What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4936293?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Marie Ann Woolley at 206 Matai Road, Raumati Beach,

How much money was awarded in case 4936293?

As Agent For Arvin Chand, at 11:59pm…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4936293?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4936293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10692014-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4936293?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Marie Ann Woolley at 206 Matai Road, Raumati Beach,

How much money was awarded in case 4936293?

As Agent For Arvin Chand, at 11:59pm…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4936293?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4936293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10692014-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

206 Matai Road, Raumati Beach, Paraparaumu 5032 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4936293 — 14-day notice

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4936293. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
As Agent For Arvin Chand, at 11:59pm on Sunday 18 August 2024. 2. Marie Ann Woolley is to reimburse the landlord the app	$27.00		As Agent For Arvin Chand, at 11:59pm on Sunday 18 August 2024. 2. Marie Ann Woolley is to reimburse the landlord the app

The tenancy of Marie Ann Woolley at 206 Matai Road, Raumati Beach, Paraparaumu 5032 is terminated, and possession is granted to Jade Rental Properties Limited As Agent For Arvin Chand, at 11:59pm on Sunday 18 August 2024.

Marie Ann Woolley is to reimburse the landlord the application fee of $27.00.

This order is amended only to correct the typo in the date of termination in the original order.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Foote and Ms Vine.

Ms Woolley did not attend. She had been notified of the hearing by letter and text several times, the most recent being upon her request the day prior to the hearing. The hearing had been moved to a Friday to accommodate her study commitments. Her phone was switched off on the several times I called it at the hearing time. Accordingly pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in her absence.

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) 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 failing to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy. 1

The landlord served two 14-day notices on the tenant on 25 March and 26 June 2024 and the tenant did not remedy the breaches within the required periods.

I must then determine whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

The District Court looked directly at the issue 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 has been in place for almost 10 months. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings: The landlord reports similar issues throughout the duration of the tenancy. The landlord has made four applications to the Tribunal over the short tenancy for breaches of the RTA and tenancy agreement. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. Ms Woolley has been given specific direction and opportunity to tidy up since March 2024 and still has not, even in the face of Tribunal proceedings; this indicates that she is unlikely to comply in the future. 1 Section 40(1)(c) of the RTA d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. Here it was a deliberate breach as Ms Woolley has been made aware of her obligations. e. The conduct of the landlord. The property managers have been trying to work with her and her supports. f. The gravity of the breach. The extent of the untidiness creates concerns for the property suffering damage. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. I consider it is. The property is extremely untidy and unclean, and Ms Woolley is not engaging with her property managers on the matter.

Having considered all the evidence very carefully, I am satisfied that it is just to terminate the tenancy at this point. Ms Woolley has been given opportunities to remedy the issues and has not. The property is potentially being damaged.

I have provided Ms Woolley a week to vacate although the landlord is entitled to possession immediately. In coming to this decision I have considered Ms Woolley’s circumstances. I urge her to obtain the assistance of her supports in vacating the tenancy.

Because Jade Rental Properties Limited As Agent For Arvin Chand has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

This order is an amendment to the 9 August order which noted a termination date of July as opposed to August. To clarify, the termination date is 18 August 2024. I apologise for any inconvenience the error caused.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4936293. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
As Agent For Arvin Chand, at 11:59pm on Sunday 18 August 2024. 2. Marie Ann Woolley is to reimburse the landlord the app	$27.00		As Agent For Arvin Chand, at 11:59pm on Sunday 18 August 2024. 2. Marie Ann Woolley is to reimburse the landlord the app

Order

The tenancy of Marie Ann Woolley at 206 Matai Road, Raumati Beach, Paraparaumu 5032 is terminated, and possession is granted to Jade Rental Properties Limited As Agent For Arvin Chand, at 11:59pm on Sunday 18 August 2024.
Marie Ann Woolley is to reimburse the landlord the application fee of $27.00.
This order is amended only to correct the typo in the date of termination in the original order.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Foote and Ms Vine.
Ms Woolley did not attend. She had been notified of the hearing by letter and text several times, the most recent being upon her request the day prior to the hearing. The hearing had been moved to a Friday to accommodate her study commitments. Her phone was switched off on the several times I called it at the hearing time. Accordingly pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in her absence.
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) 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 failing to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy. 1
The landlord served two 14-day notices on the tenant on 25 March and 26 June 2024 and the tenant did not remedy the breaches within the required periods.
I must then determine whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The District Court looked directly at the issue 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 has been in place for almost 10 months. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings: The landlord reports similar issues throughout the duration of the tenancy. The landlord has made four applications to the Tribunal over the short tenancy for breaches of the RTA and tenancy agreement. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. Ms Woolley has been given specific direction and opportunity to tidy up since March 2024 and still has not, even in the face of Tribunal proceedings; this indicates that she is unlikely to comply in the future. 1 Section 40(1)(c) of the RTA d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. Here it was a deliberate breach as Ms Woolley has been made aware of her obligations. e. The conduct of the landlord. The property managers have been trying to work with her and her supports. f. The gravity of the breach. The extent of the untidiness creates concerns for the property suffering damage. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. I consider it is. The property is extremely untidy and unclean, and Ms Woolley is not engaging with her property managers on the matter.
Having considered all the evidence very carefully, I am satisfied that it is just to terminate the tenancy at this point. Ms Woolley has been given opportunities to remedy the issues and has not. The property is potentially being damaged.
I have provided Ms Woolley a week to vacate although the landlord is entitled to possession immediately. In coming to this decision I have considered Ms Woolley’s circumstances. I urge her to obtain the assistance of her supports in vacating the tenancy.
Because Jade Rental Properties Limited As Agent For Arvin Chand has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
This order is an amendment to the 9 August order which noted a termination date of July as opposed to August. To clarify, the termination date is 18 August 2024. I apologise for any inconvenience the error caused.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4936293 — 14-day notice at 206 Matai Road, Raumati Beach, Paraparaumu 5032

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4936293 — 14-day notice at 206 Matai Road, Raumati Beach, Paraparaumu 5032

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