What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4998708?

The tribunal order states: The application for termination is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4998708?

Body Corporate Breach: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Body Corporate Breach By Consent: $201.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4998708?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4998708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11057866-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4998708?

The tribunal order states: The application for termination is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4998708?

Body Corporate Breach: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Body Corporate Breach By Consent: $201.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4998708?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4998708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11057866-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 11, 17 Georgia Terrace, Albany, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4998708 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4998708 — net $402.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Body corporate breach by consent	$201.25	Body corporate breach by consent
Body corporate breach	$201.25	Body corporate breach by consent
Net award	$402.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$402.50

Order

The application for termination is dismissed.
The Tenant shall pay the Landlord $402.50 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, compensation and refund of the bond.
By consent the Tenant has agreed to pay one body corporate breach.

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 not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The Landlord submitted the Tenant breached their obligations by acting in a threatening manner towards the Property Manager and her husband. The Landlord submits that on 26 August 2024, the Tenant called the Property Manager and became angry. The Tenant started yelling, calling her names and threatening her. The Property Manager hung up the phone. The Property Manager’s husband tried to call the Tenant shortly after but the Tenant yelled at him and said “You don’t know the people that you are fucking with and tell Angela we are coming for her”. The Property Manager’s husband called the police and the police report was filed in support.
The Landlord provided a written statement from the Property Manager who did not attend the hearing and a phone call from the Tribunal to the Property Manager or her husband was declined because it could cause further detriment to the Property Managers mental health.
The Landlord also gave evidence at the hearing that on one occasion, he had spoken to the Tenant and she threatened to come down to the office with a lawyer. He felt her behaviour was intimidating.
The Tenant submitted that she did not threaten the Property Manager but may have raised her voice. She submitted it was not like her to threaten people as she has two young children that are always with her so she would never threaten anyone in front of them.
The Tenant submitted the Property Manager had something against her because she had been issued twice with body corporate fines for her children playing outside yet all the other children, who were also present were not reprimanded. The Tenant felt it may have had something to do with her being the new neighbour. She could not comprehend however why the Property Manager would make this up.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must provide all the evidence to prove their claim.
In considering the evidence, I find the evidence was insufficient to establish the applicant threatened to assault the Property Manager. To seek termination, the evidence should be solid because termination has serious consequences.
The challenge is that the Property Manager was not present at the hearing to be questioned on her evidence, nor was she available by phone. Additionally, her husband was unavailable to provide further clarification. As such, I am unable to assess or test the veracity of her evidence. Despite this, the Landlord has requested that I rely on her statement as the basis for terminating the tenancy. The Landlord also references a similar incident where the Tenant allegedly threatened to involve a lawyer. There is no supporting evidence from third-party witnesses to substantiate the alleged threat, nor is there any medical evidence indicating that the Tenant’s alleged threats have impacted the Property Manager’s mental health.
The claim for termination is dismissed. Claim for reimbursement of the breach notice
The Landlord claimed a second breach body corporate notice issued because the Tenant had visitors that continued to park in the visitors space for prolonged periods. Email correspondence from the Body Corporate and photographs were provided. The Landlord submitted the Tenant had been told many times to refrain from doing so.
The Tenant submitted it was not her car or her visitors cars that were parking there for prolonged periods so she could not understand why she was getting this fine.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlords evidence which included a very lengthy email and photographs from the Body Corporate establish that it is more likely than not that the Tenant’s cars or visitors were in breach.
The amount ordered is proved.
As the Landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful, the landlord shall pay their own filing fee and name suppression is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4998708 — net $402.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Body corporate breach by consent	$201.25	Body corporate breach by consent
Body corporate breach	$201.25	Body corporate breach by consent
Net award	$402.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$402.50

Order

The application for termination is dismissed.
The Tenant shall pay the Landlord $402.50 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, compensation and refund of the bond.
By consent the Tenant has agreed to pay one body corporate breach.

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 not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The Landlord submitted the Tenant breached their obligations by acting in a threatening manner towards the Property Manager and her husband. The Landlord submits that on 26 August 2024, the Tenant called the Property Manager and became angry. The Tenant started yelling, calling her names and threatening her. The Property Manager hung up the phone. The Property Manager’s husband tried to call the Tenant shortly after but the Tenant yelled at him and said “You don’t know the people that you are fucking with and tell Angela we are coming for her”. The Property Manager’s husband called the police and the police report was filed in support.
The Landlord provided a written statement from the Property Manager who did not attend the hearing and a phone call from the Tribunal to the Property Manager or her husband was declined because it could cause further detriment to the Property Managers mental health.
The Landlord also gave evidence at the hearing that on one occasion, he had spoken to the Tenant and she threatened to come down to the office with a lawyer. He felt her behaviour was intimidating.
The Tenant submitted that she did not threaten the Property Manager but may have raised her voice. She submitted it was not like her to threaten people as she has two young children that are always with her so she would never threaten anyone in front of them.
The Tenant submitted the Property Manager had something against her because she had been issued twice with body corporate fines for her children playing outside yet all the other children, who were also present were not reprimanded. The Tenant felt it may have had something to do with her being the new neighbour. She could not comprehend however why the Property Manager would make this up.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must provide all the evidence to prove their claim.
In considering the evidence, I find the evidence was insufficient to establish the applicant threatened to assault the Property Manager. To seek termination, the evidence should be solid because termination has serious consequences.
The challenge is that the Property Manager was not present at the hearing to be questioned on her evidence, nor was she available by phone. Additionally, her husband was unavailable to provide further clarification. As such, I am unable to assess or test the veracity of her evidence. Despite this, the Landlord has requested that I rely on her statement as the basis for terminating the tenancy. The Landlord also references a similar incident where the Tenant allegedly threatened to involve a lawyer. There is no supporting evidence from third-party witnesses to substantiate the alleged threat, nor is there any medical evidence indicating that the Tenant’s alleged threats have impacted the Property Manager’s mental health.
The claim for termination is dismissed. Claim for reimbursement of the breach notice
The Landlord claimed a second breach body corporate notice issued because the Tenant had visitors that continued to park in the visitors space for prolonged periods. Email correspondence from the Body Corporate and photographs were provided. The Landlord submitted the Tenant had been told many times to refrain from doing so.
The Tenant submitted it was not her car or her visitors cars that were parking there for prolonged periods so she could not understand why she was getting this fine.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlords evidence which included a very lengthy email and photographs from the Body Corporate establish that it is more likely than not that the Tenant’s cars or visitors were in breach.
The amount ordered is proved.
As the Landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful, the landlord shall pay their own filing fee and name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4998708 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 11, 17 Georgia Terrace, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4998708 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 11, 17 Georgia Terrace, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions