What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5110668?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Corry Douglas Steven Scotson at 28 Thames Street, Roslyn,

How much money was awarded in case 5110668?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5110668?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5110668?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11416289-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5110668?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Corry Douglas Steven Scotson at 28 Thames Street, Roslyn,

How much money was awarded in case 5110668?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5110668?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5110668?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11416289-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Thames Street, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5110668 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenancy of Corry Douglas Steven Scotson at 28 Thames Street, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 pm Friday 21 February 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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 evidence
The landlord provided evidence as follows: a. The tenancy started on 7 April 2016. b. On 10 May 2024 the landlord gave notice to the tenant that he was breaching the terms of his tenancy agreement by disturbing the peace and quiet enjoyment of his neighbours by playing loud music and his guests coming onto the property and revving their cars’ engines loudly. c. On 30 July 2024 the landlord gave notice to the tenant that he breached the terms of his tenancy agreement by disturbing the peace and quiet enjoyment of his neighbours when he had a loud altercation with his son. d. On 31 July 2024 the landlord gave the tenant notice to remove cars from the back and front lawns and mow them. The tenant removed one van but did not remove any of the others or mow the lawns. e. Further to a verbal discussion on 3 October 2024, the landlord gave notice to the tenant on 9 October 2024 that he breached the terms of his tenancy agreement by disturbing the peace and quiet enjoyment of his neighbours by playing “loud music through the day and night” and by engaging in or allowing “shouting and disruptive behaviour in the middle of the night”. f. On 4 October 2024 the landlord gave the tenant another notice to remove the cars and scrap metal from the property and mow the lawns. The tenant did some weed eating but did not otherwise comply. g. On 30 October 2024 the landlord gave the tenant notice about cars exiting his property and doing “burn outs” on the street on 20 October 2024. h. Having discussed his disruptive behaviour on 1 November 2024, the landlord gave further notice to the tenant on 6 November 2024 regarding his guests doing further “burn outs” outside the property. i. The landlord gave the tenant notice on 11 December 2024 about a loud explosion and fire in the backyard at 3.20 am on 28 November 2024. j. The landlord issued a notice to the tenant on 23 January 2025 about loud music from his property disturbing the peace and quiet enjoyment of his neighbours at 1 am on 19 January 2025. k. The landlord issued a notice to the tenant on 10 February 2025 about a loud argument which disturbed his neighbours’ peace and quiet enjoyment around 11 am on 5 February 2025. l. The New Zealand Police confirmed that during the tenancy there have been 88 calls for service in relation to this property. For the year 2024 the police have 31 records relating to the property for the period from 9 February 2024 to 20 December 2024: “These records cover a number of calls for service which vary from intelligence notings, persons taken into custody, serious offending that is linked to the address or persons at the address, missing persons, anti-social road behaviour and assaults.” In “2019 Police executed a search power for drugs locating an indoor cannabis grow...” m. The landlord has issued 50 separate notices to the tenant since 2016. n. The landlord has received 21 separate email complaints and 52 separate text complaints regarding the tenancy from the general public since 1 October 2024.
The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. He is aware of the issues raised by the landlord and accepts that most of the complaints are reasonable. He understands how this behaviour could upset his neighbours. b. Much of the bad behaviour was caused by his guests. He likes to give everyone a chance and has been let down by some of the people he has trusted. c. He believes that he can remove the vehicles and tidy the lawns if he is given another opportunity. d. He wants to be given the opportunity to change his behaviour. Discussion and decision
The landlord has proven on the balance of the probabilities that the tenant has repeatedly breached the terms of his tenancy over the last year. The tenant responsibly accepted that he had done so.
It remains to determine whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. As noted at the hearing, termination is the ultimate sanction. The Tribunal understands the significant impact it has on tenants and does not make a termination order without a reasoned consideration of all relevant matters.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered section 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate this tenancy for the following reasons: a. The period of breaches has been significant and has been documented for a year. The breaches are serious and longstanding and the tenant has not taken any steps to ensure that they do not occur again. b. Th tenant has received numerous breach notices over the last year but has not changed his behaviour or moderated the behaviour of his guests. c. Despite being requested to attend meetings to discuss the issues and find a way forward, the tenant has not engaged with the landlord to address the issues. d. Despite being aware of these proceedings and an imminent hearing date, the tenant has allowed the anti-social behaviour to continue so that two further notices have been issued since the landlord filed its application. e. Despite the tenant indicating he was willing to change his ways, the long and persistent history of breaches indicate that he is not able to stop the behaviour of his guests and the Tribunal does not have confidence that the behaviour will stop. f. The tenant’s neighbours have clearly had enough and it is unfair that they continue to suffer from the tenant’s ant-social behaviour. They are legally entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their own properties. The landlord is legally obliged to take steps to deal with a tenant who is interfering with the quiet enjoyment of neighbours. g. The landlord has done its best to engage with the tenant to address the issues but the tenant has failed to engage or take any positive action. h. Termination is not disproportionate to the many and persistent breaches by the tenant over a lengthy period of time.

Order

The tenancy of Corry Douglas Steven Scotson at 28 Thames Street, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 pm Friday 21 February 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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 evidence
The landlord provided evidence as follows: a. The tenancy started on 7 April 2016. b. On 10 May 2024 the landlord gave notice to the tenant that he was breaching the terms of his tenancy agreement by disturbing the peace and quiet enjoyment of his neighbours by playing loud music and his guests coming onto the property and revving their cars’ engines loudly. c. On 30 July 2024 the landlord gave notice to the tenant that he breached the terms of his tenancy agreement by disturbing the peace and quiet enjoyment of his neighbours when he had a loud altercation with his son. d. On 31 July 2024 the landlord gave the tenant notice to remove cars from the back and front lawns and mow them. The tenant removed one van but did not remove any of the others or mow the lawns. e. Further to a verbal discussion on 3 October 2024, the landlord gave notice to the tenant on 9 October 2024 that he breached the terms of his tenancy agreement by disturbing the peace and quiet enjoyment of his neighbours by playing “loud music through the day and night” and by engaging in or allowing “shouting and disruptive behaviour in the middle of the night”. f. On 4 October 2024 the landlord gave the tenant another notice to remove the cars and scrap metal from the property and mow the lawns. The tenant did some weed eating but did not otherwise comply. g. On 30 October 2024 the landlord gave the tenant notice about cars exiting his property and doing “burn outs” on the street on 20 October 2024. h. Having discussed his disruptive behaviour on 1 November 2024, the landlord gave further notice to the tenant on 6 November 2024 regarding his guests doing further “burn outs” outside the property. i. The landlord gave the tenant notice on 11 December 2024 about a loud explosion and fire in the backyard at 3.20 am on 28 November 2024. j. The landlord issued a notice to the tenant on 23 January 2025 about loud music from his property disturbing the peace and quiet enjoyment of his neighbours at 1 am on 19 January 2025. k. The landlord issued a notice to the tenant on 10 February 2025 about a loud argument which disturbed his neighbours’ peace and quiet enjoyment around 11 am on 5 February 2025. l. The New Zealand Police confirmed that during the tenancy there have been 88 calls for service in relation to this property. For the year 2024 the police have 31 records relating to the property for the period from 9 February 2024 to 20 December 2024: “These records cover a number of calls for service which vary from intelligence notings, persons taken into custody, serious offending that is linked to the address or persons at the address, missing persons, anti-social road behaviour and assaults.” In “2019 Police executed a search power for drugs locating an indoor cannabis grow...” m. The landlord has issued 50 separate notices to the tenant since 2016. n. The landlord has received 21 separate email complaints and 52 separate text complaints regarding the tenancy from the general public since 1 October 2024.
The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. He is aware of the issues raised by the landlord and accepts that most of the complaints are reasonable. He understands how this behaviour could upset his neighbours. b. Much of the bad behaviour was caused by his guests. He likes to give everyone a chance and has been let down by some of the people he has trusted. c. He believes that he can remove the vehicles and tidy the lawns if he is given another opportunity. d. He wants to be given the opportunity to change his behaviour. Discussion and decision
The landlord has proven on the balance of the probabilities that the tenant has repeatedly breached the terms of his tenancy over the last year. The tenant responsibly accepted that he had done so.
It remains to determine whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. As noted at the hearing, termination is the ultimate sanction. The Tribunal understands the significant impact it has on tenants and does not make a termination order without a reasoned consideration of all relevant matters.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered section 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate this tenancy for the following reasons: a. The period of breaches has been significant and has been documented for a year. The breaches are serious and longstanding and the tenant has not taken any steps to ensure that they do not occur again. b. Th tenant has received numerous breach notices over the last year but has not changed his behaviour or moderated the behaviour of his guests. c. Despite being requested to attend meetings to discuss the issues and find a way forward, the tenant has not engaged with the landlord to address the issues. d. Despite being aware of these proceedings and an imminent hearing date, the tenant has allowed the anti-social behaviour to continue so that two further notices have been issued since the landlord filed its application. e. Despite the tenant indicating he was willing to change his ways, the long and persistent history of breaches indicate that he is not able to stop the behaviour of his guests and the Tribunal does not have confidence that the behaviour will stop. f. The tenant’s neighbours have clearly had enough and it is unfair that they continue to suffer from the tenant’s ant-social behaviour. They are legally entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their own properties. The landlord is legally obliged to take steps to deal with a tenant who is interfering with the quiet enjoyment of neighbours. g. The landlord has done its best to engage with the tenant to address the issues but the tenant has failed to engage or take any positive action. h. Termination is not disproportionate to the many and persistent breaches by the tenant over a lengthy period of time.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5110668 — Tenancy dispute at 28 Thames Street, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5110668 — Tenancy dispute at 28 Thames Street, Roslyn, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions