What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5062989?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Ashleigh Jane Nyhan at 11 Peddie Street, Taradale, Napier

How much money was awarded in case 5062989?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5062989?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5062989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11152688-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5062989?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Ashleigh Jane Nyhan at 11 Peddie Street, Taradale, Napier

How much money was awarded in case 5062989?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5062989?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5062989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11152688-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Peddie Street, Taradale, Napier 4112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5062989 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Ashleigh Jane Nyhan at 11 Peddie Street, Taradale, Napier 4112 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kim Hunter, at 11:59pm on Sunday 12 January 2025.
Ashleigh Jane Nyhan must pay Kim Hunter $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.
The landlord’s application for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. He has also applied for compensation for the cost of repairing damage to the premises.
Before the hearing, the tenant applied for an adjournment on the basis that she had limited notice of the hearing and wishes to file a cross application. That application was declined noting, "The tenant has requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 27 November 2024 on the grounds that she has only just received the landlord's application and has not had time to prepare a response and may wish to file a cross application. Those may be valid grounds for deferring consideration of some claims, but serious issues are raised in the application and if the tenant intends to file a cross application it will be useful for the Tribunal to be able to manage the hearing process. The fixture should proceed as scheduled and I will determine the process to be followed after hearing from the parties then."
At the hearing, the tenant confirmed that her cross application will not relate to the grounds on which the landlord has sought termination of the tenancy. The tenant is well aware of the issues raised in the landlord’s application and I directed that the hearing should continue.
I advised the landlord that I would not hear his application for compensation. The tenancy has not ended, and it is at that time that the tenant’s obligation to leave the premises in appropriate condition is assessed (s.40(1)(e)). The landlord is free to bring a further application for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

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 it. 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.
Having heard from the parties and considered the photographic evidence provided, I am satisfied that the tenant breached her obligations under the RTA by: a. failing to meet her responsibility under s.40(1)(c), to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; b. housing a dog on the premises; c. allowing cars to be parked on the lawns of the premises.
The landlord says that the tenant also breached her obligations by having too many people living at the premises. The agreement does not however specify the maximum number of occupants and I do not find that breached proved.
It is the case however that in terms of s.41, “The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.”
Following an inspection from which photographs have been provided, the landlord issued the tenant a notice, on 21 October 2024, alleging breach of the tenant’s responsibilities by, “Damaging the home throughout. Food drink drawing marks on floor, walls, doors. Damaged light fittings ripped wall towel rail torn from wall. Broke brickwork. Piles of rubbish at back door and in shed.”.
The notice required the tenant to remedy those breaches by 5 November 2024, by, “Thorough clean throughout house, carpets cleaned or replace, wallpaper repaired and painted, fixtures repaired and rubbish removed. All to the satisfaction of the landlord.”
The landlord is not entitled to require that at the everything be done to his satisfaction, if that requires the tenant to do more than she is required to under the RTA (see s.11)
The landlord also issued the tenant a notice on 15 October 2024 requiring that the dog be removed from the property by 17 October 2024. That notice cannot be relied upon to seek termination of the tenancy. Section 56(1)(b) requires that where, as is the case with removal of a dog from the property, the alleged breach is capable of remedy, the notice must allow at least 14 days for the breach to be remedied.
In terms of the condition of the property, the photographic evidence satisfies me that the tenant was in breach of her obligations. The landlord gave the tenant 14 days’ notice to remedy the breach in terms of s. 56(1)(b). After the expiry of the 14 day notice period, the landlord did another inspection, from which photographs have been provided. Those photographs satisfy me that although the tenant made some significant efforts to bring the property to a reasonable state of cleanliness, she had not done so. The carpets remained very badly marked and stained, wallpaper I was torn residual marks from drawing on walls remained as did significant quantities of rubbish.
Because the tenant did not remedy the breaches within the 14 day specified in the landlord’s notice I need to determine whether the breach is of such a nature and extent that that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
On balance I find that it would be. The extent of the damage to the premises shown in the photographs is considerable. In my view it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to face the prospect of further deterioration in the condition of the premises or damage to the property for an extended time if the tenancy were not terminated. I also take into account the other ways in which the tenant had breached her agreement with the landlord, as noted above.
I have ordered the termination to take effect in six weeks. I am conscious that is very much longer than the landlord would prefer, but in making that decisionI take into account that: a. the tenant’s job of maintaining the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is made considerably more difficult by her care of an autistically challenged son; b. the tenant says that neither the additional occupants of the premises nor the dog is now residing there; c. the tenant has clearly made some progress in bringing the premises back to a reasonable condition and intends to continue doing so. It will be in her interests and the landlord’s interests and consistent with mitigation principles to allow her an opportunity to continue that remediation work before the tenancy ends; d. the landlord’s evidence is that there have been no issues with payment of the rent, so the landlord is unlikely to be prejudiced by delay in termination on that score; e. the upcoming Christmas period will make finding alternative accommodation before then more difficult; f. the tenancy has been in place since 4 October 2023 and the evidence suggests it is unlikely that there will be a significant deterioration in the condition of the premises in the next 6 weeks.
Because Kim Hunter has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of Ashleigh Jane Nyhan at 11 Peddie Street, Taradale, Napier 4112 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kim Hunter, at 11:59pm on Sunday 12 January 2025.
Ashleigh Jane Nyhan must pay Kim Hunter $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.
The landlord’s application for compensation is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. He has also applied for compensation for the cost of repairing damage to the premises.
Before the hearing, the tenant applied for an adjournment on the basis that she had limited notice of the hearing and wishes to file a cross application. That application was declined noting, "The tenant has requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 27 November 2024 on the grounds that she has only just received the landlord's application and has not had time to prepare a response and may wish to file a cross application. Those may be valid grounds for deferring consideration of some claims, but serious issues are raised in the application and if the tenant intends to file a cross application it will be useful for the Tribunal to be able to manage the hearing process. The fixture should proceed as scheduled and I will determine the process to be followed after hearing from the parties then."
At the hearing, the tenant confirmed that her cross application will not relate to the grounds on which the landlord has sought termination of the tenancy. The tenant is well aware of the issues raised in the landlord’s application and I directed that the hearing should continue.
I advised the landlord that I would not hear his application for compensation. The tenancy has not ended, and it is at that time that the tenant’s obligation to leave the premises in appropriate condition is assessed (s.40(1)(e)). The landlord is free to bring a further application for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

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 it. 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.
Having heard from the parties and considered the photographic evidence provided, I am satisfied that the tenant breached her obligations under the RTA by: a. failing to meet her responsibility under s.40(1)(c), to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; b. housing a dog on the premises; c. allowing cars to be parked on the lawns of the premises.
The landlord says that the tenant also breached her obligations by having too many people living at the premises. The agreement does not however specify the maximum number of occupants and I do not find that breached proved.
It is the case however that in terms of s.41, “The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.”
Following an inspection from which photographs have been provided, the landlord issued the tenant a notice, on 21 October 2024, alleging breach of the tenant’s responsibilities by, “Damaging the home throughout. Food drink drawing marks on floor, walls, doors. Damaged light fittings ripped wall towel rail torn from wall. Broke brickwork. Piles of rubbish at back door and in shed.”.
The notice required the tenant to remedy those breaches by 5 November 2024, by, “Thorough clean throughout house, carpets cleaned or replace, wallpaper repaired and painted, fixtures repaired and rubbish removed. All to the satisfaction of the landlord.”
The landlord is not entitled to require that at the everything be done to his satisfaction, if that requires the tenant to do more than she is required to under the RTA (see s.11)
The landlord also issued the tenant a notice on 15 October 2024 requiring that the dog be removed from the property by 17 October 2024. That notice cannot be relied upon to seek termination of the tenancy. Section 56(1)(b) requires that where, as is the case with removal of a dog from the property, the alleged breach is capable of remedy, the notice must allow at least 14 days for the breach to be remedied.
In terms of the condition of the property, the photographic evidence satisfies me that the tenant was in breach of her obligations. The landlord gave the tenant 14 days’ notice to remedy the breach in terms of s. 56(1)(b). After the expiry of the 14 day notice period, the landlord did another inspection, from which photographs have been provided. Those photographs satisfy me that although the tenant made some significant efforts to bring the property to a reasonable state of cleanliness, she had not done so. The carpets remained very badly marked and stained, wallpaper I was torn residual marks from drawing on walls remained as did significant quantities of rubbish.
Because the tenant did not remedy the breaches within the 14 day specified in the landlord’s notice I need to determine whether the breach is of such a nature and extent that that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
On balance I find that it would be. The extent of the damage to the premises shown in the photographs is considerable. In my view it would be unreasonable to require the landlord to face the prospect of further deterioration in the condition of the premises or damage to the property for an extended time if the tenancy were not terminated. I also take into account the other ways in which the tenant had breached her agreement with the landlord, as noted above.
I have ordered the termination to take effect in six weeks. I am conscious that is very much longer than the landlord would prefer, but in making that decisionI take into account that: a. the tenant’s job of maintaining the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is made considerably more difficult by her care of an autistically challenged son; b. the tenant says that neither the additional occupants of the premises nor the dog is now residing there; c. the tenant has clearly made some progress in bringing the premises back to a reasonable condition and intends to continue doing so. It will be in her interests and the landlord’s interests and consistent with mitigation principles to allow her an opportunity to continue that remediation work before the tenancy ends; d. the landlord’s evidence is that there have been no issues with payment of the rent, so the landlord is unlikely to be prejudiced by delay in termination on that score; e. the upcoming Christmas period will make finding alternative accommodation before then more difficult; f. the tenancy has been in place since 4 October 2023 and the evidence suggests it is unlikely that there will be a significant deterioration in the condition of the premises in the next 6 weeks.
Because Kim Hunter has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5062989 — 14-day notice at 11 Peddie Street, Taradale, Napier 4112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5062989 — 14-day notice at 11 Peddie Street, Taradale, Napier 4112

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