What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4816421 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Eileen Everitt at Unit/Flat 6, 2C Fleming Street, Manurewa East,

How much money was awarded in case 4816421?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4816421?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4816421?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10062997-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4816421 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Eileen Everitt at Unit/Flat 6, 2C Fleming Street, Manurewa East,

How much money was awarded in case 4816421?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4816421?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4816421?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10062997-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 2C Fleming Street, Manurewa East, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4816421 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4816421 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

The tenancy of Eileen Everitt at Unit/Flat 6, 2C Fleming Street, Manurewa East, Auckland 2102 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at
59 pm on Monday 25 March 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord claimed the tenant was in breach of her Tenancy Agreement by having dogs on the property and by blocking fire egress corridors.
The landlord produced photographs establishing that the tenant has had dogs on the property during multiple visits from the landlord. These include the following dates: 12 September 2022, 31 October 2022, 10 November 2022, 19 September 2023, 29 September 2023, 5 January 2024 and 14 February 2024.
The landlord produced the Tenancy Agreement which includes at Rule 4, that states: “no pets or animals (including those of visitors) are to be kept or allowed on the property at any time.”
The landlord further explained that the property is leased and is subject to Body Corporate Rules that also prohibit pets on the property.
The landlord stated that they had complaints from other tenants regarding the dogs being at large. None of the other tenants had been willing to put their names to the complaints.
The tenant accepted that from time to time there have been dogs on the property, and she knows this is a breach of her Tenancy Agreement. She stated that these dogs belong to other people who come to visit, or sometimes come to stay while she is in hospital.
The landlord stated that they had served 14-day notices to remedy on the tenant in excess of twenty times for breaches relating to the dogs on the property and the obstruction of fire egress corridors. Follow up visits for compliance have not been conducted on every occasion.
On 08 January 2024 the landlord served a 14-day notice-to-remedy on the tenant requiring her to remove the dog from the property. On 14 February 2024 the landlord returned and the dog was still present on the property.
The same photographs as listed in paragraph 6 show a wooden barrier, a white wire barrier and a more substantial metal barrier having been erected in various positions across an outdoor balcony area and across a stairwell. The landlord stated that the barriers serve to prevent the dogs from escaping, and that the balcony area and stairwell are designated fire egress corridors.
The landlord stated that the tenant has breached her obligations under section 40(2)(ab) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which makes it an unlawful act for a tenant to: “cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004;”
The tenant stated that some of the barriers had been erected by her, but not all of them, and sometimes the purpose of the barriers had been to make it safe for her three-year old daughter when she visited. She accepted that the wooden barrier and the white wire barrier were hers.
On 3 January 2024 the landlord visited the property and noted that barriers obstructing fire egress corridors were in place. A 14-day notice-to-remedy was served on the tenant on 5 January 2024. When the landlord returned on 14 February 2024 the tenant had not remedied the breach: the barriers were still in place and a dog was present behind the barriers.
The tenant produced four letters from different people which were character references and letters of support.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the following reasons: a. The breaches have been occurring consistently over a sustained period of more than two years. 14-day notice-to-remedy notices have been served on the tenant on numerous occasions, and although the notices have not always been followed up to check compliance by the tenant, they have been followed up on at least two occasions when the tenant has not complied. b. Breaching the obligation to not block fire egress corridors is a serious breach which potentially endangers the tenant’s life, lives of tenants living in the other 20 units in the same block, and the lives of emergency services personnel. c. The blocking of the fire egress corridors involves not just moveable obstacles, but barriers that are fixed in place. d. The presence of the dog involves breaching not just the Tenancy Agreement, but also Body Corporate Rules which could have a negative impact on the housing provider’s agreement to lease the whole block of units. e. The dog is a large dog, and although it is conceded by the landlord that it is a very well-behaved dog, the landlord raised that there have been complaints about it.
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4816421 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

The tenancy of Eileen Everitt at Unit/Flat 6, 2C Fleming Street, Manurewa East, Auckland 2102 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at
59 pm on Monday 25 March 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord claimed the tenant was in breach of her Tenancy Agreement by having dogs on the property and by blocking fire egress corridors.
The landlord produced photographs establishing that the tenant has had dogs on the property during multiple visits from the landlord. These include the following dates: 12 September 2022, 31 October 2022, 10 November 2022, 19 September 2023, 29 September 2023, 5 January 2024 and 14 February 2024.
The landlord produced the Tenancy Agreement which includes at Rule 4, that states: “no pets or animals (including those of visitors) are to be kept or allowed on the property at any time.”
The landlord further explained that the property is leased and is subject to Body Corporate Rules that also prohibit pets on the property.
The landlord stated that they had complaints from other tenants regarding the dogs being at large. None of the other tenants had been willing to put their names to the complaints.
The tenant accepted that from time to time there have been dogs on the property, and she knows this is a breach of her Tenancy Agreement. She stated that these dogs belong to other people who come to visit, or sometimes come to stay while she is in hospital.
The landlord stated that they had served 14-day notices to remedy on the tenant in excess of twenty times for breaches relating to the dogs on the property and the obstruction of fire egress corridors. Follow up visits for compliance have not been conducted on every occasion.
On 08 January 2024 the landlord served a 14-day notice-to-remedy on the tenant requiring her to remove the dog from the property. On 14 February 2024 the landlord returned and the dog was still present on the property.
The same photographs as listed in paragraph 6 show a wooden barrier, a white wire barrier and a more substantial metal barrier having been erected in various positions across an outdoor balcony area and across a stairwell. The landlord stated that the barriers serve to prevent the dogs from escaping, and that the balcony area and stairwell are designated fire egress corridors.
The landlord stated that the tenant has breached her obligations under section 40(2)(ab) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which makes it an unlawful act for a tenant to: “cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004;”
The tenant stated that some of the barriers had been erected by her, but not all of them, and sometimes the purpose of the barriers had been to make it safe for her three-year old daughter when she visited. She accepted that the wooden barrier and the white wire barrier were hers.
On 3 January 2024 the landlord visited the property and noted that barriers obstructing fire egress corridors were in place. A 14-day notice-to-remedy was served on the tenant on 5 January 2024. When the landlord returned on 14 February 2024 the tenant had not remedied the breach: the barriers were still in place and a dog was present behind the barriers.
The tenant produced four letters from different people which were character references and letters of support.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the following reasons: a. The breaches have been occurring consistently over a sustained period of more than two years. 14-day notice-to-remedy notices have been served on the tenant on numerous occasions, and although the notices have not always been followed up to check compliance by the tenant, they have been followed up on at least two occasions when the tenant has not complied. b. Breaching the obligation to not block fire egress corridors is a serious breach which potentially endangers the tenant’s life, lives of tenants living in the other 20 units in the same block, and the lives of emergency services personnel. c. The blocking of the fire egress corridors involves not just moveable obstacles, but barriers that are fixed in place. d. The presence of the dog involves breaching not just the Tenancy Agreement, but also Body Corporate Rules which could have a negative impact on the housing provider’s agreement to lease the whole block of units. e. The dog is a large dog, and although it is conceded by the landlord that it is a very well-behaved dog, the landlord raised that there have been complaints about it.
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4816421 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 6, 2C Fleming Street, Manurewa East, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4816421 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 6, 2C Fleming Street, Manurewa East, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions