What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5134650?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Julia Annie Cairns at Unit/Flat 1, 9 Richards Place, Kensington,

How much money was awarded in case 5134650?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5134650?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5134650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11424953-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5134650?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Julia Annie Cairns at Unit/Flat 1, 9 Richards Place, Kensington,

How much money was awarded in case 5134650?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5134650?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5134650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11424953-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 9 Richards Place, Kensington, Timaru 7910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5134650 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Julia Annie Cairns at Unit/Flat 1, 9 Richards Place, Kensington, Timaru 7910 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 4pm on Friday 21 February 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted by phone.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on two grounds: (a) Anti-social behaviour from the tenant; see Section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA”) (b) A breach of the tenant’s obligations: i.Failure to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; see Section 40(1)(b)

RTA

ii.Has caused interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. See Section 40(2)(c)

RTA

The tenancy between Kainga Ora Homes and Communities (‘KO”) and Ms Cairns commenced on 21 December 2023. Ms Cairns occupies one of two standalone units on the property, hers being the front unit with a separate garage on the right-hand side of the unit looking from the driveway. The driveway curves around in front of Unit 1 to another standalone garage associated with Unit 2 which is behind Unit 1. Unit 2 is occupied by a mother and young son, also KO tenants. Breach of tenant obligations
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 landlord claims the tenant has breached their obligations by: i.Failing to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; see Section 40(1)(b) RTA. The term ‘premises’ also includes the surrounding land. ii.Has caused interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. See Section 40(2)(c) RTA KO evidence
As there had been similar concerns, to those forming the basis of this application in a previous tenancy Ms Cairns had with KO, they set out in a letter to Ms Cairns at the commencement of the tenancy that no vehicles were to be parked on the driveway, including trailers and cars, but they must be parked in the garage.
After attempts being made by KO to speak with Ms Cairns about the build-up of items in the front yard and parking of the trailer in front of the garage without success, a 14 day notice to Ms Cairns dated 6 June 2024, requested that all items that were stored in the front yard needed to be removed immediately and that no trailers should be parked in the driveway but allowed for one car to be parked in front of the garage allowing access to the rear unit.
In October 2024 the belongings on the driveway had increased substantially along with the trailer and often a vehicle. KO produced photographs taken on 17 October 2024 which show a large double axle trailer, fully loaded with furniture, household and garden items parked in front of the garage with other items in front of and around it. A car was parked right on the curve of the driveway, large rubbish bins and barrels were positioned on the driveway itself, and a large number of bricks, iron fencing, hay bales and large wooden frames were in front of the unit.
Photographs taken on 5 November were also produced. These showed the number of items encroaching on the driveway had increased with a number of wooden pallets now present and more items in front of the trailer and to the side.
Photographs on 2, 19 and 24 December show Ms Cairns parked in front of Unit 2’s garage and also in the driveway itself blocking an any access for a car vising Unit 2 or emergency vehicles to either unit.
Photos of an inspection conducted on 19 December show there were more items added to what was already there and the wooden pallets and framing had been moved to the other side of the driveway encroaching onto it.
Ms Cairns had refused to speak to KO staff on numerous occasions, running away, inside locking the access gate to the rear yard, turning on a water sprinkler to stop access to the rear yard, singing over the top of the Housing Support Manager (“SHSM”) who was trying to talk to her.
It has been bought to the attention of Ms Cairns that if an ambulance or fire appliance was required at either unit, then access is not available.
The rear tenant at Flat 2, has very little room to get past the rubbish and the vehicles to even get to the street or for her support workers or family to park in front her garage when visiting. This is putting considerable mental and physical stress on the rear tenant, her 6-year old son and her extended family.
On Thursday 19 December 2024 KO Team Leader (TL) and the SHSM attended for a visit at 9.10am. The driveway was fully blocked by a car and trailer full of pallets. Ms Cairns saw the KO staff approaching and ran away inside screaming that she was far too busy to deal with us and that she was aware she had a breach notice.
Two hours later, after this visit, the tenant from the rear unit rang to complain about further items being moved onto the driveway. The KO staff returned but this visit resulted in considerable screaming by Ms Cairns, with her once again running away inside. KO staff went to the rear of the property to attempt again to discuss the breach issues and Ms Cairns got very angry, yelling and throwing her arms around and brandishing a pair of scissors around near the SHSM.
She was heard making a 111 call to police saying she had intruders at her property and that she had no idea who we were.
After the Xmas break the SHSM visited the property and there was thick rope spread out all over the driveway as shown by photos produced by KO. This was on the driveway for at least a week, spread across in front of Ms Cairns unit and down the driveway. It was still present on 13 January but gone by 21 January.
KO do not believe Ms Cairns has any intention of removing the items from the driveway, although they acknowledge that the photos on 4 February did show a small improvement.
She sees this space as her own and has no respect for the co-joined neighbour. The neighbour doesn’t own a vehicle and even when their family attempt to bring the tenant home, they are abused and told they are not allowed down the driveway, walking or driving. They do not bring their vehicle down the driveway anymore, due to the complete lack of space, but also the abuse they receive from Ms Cairns.
Three breach notices have been issued to Ms Cairns for the items on the shared driveway and blocking access to the driveway ( 6 June 2024, 24 October 2024 and 2 December 2024) and at no stage has Ms Cairns made any attempt to abide by the breach notices ( aside from the small improvement on 4 February) and she continues to bring further items on to the site. She already has the garage full and the rear yard is filling up.
KO said that as Ms Cairns had complained she wasn’t getting notices that they posted to her they now cellotaped any notices of breaches or inspections to her front door.
The MPs office have received complaints from several private owners in the street, because of the 4 cars, 1 caravan and 1 trailer that she has parked on the cul-de-sac. There is no parking for anyone else in the area, unless they have off street parking. Ms Cairns evidence
Ms Cairns stated she had made contact with the ambulance service and they said they never come up a driveway now in case they get blocked in so emergency access was not an issue. In addition, she gave further evidence; •That KO were well aware she suffered from depression but about October her anxiety level rose and was overwhelming her, mainly because of all the unnotified visits by KO. This left her terrified and unable to go out; •That she had only ever parked on the driveway once and that was because she arrived home from a trip late one night and wanted to unload the car then she got a flat battery and couldn’t move the car; •That she was permitted to park a trailer and that all the items she had she was going to use at some stage around the property or for her hobbies; •That she never read KO letters and probably had about 30 of them. She now had a life coach who would read them for her; •That family visitors to Unit 2 can park up the driveway with no issue but the big problem for them is that they can’t back a car so the cant back down the driveway so that is their problem. Other evidence
Statements were received from the two staff members of KO who had interacted with Ms Cairns and the tenant in Unit 2 and a family member of that tenant.
The tenant in Unit 2 stated that when a previous tenant had been in Unit 1 her support workers and family were able to easily come up the driveway to visit and that is not possible now because of all the items around the front of the Unit, the large trailer and often her car is blocking the drive. Ms Cairns also tells her family and others they aren’t allowed to park on the driveway. The tenant also often has to walk over things on the driveway or around the edge of the driveway and because she has health issues this is a problem for her. The man who mows her lawns has also complained as he is unable to park in the driveway, making hie job very difficult. She also stated she is sick of the front of the property looking a mess and with the issues with the driveway access.
A witness who has been assisting Ms Cairns also gave evidence that he had been helping with a bit of a clean-up for her. Findings
After carefully considering the evidence presented by both parties I find that KO have established that despite notices to remedy the situation and failed attempts to discuss it with her, Ms Cairns has failed to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. In addition, KO have established she has caused interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenant in the use of the premises occupied by that other tenant.
Given the nature of the interference blocking the shared drive way with her vehicle on more than one occasion, having various items encroaching on the driveway and leaving a large trailer also parked in the driveway and her failure to take any steps to remedy this it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. I am not satisfied that these breaches will not occur again. I also note that despite Ms Cairns evidence about the ambulance service not coming up driveways if needed, in any emergency be it a medical emergency or a fire in one of the two units it is imperative that the shared driveway is kept clear not only to allow free access for the tenant or visitors to unit 2 but also for emergency vehicles as needed. Antisocial behaviour
In the alternative KO seek to terminate the tenancy due to the anti-social behaviour of Ms Cairns.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour relates to 3 separate incidents for which notices dated 24 October 2024, 8 December 2024 and 19 December 2024 were served.
The antisocial behaviour relates to Ms Cairns abusing the brother-in-law and sister of the tenant in unit 1 for coming down the driveway and telling them they were not allowed to be down the driveway. Visitors to Unit 1 and her child are now fearful of visiting or in the son’s case being out on the drive or playing outside generally for fear of how Ms Cairns is going to react. A further incident related to going to Unit 1 and abusing the tenant after a visit to Ms Cairns by KO staff to talk about the stuff on the driveway (although Ms Cairns would not engage with them and shut herself inside) and accusing the tenant of narking on her to KO. The final incident related to a visit to the property by two KO staff to follow up on a breach notice. Ms Cairns ran away from them to inside her property but when they went around the back of the property to try and talk to her about how they could sort out the possessions on the driveway, she threw herself around hysterically, yelling and screaming, while holding a pair of scissors in her hand, which she had been used to cut plastic. The SHSM was fearful she would be hurt with the scissors. The KO staff left but heard Ms Cairns calling the police saying she had intruders and didn’t know who they were.
In response to these claims the evidence Ms Cairns gave relating to her depression and anxiety was repeated. She said on the day of last incident referred to above she locked herself in the toilet for 2.5 hours as she was so scared. She also believed the claims the tenant in Unit 1 had made and that of her relations was made up. She said the tenant was a lovely young woman and she and her son would often come to her looking for food.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by Ms Cairns. KO has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose, and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application. The behaviour outlined further endorses the view of the Tribunal that Ms Cairns has disregard for the rightful use of the shared driveway by others and a disregard of KO in endeavouring to resolve the issues with obstruction of the driveway.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
Ko has established that the tenancy should be terminated under both grounds applied under however they did undertake to work with Ms Cairns to find a property that was more suited to her needs either through their own resources or other social housing providers, but this could not be guaranteed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5134650 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 1, 9 Richards Place, Kensington, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5134650 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 1, 9 Richards Place, Kensington, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RTA

RTA

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RTA

RTA

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions