What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4836140 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Mandy Jane Templeton at 246 College Street, Motueka, RD 1,

How much money was awarded in case 4836140?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4836140?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4836140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10223700-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4836140 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Mandy Jane Templeton at 246 College Street, Motueka, RD 1,

How much money was awarded in case 4836140?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4836140?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4836140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10223700-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

246 College Street, Motueka, RD 1, Motueka 7196 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4836140 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Mandy Jane Templeton at 246 College Street, Motueka, RD 1, Motueka 7196 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 8pm Sunday 19 May 2024.
By agreement with the landlord, the tenancy may end before Sunday 19 May 2024 by the tenant giving the landlord no less than two days written notice to terminate.
Mandy Jane Templeton must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, being the filing application fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant’s daughter appeared as a support person.
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 s 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 to remedy the breach, although the Tribunal may consider whether a warning should have been given when determining whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
There are two types of obligation on a tenant: positive covenants and negative covenants. Positive covenants are things the tenant is required to do, such as paying rent. Negative covenants are things that a tenant must not do, such as breaching the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours.
Breach of a positive covenant can be remedied by requiring the tenant to do the thing they were supposed to do, such as paying the unpaid rent.
The situation is not as straightforward with breach of a negative covenant, as it may not be possible to undo the thing the tenant did which they should not have done. In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered whether breach of s 48(4)(b) RTA (refusal to allow entry) was capable of remedy: [46] Section 48(4)(b) imposes a negative obligation on the tenant. Several cases have held that breach of a negative covenant in a tenancy agreement is not capable of remedy in terms of s56(1)(b). The breach irremediably arises when the specified failure occurs. [47] It is not always the case, however, that breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. Whether a negative covenant is capable of remedy will depend on the nature of the breach, and when viewed within the context of s56(1)(b)(i), whether the harm that might be caused by the breach can be effectively remedied within a reasonable period of not less than 14 days.
It follows that a breach of a negative covenant would be capable of remedy where the effect of the breach can be remedied. Where however the breach, or the harmful effect of the breach, is serious, it may not be capable of remedy. The same may apply where there has been a persistent series of breaches, for example, where a tenant has repeatedly breached the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours, or criminal activity has occurred.
Here, the tenant has committed or permitted a serious breach of her obligations by having what appears to have been an ongoing operation of cannabis growing, using a room (“grow room”) at the premises. A police report dated 12 March 2024 confirmed such an operation at this tenancy address and that “a significant quantity of cannabis” was also located. The police further advised in the report that two persons (unnamed) have been charged with related offences and their appearance on these charges is pending.
The breach is considered incapable of remedy. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because, despite the tenant assurances that it will never happen again and that the criminal activity was undertaken by others, I must consider the apparent and ongoing tenant knowledge of the operation as well as the obstruction of the property manager inspecting that room during that period.
The operation only ceased due to police action.
The landlord agreed to an early exit provision for the intended benefit of the tenant. That provision is confirmed in this order. Application filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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 requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, name suppression is ordered.

Order

The tenancy of Mandy Jane Templeton at 246 College Street, Motueka, RD 1, Motueka 7196 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 8pm Sunday 19 May 2024.
By agreement with the landlord, the tenancy may end before Sunday 19 May 2024 by the tenant giving the landlord no less than two days written notice to terminate.
Mandy Jane Templeton must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, being the filing application fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant’s daughter appeared as a support person.
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 s 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 to remedy the breach, although the Tribunal may consider whether a warning should have been given when determining whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
There are two types of obligation on a tenant: positive covenants and negative covenants. Positive covenants are things the tenant is required to do, such as paying rent. Negative covenants are things that a tenant must not do, such as breaching the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours.
Breach of a positive covenant can be remedied by requiring the tenant to do the thing they were supposed to do, such as paying the unpaid rent.
The situation is not as straightforward with breach of a negative covenant, as it may not be possible to undo the thing the tenant did which they should not have done. In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered whether breach of s 48(4)(b) RTA (refusal to allow entry) was capable of remedy: [46] Section 48(4)(b) imposes a negative obligation on the tenant. Several cases have held that breach of a negative covenant in a tenancy agreement is not capable of remedy in terms of s56(1)(b). The breach irremediably arises when the specified failure occurs. [47] It is not always the case, however, that breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. Whether a negative covenant is capable of remedy will depend on the nature of the breach, and when viewed within the context of s56(1)(b)(i), whether the harm that might be caused by the breach can be effectively remedied within a reasonable period of not less than 14 days.
It follows that a breach of a negative covenant would be capable of remedy where the effect of the breach can be remedied. Where however the breach, or the harmful effect of the breach, is serious, it may not be capable of remedy. The same may apply where there has been a persistent series of breaches, for example, where a tenant has repeatedly breached the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours, or criminal activity has occurred.
Here, the tenant has committed or permitted a serious breach of her obligations by having what appears to have been an ongoing operation of cannabis growing, using a room (“grow room”) at the premises. A police report dated 12 March 2024 confirmed such an operation at this tenancy address and that “a significant quantity of cannabis” was also located. The police further advised in the report that two persons (unnamed) have been charged with related offences and their appearance on these charges is pending.
The breach is considered incapable of remedy. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because, despite the tenant assurances that it will never happen again and that the criminal activity was undertaken by others, I must consider the apparent and ongoing tenant knowledge of the operation as well as the obstruction of the property manager inspecting that room during that period.
The operation only ceased due to police action.
The landlord agreed to an early exit provision for the intended benefit of the tenant. That provision is confirmed in this order. Application filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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 requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4836140 — 14-day notice at 246 College Street, Motueka, RD 1, Motueka 7196

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4836140 — 14-day notice at 246 College Street, Motueka, RD 1, Motueka 7196

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