What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4938953?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jayson McReginal Caz Pekepo at 1 Tukituki Way, Waipukurau,

How much money was awarded in case 4938953?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4938953?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4938953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10750472-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4938953?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jayson McReginal Caz Pekepo at 1 Tukituki Way, Waipukurau,

How much money was awarded in case 4938953?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4938953?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4938953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10750472-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 Tukituki Way, Waipukurau, Waipukurau 4200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4938953 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Jayson McReginal Caz Pekepo at 1 Tukituki Way, Waipukurau, Waipukurau 4200 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes and Communities, at 11:59pm on Monday 9 September 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was scheduled to be heard face to face but was held by telephone as the landlord’s representative could not appear in person due to a flight cancellation and the tenant thought it was to be heard remotely.
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 evidence shows that over the course of over 2 years, repeated requests and demands have been made of the tenant to remove excessive vehicles and rubbish from the premises, citing complaints from neighbours and concerns about access to the property for emergency vehicles.
The landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant on 24 August 2023, 23 February 2024 and 23 May 2024 The tenant did not remedy the breach within the period required by those notices. The tenant did not comply with the terms of a Tribunal Order dated 9 November 2023 requiring that rubbish and various be removed from the premises.
Given the tenant’s decision not to comply with those notices and the Order, despite persistent assurances that he would, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant says that some of the vehicles complained of are not his. I am persuaded that the tenant has failed to comply with his obligation to remove vehicles that are his or that are there with his permission.
The tenant also says that other occupants of the complex breach their obligations regarding parking of vehicles and asks why he should be required to comply when others aren’t. With respect, what other residents do does not provide a reason for the tenant to persistently refuse to meet his obligations. By that way of thinking, none of the residents will meet their obligation to be considerate of other residents’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their homes, because nobody else is. That is a recipe for an unhealthy living environment for all of the residents.
I have made the tenant aware of the landlord’s obligation under s.45(1)(e) RTA to, “take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premise.”
If the tenant believes that the landlord is not meeting that obligation to him, he is free to bring an application for orders requiring it to do so.
I accept the landlord’s position that it does not want to end the tenant’s tenancy but for the sake of its other tenants, needs to find a way to ensure the tenant meets his responsibilities. For that reason, I have deferred termination for 14 days. If the tenant uses that time to work with the landlord on removing the rubbish and excessive cars from the property it is unlikely the termination Order will be immediately enforced.

Order

The tenancy of Jayson McReginal Caz Pekepo at 1 Tukituki Way, Waipukurau, Waipukurau 4200 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes and Communities, at 11:59pm on Monday 9 September 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was scheduled to be heard face to face but was held by telephone as the landlord’s representative could not appear in person due to a flight cancellation and the tenant thought it was to be heard remotely.
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 evidence shows that over the course of over 2 years, repeated requests and demands have been made of the tenant to remove excessive vehicles and rubbish from the premises, citing complaints from neighbours and concerns about access to the property for emergency vehicles.
The landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant on 24 August 2023, 23 February 2024 and 23 May 2024 The tenant did not remedy the breach within the period required by those notices. The tenant did not comply with the terms of a Tribunal Order dated 9 November 2023 requiring that rubbish and various be removed from the premises.
Given the tenant’s decision not to comply with those notices and the Order, despite persistent assurances that he would, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant says that some of the vehicles complained of are not his. I am persuaded that the tenant has failed to comply with his obligation to remove vehicles that are his or that are there with his permission.
The tenant also says that other occupants of the complex breach their obligations regarding parking of vehicles and asks why he should be required to comply when others aren’t. With respect, what other residents do does not provide a reason for the tenant to persistently refuse to meet his obligations. By that way of thinking, none of the residents will meet their obligation to be considerate of other residents’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their homes, because nobody else is. That is a recipe for an unhealthy living environment for all of the residents.
I have made the tenant aware of the landlord’s obligation under s.45(1)(e) RTA to, “take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premise.”
If the tenant believes that the landlord is not meeting that obligation to him, he is free to bring an application for orders requiring it to do so.
I accept the landlord’s position that it does not want to end the tenant’s tenancy but for the sake of its other tenants, needs to find a way to ensure the tenant meets his responsibilities. For that reason, I have deferred termination for 14 days. If the tenant uses that time to work with the landlord on removing the rubbish and excessive cars from the property it is unlikely the termination Order will be immediately enforced.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4938953 — 14-day notice at 1 Tukituki Way, Waipukurau, Waipukurau 4200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4938953 — 14-day notice at 1 Tukituki Way, Waipukurau, Waipukurau 4200

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