How much money was awarded in case 5170112?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5170112?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5170112?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11754948-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5170112?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5170112?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5170112?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11754948-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

343 Riccarton Road, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5170112 — 14-day notice

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5170112 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 343 Riccarton Road, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes and Communities, at 11.59pm on Sunday 25 May 2025.

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 23 April 2025. Ms Rea and Mr McGrath represented the landlord.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

The tenant has applied for compensation and/or exemplary damages for what he alleges is a breach of his quiet enjoyment by his neighbour, and by Kāinga- Ora staff. Background

This tenancy started in February 2020. Soon after the tenancy started, and ever since, the landlord has raised issues about the tenant accumulating a large amount of rubbish and goods such as whiteware both inside and outside the premises.

During 2023, the Tribunal heard an application by the landlord for work orders and/or termination of the tenancy due to the tenant breaching his responsibility to keep the premises reasonably tidy.

The Tribunal took a cautious approach. It adjourned the application 6 times, each time allowing the tenant the opportunity to remove rubbish from the premises. The Tribunal issued at least five orders.

In its last order dated 23 December 2023, the Tribunal said:

Despite the tenant’s assertion that he has been poorly treated, objectively viewed he has not been.

If this were a tenancy with a private landlord, it is likely there would have been an application to terminate the tenancy long ago.

That it is a social housing tenancy does not mean that the parties’ rights and responsibilities are any different. But it does mean that the landlord has taken a more conciliatory approach than might otherwise have been the case.

So too has the Tribunal. It has tried to make orders on the landlord’s application to gently get the tenant to remove rubbish from the premises. The gentle approach has largely succeeded. Consequently, the landlord has withdrawn the remainder of its application.

The tenant described himself as being neuro diverse. He said he experiences depression and anxiety, conditions, he said, the landlord’s behaviour requiring him to get rid of his goods, and not responding to his calls and complaints exacerbated.

As I have noted the evidence to support these allegations is lacking.

That the landlord’s staff members might have visited the premises without notice is not necessarily a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Inspections must be notified, but a landlord can visit the premises to deliver notices or to attend to matters such as those described by the landlord’s representative, one of which was to address concerns expressed by the police and the Fire Service about the accumulation of rubbish.

The tenant considers that he should be able to choose how he lives. To an extent that is correct. But as a person who rents, his rights and responsibilities are different from a person who owns a property.

Over the several hearings the Tribunal conducted to deal with the issue of rubbish removal, it became clear that the tenant does not accept that the exterior rubbish was a problem, nor that the landlord was reasonable in requiring it to be removed.

The Tribunal takes an objective view. From that lens, it was obvious that there was significant rubbish at the outside of the premises, in addition to some chattels that would not objectively be viewed as rubbish.

The landlord’s representative confirmed that complaints were made by neighbours of vermin, odour and flies being a nuisance a result of the large amount of rubbish. The landlord had to act on those complaints. The tenant was in breach of his statutory responsibilities.

The landlord’s representatives said that since the Tribunal’s last order, the tenant has continued to accumulate rubbish both inside and outside the premises. There have been further complaints by neighbours to ECan/the City Council about vermin and the unsightliness of the property.

The landlord issued (another) 14-day notice for rubbish removal on 8 January 2025. The breach has not been remedied.

The landlord produced in evidence photos taken on 30 January 2025, the date of the expiry of the 14-day notice. The accumulation of rubbish both inside and outside the premises is extra-ordinary. Photos taken yesterday show the front yard clear but the rear section is still full of rubbish.

The landlord’s representatives described all the steps taken to assist the tenant – it had spent $12,388.34 on skip bins since June 2020 and $11,050.00 for a contractor to assist with rubbish removal. Despite that and other assistance provide by external agencies, the tenant has continued to accumulate rubbish.

The landlord’s representatives said they had exhausted all avenues and now felt that termination of the tenancy was the only option. Without an order, they submitted that the tenant would revert to form – react when he thought his tenancy was at threat, remove some rubbish, but then continue to accumulate more.

The tenant said he had tried his best. He produced a medical certificate stating that he had eye surgery on 7 June 2024 and would have light sensitivity and eye pain for 3-6 months. The tenant said as a result he had been unable to remove rubbish. As well, he had been intimidated by a neighbour and that restricted him too, though that had now stopped.

The tenant said that all he wanted was a further 6 months to remove the accumulated rubbish for which he took responsibility. If his tenancy were terminated, he said he would just have to walk away from everything. Relevant law

Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; and to not cause or permit any 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.

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) RTA.

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.

This is a case where the tenant hoards rubbish in huge quantities. His behaviour not only affects the landlord but also his neighbours who have been forced to complain to the local authority. Previously Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) has been involved concerned about the fire risk. Ms Rea submitted that there is a real health and safety concern that the tenant appears not to recognise or accept. I agree.

The landlord has provided significant financial assistance to the tenant since soon after the tenancy started. Despite that, he feels victimised by the landlord. As I have noted in earlier decisions, I do not accept that. The tenant seems to believe he can issue 14-day notices and/or trespass notices on the landlord’s representatives to keep them away. That action achieves nothing.

The Tribunal too has tried to persuade the tenant to comply with his statutory responsibilities. During several hearings throughout 2023 it tried to impress on the tenant the importance of complying with his statutory responsibilities, sometimes getting push-back. The Tribunal’s concern was to keep the tenancy going and to encourage co-operation. Sadly, that approach achieved nothing.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant’s breaches are on-going. Though he assured the Tribunal he could remedy the situation if given 6 months to do so, given the history, the Tribunal does not accept that.

First, he has previously been given the opportunity to remove rubbish, yet he has accumulated more. Second, his actions are having a direct effect on the comfort of other tenants of the landlord, and neighbours, due to the vermin the rubbish attracts. And third, despite the considerable financial resources provided by the landlord (and by other agencies) the problem is just on-going.

The time has come when the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. To not do so would be inequitable to the landlord.

I have delayed the possession order for one month to allow the tenant time to make arrangements. It also allows him time to appeal this decision, something he assured the Tribunal he would do. The tenant’s application

At the hearing the tenant said he did not seek any orders on his application ‘at this time’ as he intended making a series of complaints.

He did not withdraw the application, so the Tribunal will address the issues he raised.

First, he alleged a breach of his quiet enjoyment from his neighbour, something that he said had now stopped.

The landlord’s evidence shows that it took all reasonable actions once notified of any disturbances of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by his neighbour, also a Kāinga Ora tenant.

The fact that incidents occur is not a breach; it is the landlord’s response that matters. I find that the landlord’s responses were appropriate and timely. It did what it could once notified, and the situation has resolved.

Second, the tenant alleged bullying by his tenancy manager. The landlord’s representatives said the tenant made the same allegation against whomever his tenancy manager was. He did not like ‘being told what to do’. Again, I do not find any evidence of objective bullying that would amount to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by staff employed by his landlord.

Third, the tenant alleges that the premises are not compliant with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS). He produced no evidence to prove that. The landlord produced a HHS compliance assessment which shows that the premises are HHS compliant. In the absence of a contrary assessment, I find that the premises are HHS compliant.

I therefore dismiss the tenant’s application. Result

The landlord’s application is successful. The tenancy is terminated with possession to pass to the landlord at 11.59pm on Sunday 25 May 2025.

The tenant’s application is dismissed. Name suppression

The landlord did not seek a name suppression order.

The tenant sought name suppression. Although he is not entitled to name suppression as his defence to the landlord’s application is unsuccessful, and his application is unsuccessful, I must grant him name suppression to ensure that previous suppression orders made by the Tribunal relating to the same tenancy are not breached.

Order