevent the damage.
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 tenant has breached her obligations by failing to keep the premises clean and tidy, by damaging the premises, by keeping dogs on the premises without the landlord’s consent and by not living at the premises.
The landlord has served 14-day notices on the tenant in respect of these breaches and the tenant has not remedied them within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the breaches are serious, they have resulted in substantial damage to the premises and considerable expense for the landlord and there is no realistic way that the tenant can remediate the consequences of them. In my view, unless the tenancy is terminated, the situation will only get worse.
The substantial damage to the premises is alone a ground to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant not living at the premises means that the premises are unoccupied, apart from the tenants’ dogs, which means that the landlord has a property that it could provide to someone on its waiting list but is unable to do so until it has possession of it from the tenant.
For these reasons I have terminated the tenancy and ordered possession to be given to the landlord immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4780130 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4780130 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions