What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4861740 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Thomas Lee William James Neal Jr Blackmoore and Jenifer

How much money was awarded in case 4861740?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4861740?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4861740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10870242-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4861740 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Thomas Lee William James Neal Jr Blackmoore and Jenifer

How much money was awarded in case 4861740?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4861740?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4861740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10870242-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Essex Street, Marchwiel, Timaru 7910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4861740 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Thomas Lee William James Neal Jr Blackmoore and Jenifer Rose Pooley at 4 Essex Street, Marchwiel, Timaru 7910 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 7pm Sunday 17 November 2024.

By mutual agreement of the parties, the tenants may end the tenancy sooner by serving the landlord, in writing, with no less than five working days’ notice of their end date.

Thomas Lee William James Neal Jr Blackmoore and Jenifer Rose Pooley must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, being the application filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This was a continuation hearing after the first on 1 July 2024 was adjourned.

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 at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to remedy a number of issues pertaining to rubbish or cleanliness at the premises.

The landlord first served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 2 February 2023. That was followed by five more similar notices with the last being 23 May 2024. The tenants have not been able to remedy the breaches within the required periods.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because there are legitimate concerns regarding the preservation and maintenance of the premises given the significant and recurring issues regarding cluttering and associated issues.

The adjournment in July was followed by a second adjournment at the request of the landlord as they continued to seek to find a way to have the situation remedied and the tenancy continue. A considerable amount of time and effort has been expended in attempts to resolve the ongoing challenges. This has been unsuccessful.

The most recent inspection report and photos provided was from an inspection on 20 September 2024. This report was compared to the previous inspection reports as provided. The engagement of a cleaner has improved one concerning aspect regarding waste but significant concerns still remain for the landlord and these are evidenced in the comparisons of photos over time.

The tenants outlined the ongoing challenges they have with meeting their responsibilities under section 40 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. They think a bigger premises is required to meet their family needs. It is hoped they can access appropriate support to find such a premises within the timeframes set 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, suppression is ordered.

Order

The tenancy of Thomas Lee William James Neal Jr Blackmoore and Jenifer Rose Pooley at 4 Essex Street, Marchwiel, Timaru 7910 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 7pm Sunday 17 November 2024.
By mutual agreement of the parties, the tenants may end the tenancy sooner by serving the landlord, in writing, with no less than five working days’ notice of their end date.
Thomas Lee William James Neal Jr Blackmoore and Jenifer Rose Pooley must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, being the application filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. This was a continuation hearing after the first on 1 July 2024 was adjourned.
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 at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to remedy a number of issues pertaining to rubbish or cleanliness at the premises.
The landlord first served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 2 February 2023. That was followed by five more similar notices with the last being 23 May 2024. The tenants have not been able to remedy the breaches within the required periods.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because there are legitimate concerns regarding the preservation and maintenance of the premises given the significant and recurring issues regarding cluttering and associated issues.
The adjournment in July was followed by a second adjournment at the request of the landlord as they continued to seek to find a way to have the situation remedied and the tenancy continue. A considerable amount of time and effort has been expended in attempts to resolve the ongoing challenges. This has been unsuccessful.
The most recent inspection report and photos provided was from an inspection on 20 September 2024. This report was compared to the previous inspection reports as provided. The engagement of a cleaner has improved one concerning aspect regarding waste but significant concerns still remain for the landlord and these are evidenced in the comparisons of photos over time.
The tenants outlined the ongoing challenges they have with meeting their responsibilities under section 40 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. They think a bigger premises is required to meet their family needs. It is hoped they can access appropriate support to find such a premises within the timeframes set 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, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4861740 — 14-day notice at 4 Essex Street, Marchwiel, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4861740 — 14-day notice at 4 Essex Street, Marchwiel, Timaru 7910

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