What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4833078 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant, [The tenant/s], must allow and cooperate with Kāinga Ora–

How much money was awarded in case 4833078?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4833078?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4833078?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10160811-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4833078 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant, [The tenant/s], must allow and cooperate with Kāinga Ora–

How much money was awarded in case 4833078?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4833078?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4833078?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10160811-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

48 Northcote Road, Northcote, Christchurch 8052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4833078 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenant, [The tenant/s], must allow and cooperate with Kāinga Ora– Homes and Communities to move the fence at the front of the premises back to its original position on the boundary of the premises. For the avoidance of any doubt, cooperating with the landlord incudes moving the bus parked at the front of the premises to assist the contractors to relocate the fence.
The gate over the driveway of the premises may remain in place but the tenant must remove the chain and padlock securing the gate closed by Monday 22 April 2024 and must not put any other lock on the gate.
The tenant must remove or otherwise deal with the material around the house, including building materials, by Monday 22 April 2024 so that the premises are left reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant must remove any dogs from the premises by Monday 22 April 2024.
If the tenant fails to comply with this order, the tenancy at 48 Northcote Road, Northcote, Christchurch 8052 will terminate, and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Hipkiss represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the ground of the tenant’s breach and his failure to comply with a breach notice. The application stated that the landlord would like to include a conditional clause as part of any agreement reached. The landlord changed its position at the hearing and now seeks an outright order for termination and possession.
The tenant is willing to cooperate with the landlord to remedy the breach and would like to avoid termination.
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.
If the Tribunal finds that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, it may make a conditional order if it is satisfied the tenant will remedy the breach within the period specified in the order and is unlikely to commit any further breach. Background
The tenant has moved a fence that was on the boundary at the front of the premises towards the road. It now encloses the berm at the front of the premises which belongs to the council.
Behind the fence, between it and the house, the tenant has placed a bus. He has also installed a gate at the front of the premises over the driveway and put a chain and padlock to secure the gate closed.
These actions are in breach of the Residential tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Section 46 of the Act prohibits parties from adding a lock to the premises without the other party’s consent. Section 40 of the Act prohibits the tenant from making any alteration to the premises without the landlord’s written consent unless it is in accordance with the tenancy agreement. The landlord has not consented to moving the fence or to the new lock and it is not allowed by the tenancy agreement.
On 7 July 2023, the landlord served a breach notice on the tenant requiring him to remedy both beaches. It applied to the Tribunal for an order requiring the tenant to remedy the breaches and failing that, allowing the landlord to undertake the work at the tenant’s cost. The tenant did not attend the hearing, and on 15 September 2023 the Tribunal made an order in the terms of the application and imposed a $1,500 limit on the cost of the work that the landlord could recover from the tenant.
The tenant did not undertake the work and would did not allow the landlord to undertake it.
On 8 February 2024, the landlord served another breach notice on the tenant requiring him to remedy the breaches. It also required the tenant to remove dogs and rubbish from the premises. The tenant did not have the landlord’s consent to have dogs, and the rubbish is a breach of the tenant’s obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant did not comply with the notice and landlord filed the present application on 11 March.
The main question for me is whether to make an outright order for termination and possession or a conditional order. The parties agreed that if it were to be a conditional order, it would require the tenant to permit the landlord to move the fence to its original position and remove the chain and lock from the gate. The tenant would also have to remove the material from around the house so that it is left reasonably clean and tidy. There was no discussion about dogs at the premises at the hearing. Discussion and Decision
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 (s56(1) of the Act).
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 his obligations as set out above.
The landlord has served a 14-day notice on the tenant and the tenant has not remedied the breaches within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the breaches are serious, blatant and the tenant has had several opportunities to resolve the situation and has defiantly refused to do so or allow the landlord to do so.
My impression of the tenant is that he is keen to assert his rights, including “rights” that he does not have, but reluctant to accept and comply with his obligations when it doesn’t suit him to do so.
The landlord’s application for an outright termination order has merit because of the tenant’s defiant, unreasonable and unlawful behaviour. Only now that the tenant is facing the immediate possibility of losing his tenancy, has he offered to comply with his obligations.
Against that, the landlord had an opportunity when it made its previous application to seek an order that would have terminated the tenancy if the tenant did not comply with it. It chose not to do so, and that decision has led to the current situation. The fault for this lies primarily with the tenant, but this application could have been avoided if the landlord had sought a conditional order last time round.
By a slim margin I have decided to give the tenant a final opportunity to comply and avoid termination. I am also conscious that the landlord decided at the last minute to seek an outright order. I have therefore made a conditional order.
I have required the tenant to remove the lock, tidy the premises and remove any dogs on the premises within 14 days. The tenant asked for the landlord to provide him with a skip. I refused to order that because the landlord has no obligation to do so. It may decide to do so to assist the tenant and to facilitate his compliance with the order but that is for it to decide.
I have not put any time limit on the requirement that the tenant cooperates with the landlord because that is a continuing obligation. The landlord has confirmed that it intends to carry out the work of moving the fence within the next 14 days and it will need to give the tenant the usual 48 hours’ notice of the commencement of the work.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach (s64(4)(b) of the Act).

Order

The tenant, [The tenant/s], must allow and cooperate with Kāinga Ora– Homes and Communities to move the fence at the front of the premises back to its original position on the boundary of the premises. For the avoidance of any doubt, cooperating with the landlord incudes moving the bus parked at the front of the premises to assist the contractors to relocate the fence.
The gate over the driveway of the premises may remain in place but the tenant must remove the chain and padlock securing the gate closed by Monday 22 April 2024 and must not put any other lock on the gate.
The tenant must remove or otherwise deal with the material around the house, including building materials, by Monday 22 April 2024 so that the premises are left reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant must remove any dogs from the premises by Monday 22 April 2024.
If the tenant fails to comply with this order, the tenancy at 48 Northcote Road, Northcote, Christchurch 8052 will terminate, and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Hipkiss represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the ground of the tenant’s breach and his failure to comply with a breach notice. The application stated that the landlord would like to include a conditional clause as part of any agreement reached. The landlord changed its position at the hearing and now seeks an outright order for termination and possession.
The tenant is willing to cooperate with the landlord to remedy the breach and would like to avoid termination.
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.
If the Tribunal finds that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, it may make a conditional order if it is satisfied the tenant will remedy the breach within the period specified in the order and is unlikely to commit any further breach. Background
The tenant has moved a fence that was on the boundary at the front of the premises towards the road. It now encloses the berm at the front of the premises which belongs to the council.
Behind the fence, between it and the house, the tenant has placed a bus. He has also installed a gate at the front of the premises over the driveway and put a chain and padlock to secure the gate closed.
These actions are in breach of the Residential tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Section 46 of the Act prohibits parties from adding a lock to the premises without the other party’s consent. Section 40 of the Act prohibits the tenant from making any alteration to the premises without the landlord’s written consent unless it is in accordance with the tenancy agreement. The landlord has not consented to moving the fence or to the new lock and it is not allowed by the tenancy agreement.
On 7 July 2023, the landlord served a breach notice on the tenant requiring him to remedy both beaches. It applied to the Tribunal for an order requiring the tenant to remedy the breaches and failing that, allowing the landlord to undertake the work at the tenant’s cost. The tenant did not attend the hearing, and on 15 September 2023 the Tribunal made an order in the terms of the application and imposed a $1,500 limit on the cost of the work that the landlord could recover from the tenant.
The tenant did not undertake the work and would did not allow the landlord to undertake it.
On 8 February 2024, the landlord served another breach notice on the tenant requiring him to remedy the breaches. It also required the tenant to remove dogs and rubbish from the premises. The tenant did not have the landlord’s consent to have dogs, and the rubbish is a breach of the tenant’s obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenant did not comply with the notice and landlord filed the present application on 11 March.
The main question for me is whether to make an outright order for termination and possession or a conditional order. The parties agreed that if it were to be a conditional order, it would require the tenant to permit the landlord to move the fence to its original position and remove the chain and lock from the gate. The tenant would also have to remove the material from around the house so that it is left reasonably clean and tidy. There was no discussion about dogs at the premises at the hearing. Discussion and Decision
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 (s56(1) of the Act).
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 his obligations as set out above.
The landlord has served a 14-day notice on the tenant and the tenant has not remedied the breaches within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the breaches are serious, blatant and the tenant has had several opportunities to resolve the situation and has defiantly refused to do so or allow the landlord to do so.
My impression of the tenant is that he is keen to assert his rights, including “rights” that he does not have, but reluctant to accept and comply with his obligations when it doesn’t suit him to do so.
The landlord’s application for an outright termination order has merit because of the tenant’s defiant, unreasonable and unlawful behaviour. Only now that the tenant is facing the immediate possibility of losing his tenancy, has he offered to comply with his obligations.
Against that, the landlord had an opportunity when it made its previous application to seek an order that would have terminated the tenancy if the tenant did not comply with it. It chose not to do so, and that decision has led to the current situation. The fault for this lies primarily with the tenant, but this application could have been avoided if the landlord had sought a conditional order last time round.
By a slim margin I have decided to give the tenant a final opportunity to comply and avoid termination. I am also conscious that the landlord decided at the last minute to seek an outright order. I have therefore made a conditional order.
I have required the tenant to remove the lock, tidy the premises and remove any dogs on the premises within 14 days. The tenant asked for the landlord to provide him with a skip. I refused to order that because the landlord has no obligation to do so. It may decide to do so to assist the tenant and to facilitate his compliance with the order but that is for it to decide.
I have not put any time limit on the requirement that the tenant cooperates with the landlord because that is a continuing obligation. The landlord has confirmed that it intends to carry out the work of moving the fence within the next 14 days and it will need to give the tenant the usual 48 hours’ notice of the commencement of the work.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach (s64(4)(b) of the Act).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4833078 — 14-day notice at 48 Northcote Road, Northcote, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4833078 — 14-day notice at 48 Northcote Road, Northcote, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions