What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5007568?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Joseph Francis Reagan at 138 Sandspit Road, Warkworth,

How much money was awarded in case 5007568?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5007568?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5007568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11052069-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5007568?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Joseph Francis Reagan at 138 Sandspit Road, Warkworth,

How much money was awarded in case 5007568?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5007568?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5007568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11052069-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

138 Sandspit Road, Warkworth, RD 2, Warkworth 0982 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5007568 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied to stay in the tenancy following both a 14-day termination notice and a notice not to renew a fixed term tenancy issued by the landlord. Background

The tenancy commenced on 9 October 2023 and was a fixed term tenancy with an end date of 7 October 2024. The property is a large, semi-rural property with a considerable land area.

The rent was originally $980 per week; however, it was reduced to $900 per week on the basis that the tenant would maintain the lawns.

On 9 May 2024 the landlord issued a 14-day notice to the tenant for breach of the tenancy agreement (“the breach notice”). Specifically, the landlord stated that the tenant had failed to keep the lawns and gardens maintained in accordance with the agreement and that the house was not being kept in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The breach notice gave the tenant until 27 May 2024 to remedy the breaches.

The landlord has given evidence that the breach notice was issued because of a routine inspection at the property. The landlord submits that at this inspection, although the property was tidy, it was not clean and there was significant mould build up on the windows and joinery, grime accumulation, and a thick layer of pet fur, dirt and dust on floors. There was also a strong animal, and faeces smell throughout. In addition, the neighbours had complained about overgrown lawns, and the landlord submits a lack of upkeep was evident at the inspection.

Despite the 14-day notice, the landlord says that the breach notice was not remedied, and they have provided photographs to support this. They say they have tried to work with the tenant since the breach notice to obtain cleaners and yard contractors for regular maintenance, however, they have not been able to resolve issues raised in the breach notice.

The tenant says, that when they initially moved into the property it was not clean, and they have spent considerable time and money trying to bring the property up to standard. This includes for example, cleaning, gardening, putting in strip light replacements, and installing new plug units.

There have been two separate property managers for the tenancy address (although the same landlord), and the landlord has provided an email from the first property manager who advises that the house was clean, and lawns and line trimming done prior to the start of the tenancy. In the same email chain, the tenant emails the first property manager and confirms that the house is “spik and span thanks to you!” [sic].

On 4 September 2024 the landlord gave notice that the tenancy agreement due to expire on 7 October 2024 would not be renewed and that the tenants were required to vacate the property by 21 October 2024.

On the same day, the tenants responded expressing shock at having received the notice and that they had been continuing to work with the landlord with respect to maintenance and they wanted to remain at the property. It was of utmost importance to the tenants that they remained in the area so that their granddaughter could complete her schooling at the local high school and so they didn’t incur the costs associated with moving.

The landlord advised the tenant that they had concerns that the size of the property was too much for the tenants to maintain, and it might be in their best interests to find a smaller, more affordable property in the area, but that they would consider having the tenants remain at the property if they adhered to specific conditions. These conditions including removing pots from the deck (due to weight concerns), having a fortnightly cleaner, and having regular yard maintenance – at the tenant’s cost.

At this stage, it appears that quotes were obtained by the landlord for a deep clean of the property and regular ongoing cleaning, and there were ongoing discussions between the parties about the required maintenance to the property.

The landlord submits that the property remains in a poor condition although they have not been able to conduct recent inspections due to cancellations by the tenant and what appears to be a breakdown in the relationship between the parties.

At some stage, the landlord extended the date for the tenant to leave the property to 8 December 2024, presumably to enable the tenant time to find another property.

The tenant filed an application with the Tribunal in response to the cost of cleaning, seeking compensation of $460 (not yet incurred), however at the hearing the issue appeared to be more about their desire to remain at the premises and the conditions being suggested to any ongoing tenancy.

The landlord is of the view that there has been a valid 14-day notice issued for breach of the tenancy agreement pursuant to s56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and although they have tried to work a solution out with the tenant, the tenancy should terminate with possession on 8 December 2024.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

This tenancy was a fixed term tenancy. Section 60A(2)(d) of the RTA states that on the expiry of a fixed term tenancy, the tenancy will not continue if before the expiry date a party gave notice as mentioned in any of the sections 50(1)(a) to (b) of the RTA that terminates the tenancy.

Section 50(1)(a) of the RTA confirms that tenancies can be terminated on the expiry of a fixed-term tenancy, as has occurred here.

In case I am wrong about that, the Tribunal may also 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 photographs and evidence received show that although the property is very tidy, the tenant has breached their obligations by failing to keep the premises reasonably clean and failing to maintain the lawns in accordance with the tenancy agreement. An entry inspection report contrasted with the later routine inspection report prove that this has occurred during the tenancy, and I unfortunately have no other evidence, outside the tenant’s word, to support the tenant’s position.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 9 May 2024, and the evidence shows that the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has had considerable time to try and remedy the breach notice and has not, despite the landlord trying to work with them and external contractors to do so.

As discussed at the hearing, I encourage the parties to work together to find a more suitable property for the tenant in the area. R Harvey-Lane 10 November 2024

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied to stay in the tenancy following both a 14-day termination notice and a notice not to renew a fixed term tenancy issued by the landlord. Background

The tenancy commenced on 9 October 2023 and was a fixed term tenancy with an end date of 7 October 2024. The property is a large, semi-rural property with a considerable land area.

The rent was originally $980 per week; however, it was reduced to $900 per week on the basis that the tenant would maintain the lawns.

At some stage, the landlord extended the date for the tenant to leave the property to 8 December 2024, presumably to enable the tenant time to find another property.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 50(1)(a) of the RTA confirms that tenancies can be terminated on the expiry of a fixed-term tenancy, as has occurred here.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 9 May 2024, and the evidence shows that the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

As discussed at the hearing, I encourage the parties to work together to find a more suitable property for the tenant in the area. R Harvey-Lane 10 November 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 5007568 — 14-day notice at 138 Sandspit Road, Warkworth, RD 2, Warkworth 0982

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5007568 — 14-day notice at 138 Sandspit Road, Warkworth, RD 2, Warkworth 0982

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