What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4896400?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Stephanie Salter and Karl Smith at 21 Merchant Avenue, Te

How much money was awarded in case 4896400?

59pm On Sunday 11 August 2024. 2. St…: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4896400?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4896400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10659292-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4896400?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Stephanie Salter and Karl Smith at 21 Merchant Avenue, Te

How much money was awarded in case 4896400?

59pm On Sunday 11 August 2024. 2. St…: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4896400?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4896400?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10659292-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Merchant Avenue, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4896400 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4896400. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
59pm on Sunday 11 August 2024. 2. Stephanie Salter and Karl Smith are to reimburse Rental HQ Limited the application fee	$20.44		59pm on Sunday 11 August 2024. 2. Stephanie Salter and Karl Smith are to reimburse Rental HQ Limited the application fee

The tenancy of Stephanie Salter and Karl Smith at 21 Merchant Avenue, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to Rental Hq Limited Acting Agent For Srikanth Sridharan & Anau Raghavasimhan, at 11:59pm on Sunday 11 August 2024.

Stephanie Salter and Karl Smith are to reimburse Rental HQ Limited the application fee of $20.44.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held on 26 July 2024.

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 (RTA).

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 damaging the property 1 and failing to keep it reasonably clean and tidy. 2

The landlord served the following 14-day notices on the tenants: a. 24 January 2024 to: Clean the property. Provide access to all of the property. Clean off the drawings on the walls. Remove the tape from the doors. Repair the damage to the bedroom door jam. Repair the door locks. Mow the lawns. Remove the rubbish from the garden. Reinstate the smoke alarm. This notice was not remedied within the required period. b. 23 April 2024 to: Clean the entire house and grounds. Remove excessive rubbish from the property. Clean the kitchen and food fallen down the side of the dishwasher. The laundry sink needs to be accessible for us to inspect for leaks under the sink. Lawns need to be mowed. All drawings need to be cleaned off the walls. Carpet need to be vacuumed and stains hopefully cleaned out. This notice was not remedied within the required period.

The landlord says they have inspected the property six times since the commencement in March 2022 and had to reinspect three times for failed inspections. They say their concerns commenced in approximately December 2023 when they saw the property was being damaged and defaced and kept exceptionally untidy. They have given the tenants many opportunities to remedy the concerns, but they say the damage is getting worse.

The tenants submitted at the hearing that they had remedied the breaches. Accordingly, I directed an inspection on 30 July to allow them to establish that. The tenants provided photos after the hearing showing the re-painting of the garage and tidying of the home. Although time had been allowed, they did not submit a response to the landlord’s submission made after the inspection.

The landlord submits that the property was not tidy and remained damaged although the garage had been painted. Their photos taken at the inspection on 30 July showed the following: a. There was food and rubbish scattered around the grounds. b. There were holes in the door at the bottom into hallway. Ms Walker submits it appears it was kicked in on one side and punched on the other. c. The bathroom door is damaged. 1 In breach of s40(2)(a) RTA 2 In breach of s40(1)(c) RTA d. The back room has been painted pink without permission. e. Paint of varying colours is on the carpet. f. A security camera has been installed; drilled into soffits and tin roof. Ms Walker submits this will cause a passage for water to travel through the roof into the ceiling cavity and needs to be professionally fixed asap. g. Lamp shades are missing, and light hangings are damaged. h. Wood trellising has been removed. i. There is white paint on decking and glass. j. There is tagging on the outside of the property. k. Ms Walker could not access the laundry due to excessive items. l. Ms Walker could not access bedroom 1 or the lounge as tenants were asleep there. The door jam split has not been repaired. m. Rubbish throughout the property.

The District Court looked directly at the issue of whether it is inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy in light of breaches in Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229. Judge Rowe noted at paragraph 61 that the following are relevant when considering such an application (I note each one with my comments regarding this case immediately following): a. The history of the tenancy: this tenancy is almost two years in duration. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings: The evidence establishes that the landlord has been requesting remediation for breaches since at least December 2023. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. The tenants were given opportunity to establish that they had remedied the breaches on a number of occasions by the landlord and the Tribunal. They have failed each time. d. Whether the breaches were inadvertent or deliberately committed. The breaches are clearly deliberate as the tenants are aware of their responsibilities. e. The conduct of the landlord. The property managers have tried to work with the tenants and have not issued notices to remedy for all breaches, preferring to give them chances to rectify the situation. f. The gravity of the breach. I consider the breaches serious because the damage to the house appears to be increasing and the level of untidiness is such that it is damaging the property. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. Given the number of opportunities to rectify these issues, I consider termination is proportionate. The tenants do not appear to respect their responsibilities sufficiently to comply with their obligations under the RTA.

Taking into account these factors, it would be inequitable to refuse the landlord’s application for termination. However, it would be inequitable to terminate the tenancy immediately given the serious consequences for the tenant.

The tenancy is therefore terminated, and the landlord granted possession at the end of the day on Sunday 11 August 2024. The tenants are reminded of their obligation to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition as required under section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA.

Because Rental Hq Limited Acting Agent For Srikanth Sridharan & Anau Raghavasimhan has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4896400. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
59pm on Sunday 11 August 2024. 2. Stephanie Salter and Karl Smith are to reimburse Rental HQ Limited the application fee	$20.44		59pm on Sunday 11 August 2024. 2. Stephanie Salter and Karl Smith are to reimburse Rental HQ Limited the application fee

Stephanie Salter and Karl Smith are to reimburse Rental HQ Limited the application fee of $20.44.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held on 26 July 2024.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The tenant has breached their obligations by damaging the property 1 and failing to keep it reasonably clean and tidy. 2

Because Rental Hq Limited Acting Agent For Srikanth Sridharan & Anau Raghavasimhan has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4896400 — 14-day notice at 21 Merchant Avenue, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4896400 — 14-day notice at 21 Merchant Avenue, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions