What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4831558 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Simon David Knowles at [Tenancy address suppressed] is

How much money was awarded in case 4831558?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4831558?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4831558?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10394219-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4831558 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Simon David Knowles at [Tenancy address suppressed] is

How much money was awarded in case 4831558?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4831558?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4831558?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10394219-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4831558 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Simon David Knowles at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord], at 11:59pm on Wednesday 29 May 2024.
Pursuant to s138(1)(b) of the District Court Act 2016, I grant leave to the landlord to enforce this Order from 11:59pm on Wednesday 29 May 2024.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend. I tried to contact the tenant by phone this morning and the call went to voicemail.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s contractual and statutory 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 at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord has provided evidence to the Tribunal that proves the tenant has breached their obligations by failing to remedy the following breaches of the tenancy agreement and the tenant’s section 40 of the RTA obligations: a. Keeping a dog at the premises without the landlord consent, and in breach of clause 26 of his tenancy agreement; and b. Failing to keep the house and the yard reasonably clean, reasonably tidy and free from rubbish (Refer s40(1)(c) of the RTA); c. Intentionally or carelessly damaging, or permitting any other person to damage the property by undertaking uncertified electrical work to the premises, including making hole from the inside of the laundry through the exterior of the house to run a power lead to outside the house, carpet stains and causing damage to a window and failing to remedy this damage (Refer s40(2)(a) of the RTA),
The landlord produced evidence that it has served eight 14-day notice on the tenant on 16 November 2023, 21 January 2024, 7 February 2024, 8 February 2024, 1 March 2024, 5 March 2024, 25 March 2024,12 April 2024 and photographic proof that the tenant did not remedy any of the breaches within the required 14-day periods. In addition, the landlord confirmed that as at the date of the hearing the house and yard was very unkempt with rubbish strewn all over the property, the property is damaged, the dog was still being kept at the premises and unlawful and uncertified electrical work remains a significant insurance and fire risk for the landlord.
The landlord has also produced evidence that proves the tenant has defrauded the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) by providing MSD with a fraudulently amended copy of the tenancy agreement to record another tenant that was no listed on the original tenancy agreement and changing the weekly rent from $400.00 per week to $550.00.
On the 28 November 2023, the landlord began receiving 2 payments per week of $275.00, from Work and Income New Zealand. The name reference on the bank statement for one transaction was Simon David Knowles, the other payment was for a person not on the tenancy agreement.
Mr Knowles rent account accrued credit because of the overpayment of rent each week. Mr Knowles then requested his rent credit be paid into his personal bank account. The landlord made three payments of overpaid rent to Mr Knowles as follows: a. $1,400.00 on 02/02/24; b. $300.00 on 29/02/24; and c. $700.00 on 29/04/24.
On Friday, 17 May 2024, Simon Knowles requested by email that any rent credit be paid to his personal bank account. The landlord sought confirmation from MSD/WINZ that any accrued rent credit should be being paid directly to the tenant’s nominated bank account. WINZ/MSD requested that any further rent overpayment not be made to Mr Knowles and confirmed with the landlord: a. The weekly rent amount was $400.00 per week; b. There had been no rent increases during the tenancy; and c. The tenancy changed to a periodic tenancy on 09/02/24 and that no additional tenancy agreements had been created.
MSD confirmed to the landlord that it had received a tenancy agreement from Simon Knowles, dated June 2023, indicating a rent amount of $550.00 per week. MSD requested a copy of the original tenancy agreement and rent records to be emailed to them so it could be forwarded to the Fraud Department.
It appears that Mr Knowles has taken his ex-partner’s name off the original tenancy agreement (after she gave notice to the landlord ending her tenancy because of the family violence she alleged she was suffering at Mr Knowles hand) and placed another WINZ beneficiaries name on the fraudulent amended agreement as well as increasing the weekly rental amount to $550.00 per week.
The evidence provided to the Tribunal proves the tenant has provided MSD with a written tenancy agreement purporting to express an agreement between the parties that does not accord with the parties’ true agreement. After Mr Knowles ex-partner was removed from the tenancy agreement by the landlord, because of the ex-partner’s request under the family violence provisions of the RTA, no further tenant has ever been added to the tenancy agreement with permission of the landlord.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the landlord has proven the tenant is causing significant damage to the property, the property is in a filthy and unkempt state and the tenant is carrying out uncertified electrical work on the property that is creating insurance and fire risks for the owner of the property. The tenant has failed to remedy the breaches of his tenancy agreement, has failed to meet his s40 of the RTA obligations to the landlord and has used the landlord to fraudulently obtain money by deception from MSD/WINZ that he is not legally entitled to. Waiving the 48 hours enforcement period
The landlord has provided proof to that satisfies me that if it is required to wait for at least 48 hours to have expired after this Order is made before it is allowed to commence enforcement proceedings, there is a significant risk that the tenant may do further wilful damage to the premise that his bond will not cover.
The landlord has provided evidence that shows the tenant has proven to have a violent predisposition during the tenancy and to have already caused significant damage to the property that it fears will be exacerbated once he is aware of this eviction order.
I have exercised my discretion pursuant to s138(1)(b) of the District Court Act 2016 and granted leave to the landlord to enforce this Order from 11:59pm tonight. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because the lanldord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applied for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Order

The tenancy of Simon David Knowles at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord], at 11:59pm on Wednesday 29 May 2024.
Pursuant to s138(1)(b) of the District Court Act 2016, I grant leave to the landlord to enforce this Order from 11:59pm on Wednesday 29 May 2024.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend. I tried to contact the tenant by phone this morning and the call went to voicemail.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s contractual and statutory 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 at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord has provided evidence to the Tribunal that proves the tenant has breached their obligations by failing to remedy the following breaches of the tenancy agreement and the tenant’s section 40 of the RTA obligations: a. Keeping a dog at the premises without the landlord consent, and in breach of clause 26 of his tenancy agreement; and b. Failing to keep the house and the yard reasonably clean, reasonably tidy and free from rubbish (Refer s40(1)(c) of the RTA); c. Intentionally or carelessly damaging, or permitting any other person to damage the property by undertaking uncertified electrical work to the premises, including making hole from the inside of the laundry through the exterior of the house to run a power lead to outside the house, carpet stains and causing damage to a window and failing to remedy this damage (Refer s40(2)(a) of the RTA),
The landlord produced evidence that it has served eight 14-day notice on the tenant on 16 November 2023, 21 January 2024, 7 February 2024, 8 February 2024, 1 March 2024, 5 March 2024, 25 March 2024,12 April 2024 and photographic proof that the tenant did not remedy any of the breaches within the required 14-day periods. In addition, the landlord confirmed that as at the date of the hearing the house and yard was very unkempt with rubbish strewn all over the property, the property is damaged, the dog was still being kept at the premises and unlawful and uncertified electrical work remains a significant insurance and fire risk for the landlord.
The landlord has also produced evidence that proves the tenant has defrauded the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) by providing MSD with a fraudulently amended copy of the tenancy agreement to record another tenant that was no listed on the original tenancy agreement and changing the weekly rent from $400.00 per week to $550.00.
On the 28 November 2023, the landlord began receiving 2 payments per week of $275.00, from Work and Income New Zealand. The name reference on the bank statement for one transaction was Simon David Knowles, the other payment was for a person not on the tenancy agreement.
Mr Knowles rent account accrued credit because of the overpayment of rent each week. Mr Knowles then requested his rent credit be paid into his personal bank account. The landlord made three payments of overpaid rent to Mr Knowles as follows: a. $1,400.00 on 02/02/24; b. $300.00 on 29/02/24; and c. $700.00 on 29/04/24.
On Friday, 17 May 2024, Simon Knowles requested by email that any rent credit be paid to his personal bank account. The landlord sought confirmation from MSD/WINZ that any accrued rent credit should be being paid directly to the tenant’s nominated bank account. WINZ/MSD requested that any further rent overpayment not be made to Mr Knowles and confirmed with the landlord: a. The weekly rent amount was $400.00 per week; b. There had been no rent increases during the tenancy; and c. The tenancy changed to a periodic tenancy on 09/02/24 and that no additional tenancy agreements had been created.
MSD confirmed to the landlord that it had received a tenancy agreement from Simon Knowles, dated June 2023, indicating a rent amount of $550.00 per week. MSD requested a copy of the original tenancy agreement and rent records to be emailed to them so it could be forwarded to the Fraud Department.
It appears that Mr Knowles has taken his ex-partner’s name off the original tenancy agreement (after she gave notice to the landlord ending her tenancy because of the family violence she alleged she was suffering at Mr Knowles hand) and placed another WINZ beneficiaries name on the fraudulent amended agreement as well as increasing the weekly rental amount to $550.00 per week.
The evidence provided to the Tribunal proves the tenant has provided MSD with a written tenancy agreement purporting to express an agreement between the parties that does not accord with the parties’ true agreement. After Mr Knowles ex-partner was removed from the tenancy agreement by the landlord, because of the ex-partner’s request under the family violence provisions of the RTA, no further tenant has ever been added to the tenancy agreement with permission of the landlord.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the landlord has proven the tenant is causing significant damage to the property, the property is in a filthy and unkempt state and the tenant is carrying out uncertified electrical work on the property that is creating insurance and fire risks for the owner of the property. The tenant has failed to remedy the breaches of his tenancy agreement, has failed to meet his s40 of the RTA obligations to the landlord and has used the landlord to fraudulently obtain money by deception from MSD/WINZ that he is not legally entitled to. Waiving the 48 hours enforcement period
The landlord has provided proof to that satisfies me that if it is required to wait for at least 48 hours to have expired after this Order is made before it is allowed to commence enforcement proceedings, there is a significant risk that the tenant may do further wilful damage to the premise that his bond will not cover.
The landlord has provided evidence that shows the tenant has proven to have a violent predisposition during the tenancy and to have already caused significant damage to the property that it fears will be exacerbated once he is aware of this eviction order.
I have exercised my discretion pursuant to s138(1)(b) of the District Court Act 2016 and granted leave to the landlord to enforce this Order from 11:59pm tonight. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because the lanldord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applied for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4831558 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4831558 — 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