What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5065369?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Peter Owen Scott at Unit/Flat 8, 33A Smythe Road, Henderson,

How much money was awarded in case 5065369?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065369?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11236672-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5065369?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Peter Owen Scott at Unit/Flat 8, 33A Smythe Road, Henderson,

How much money was awarded in case 5065369?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065369?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11236672-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 8, 33A Smythe Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5065369 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The tenancy of Peter Owen Scott at Unit/Flat 8, 33A Smythe Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited, at 11:59pm, Friday 27 December 2024.

The landlord’s application for compensation for damage is dismissed.

Peter Owen Scott must pay Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited $27.00 immediately as reimbursement of the landlord’s filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and compensation for damages to the premises.

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 tenant has breached their obligations by keeping a pet on the premises, in breach of the tenancy agreement. The landlord also alleges further breaches, including removing the carpet without consent, keeping a couch in the hallway causing a fire hazard, painting the walls and floor without consent, fixing a boxing bag to the ceiling of the premises without consent, and installing a deadbolt to the front door without consent.

The landlord served five separate 14-day notices to remedy on the tenant, as set out below: a. 16/09/24: Breach of tenancy agreement by keeping a dog on the premises. b. 16/09/24: Several breaches were listed: i. Breach of s40(1) by making alterations (removing carpet) without the landlord’s consent; ii. Breach of s40(2)(ab) by keeping a couch in a common area which causes interference with a means of escape from fire; iii. Breach of s42(1) by fixing a boxing bag to the ceiling of the premises without consent; iv. Breach of s42(1) by painting the plywood floor and walls without consent; v. Breach of s 46(2) by adding a lock to the premises without consent. c. 10/10/24: Breach of tenancy agreement by keeping a dog on the premises. d. 10/10/24: Several breaches were listed: i. Breach of s42(1) by making alterations (removing carpet) without the landlord’s consent; ii. Breach of s42(1) by fixing a boxing bag to the ceiling of the premises without consent; iii. Breach of s 46(2) by adding a lock to the premises without consent. e. 06/11/24: Breach of tenancy agreement by keeping a dog on the premises.

The landlord says the tenant did remove the couch in the common area within 14 days of the notice issued 16 September 2024. The landlord says the other breaches were not remedied within the 14-day periods stated within each notice.

The tenant admits he had (and still has) a dog in the apartment. He acknowledges he did not seek the landlord’s consent and that it is in breach of the tenancy agreement. The tenant says he got the dog in late August or early September and it has become his companion and is necessary for his mental health.

Even without the other alleged breaches, I am satisfied the landlord has proved the tenant has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement by keeping a dog in the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement, and failed to remedy the breach within the time specified. The landlord gave the tenant three notices stating that keeping a dog on the premises was in breach of the tenancy agreement and requiring the tenant to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, which was not less than 14 days.

The tenant did not remedy the breach, despite receiving three separate notices in September, October and November 2024. I am satisfied that the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. Landlord’s claim for compensation for damages

The landlord claims the tenant has caused damage to the premises during the tenancy. However, the landlord has not taken any steps towards remedying the alleged damage and is unable to quantify the compensation sought.

Given that, I dismiss the claim for compensation for damage. I note that I make no findings as to whether the tenant has damaged the premises during the tenancy.

If, once the landlord has possession of the premises, and is able to quantify the damage caused (if any), the landlord should file a fresh application. Reimbursement of filing fee

As the landlord has succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.

The landlord applied for a name suppression order. While the landlord has been successful, I am mindful that the landlord is a social housing provider. Given the landlord’s role in the community, and given no submissions were made on suppression during the hearing, I consider there is public interest in understanding how social housing providers operate.

I do not consider there is anything about this case to warrant a departure from the principle of open justice. I do not make any suppression orders regarding the publication of this decision.

Order

The tenancy of Peter Owen Scott at Unit/Flat 8, 33A Smythe Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited, at 11:59pm, Friday 27 December 2024.

The landlord’s application for compensation for damage is dismissed.

Peter Owen Scott must pay Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited $27.00 immediately as reimbursement of the landlord’s filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and compensation for damages to the premises.

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.

Given that, I dismiss the claim for compensation for damage. I note that I make no findings as to whether the tenant has damaged the premises during the tenancy.

If, once the landlord has possession of the premises, and is able to quantify the damage caused (if any), the landlord should file a fresh application. Reimbursement of filing fee

As the landlord has succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression

I do not consider there is anything about this case to warrant a departure from the principle of open justice. I do not make any suppression orders regarding the publication of this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065369 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 8, 33A Smythe Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065369 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 8, 33A Smythe Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

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