What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5043569 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5043569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5043569?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5043569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11068080-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5043569 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5043569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5043569?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5043569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11068080-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 5C Pantera Way, Hillpark, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5043569 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.
The two incidents of the 11 September and the 7 October of fighting and shouting between the tenant’s invitees were breaches of s 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held today. The tenant did not turn up until
30pm but as the hearing was still in progress I heard from the tenant and gave her an opportunity to tell me her side of the story.
This is an application by the landlord for termination of the tenancy. The landlord applied to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy on the 21 October 2024. The claims in the notice of application were: a. That the tenant was in rent arrears and that a 14-day notice was given that had not been remedied. b. That the tenant was in breach of her obligations in the tenancy agreement not to sublet the property to another person. c. That the tenant was in breach of her obligations in the tenancy agreement by exceeding the maximum number of persons at the property.
Yesterday the hearing the landlord indicated that they also wanted to amend their claim to include termination on the basis of antisocial behaviour at the tenancy. This relates to two incidents on the property on the 11 September and 7 October 2024.
At today’s hearing the landlord confirmed that the tenant had remedied the breach notice for rent arrears by paying the arrears and was no longer in arrears. Therefore the landlord’s claim for termination on that ground was not proven.
The tenancy agreement does not stipulate that the tenant must continuously live at the property or cannot have other people to visit or stay. It does say that the tenant cannot sublet the property. The tenancy agreement does not stipulate a maximum amount of people.
The tenant says that her nephew Dennis and his partner Kylie were staying at the property from time to time. The tenant also says that she lives in the property but sometimes stays with her boyfriend at another home. She says that she is at her home for the majority of the week.
The tenant says when she became aware of these proceedings and the evidence regarding the antisocial behaviour she asked Dennis and Kylie to leave and she has not seen them since.
The tenant is not in breach of her obligations in the residential tenancy agreement by sometimes staying the night elsewhere. There is no clause that requires the tenant to continuously stay at her property.
The tenant is also not in breach of her obligations by allowing guests to stay at her property, this is because there is no maximum no of persons in the tenancy agreement. The property is a 2 bedroom unit and can accommodate the tenant and her guests.
There is no evidence of subletting and therefore the landlord’s application for subletting is dismissed.
I am satisfied that the tenant’s invitees (Dennis and Kylie) breached s 40(2)(c) RTA on the 11 September 2024 and 7 October 2024, when they were observed by support workers at the complex, screaming at each other and the support workers and using foul language. The incident on the 7 October 2024 was videoed and played to me and the tenant, it is clear that the peace and enjoyment of the landlord’s other tenants and their support workers was disturbed.
Whilst I am satisfied that the tenant was in breach of her obligations I cannot and do not make any termination order because: a) Section 56 notices were not given in respect of these breaches. (The section 56 notices that were given were for a breach of other people living at the property not a breach of s40(2)(c).) b) Even if the s56 notices had been given correctly, the tenant assures me that the people who breached are no longer living or visiting the property.
I remind the tenant that she is responsible for the behaviour of anyone who visits the premises. (section 41 RTA). The behaviour exhibited on the 7 October was completely unacceptable and was frightening for the landlord’s agents and would have been for the tenant’s neighbours. If the landlord had followed the correct procedures by issuing s56 notices and seeking termination for that behaviour when filing the claim, I may have been minded to grant termination. It is unlikely that the landlord will tolerate any further breaches.

Order

The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.
The two incidents of the 11 September and the 7 October of fighting and shouting between the tenant’s invitees were breaches of s 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held today. The tenant did not turn up until
30pm but as the hearing was still in progress I heard from the tenant and gave her an opportunity to tell me her side of the story.
This is an application by the landlord for termination of the tenancy. The landlord applied to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy on the 21 October 2024. The claims in the notice of application were: a. That the tenant was in rent arrears and that a 14-day notice was given that had not been remedied. b. That the tenant was in breach of her obligations in the tenancy agreement not to sublet the property to another person. c. That the tenant was in breach of her obligations in the tenancy agreement by exceeding the maximum number of persons at the property.
Yesterday the hearing the landlord indicated that they also wanted to amend their claim to include termination on the basis of antisocial behaviour at the tenancy. This relates to two incidents on the property on the 11 September and 7 October 2024.
At today’s hearing the landlord confirmed that the tenant had remedied the breach notice for rent arrears by paying the arrears and was no longer in arrears. Therefore the landlord’s claim for termination on that ground was not proven.
The tenancy agreement does not stipulate that the tenant must continuously live at the property or cannot have other people to visit or stay. It does say that the tenant cannot sublet the property. The tenancy agreement does not stipulate a maximum amount of people.
The tenant says that her nephew Dennis and his partner Kylie were staying at the property from time to time. The tenant also says that she lives in the property but sometimes stays with her boyfriend at another home. She says that she is at her home for the majority of the week.
The tenant says when she became aware of these proceedings and the evidence regarding the antisocial behaviour she asked Dennis and Kylie to leave and she has not seen them since.
The tenant is not in breach of her obligations in the residential tenancy agreement by sometimes staying the night elsewhere. There is no clause that requires the tenant to continuously stay at her property.
The tenant is also not in breach of her obligations by allowing guests to stay at her property, this is because there is no maximum no of persons in the tenancy agreement. The property is a 2 bedroom unit and can accommodate the tenant and her guests.
There is no evidence of subletting and therefore the landlord’s application for subletting is dismissed.
I am satisfied that the tenant’s invitees (Dennis and Kylie) breached s 40(2)(c) RTA on the 11 September 2024 and 7 October 2024, when they were observed by support workers at the complex, screaming at each other and the support workers and using foul language. The incident on the 7 October 2024 was videoed and played to me and the tenant, it is clear that the peace and enjoyment of the landlord’s other tenants and their support workers was disturbed.
Whilst I am satisfied that the tenant was in breach of her obligations I cannot and do not make any termination order because: a) Section 56 notices were not given in respect of these breaches. (The section 56 notices that were given were for a breach of other people living at the property not a breach of s40(2)(c).) b) Even if the s56 notices had been given correctly, the tenant assures me that the people who breached are no longer living or visiting the property.
I remind the tenant that she is responsible for the behaviour of anyone who visits the premises. (section 41 RTA). The behaviour exhibited on the 7 October was completely unacceptable and was frightening for the landlord’s agents and would have been for the tenant’s neighbours. If the landlord had followed the correct procedures by issuing s56 notices and seeking termination for that behaviour when filing the claim, I may have been minded to grant termination. It is unlikely that the landlord will tolerate any further breaches.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5043569 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 5C Pantera Way, Hillpark, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5043569 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 5C Pantera Way, Hillpark, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions