What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5184654 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5184654?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5184654?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5184654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11754633-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5184654 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5184654?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5184654?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5184654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11754633-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5184654 — 14-day notice

Reasons

Only the landlords’ representatives attended the hearing.

The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant had a dog at the premises without the landlord’s consent and that the tenant has engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy.

The landlord withdrew the claim based on the tenant having a dog without consent. It seems that the tenant removed the dog within the 14 days as required by the breach notice.

The anti-social behaviour ground (s55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)) does not apply to fixed term tenancies and because this is a fixed term tenancy, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider an application on that ground.

The application must therefore be dismissed. But dismissing the application is unlikely to make the problems underlying this application go away. I will therefore make some general comments about the case which may assist the parties.

The landlords cannot use the anti-social behaviour provisions of the Act for as long as the tenancy is for a fixed term. But they can use s56 of the Act to seek termination of the tenancy where there has been a breach of the Act or the tenancy agreement by a tenant.

This case concerns a house that has been converted into two flats, front and rear. There is a driveway down the side of the house which has a gate on it. The rear tenants and their visitors use the driveway to access their flat and park their cars. The tenant and her visitors use the front portion of the driveway to access the parking area in front of her flat. There is no garden area attached to the flat.

One of the complaints is that the rear tenants have made to the landlord is that the tenant or her visitors have been parking in the driveway preventing them from using it. Another is that the tenant has been closing the gate, often repeatedly during the day and at night. The nighttime closing is particularly problematic because the gate is difficult to see in the dark.

Section 40(2)(c) of the Act provides that a tenant must not cause or permit interference with the peace, comfort or privacy of other tenants in their use of their premises. Failing to stop a visitor from doing so constitutes permitting it.

I can see no justification for the tenant or her visitors parking in the driveway. I would regard that as a breach of the Act.

I can see very little justification for closing the gate and certainly not for closing it repeatedly or at night. The tenant has children and if they are outside and cannot be trusted to remain on the property, they should be supervised. I note that the gate is low, and a child could easily climb over it.

Unless tenant changes her ways, I can see the landlords coming back to this Tribunal seeking to terminate this tenancy. The outcome of another application may well be different from the outcome today.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlords’ representatives attended the hearing.
The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant had a dog at the premises without the landlord’s consent and that the tenant has engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy.
The landlord withdrew the claim based on the tenant having a dog without consent. It seems that the tenant removed the dog within the 14 days as required by the breach notice.
The anti-social behaviour ground (s55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)) does not apply to fixed term tenancies and because this is a fixed term tenancy, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider an application on that ground.
The application must therefore be dismissed. But dismissing the application is unlikely to make the problems underlying this application go away. I will therefore make some general comments about the case which may assist the parties.
The landlords cannot use the anti-social behaviour provisions of the Act for as long as the tenancy is for a fixed term. But they can use s56 of the Act to seek termination of the tenancy where there has been a breach of the Act or the tenancy agreement by a tenant.
This case concerns a house that has been converted into two flats, front and rear. There is a driveway down the side of the house which has a gate on it. The rear tenants and their visitors use the driveway to access their flat and park their cars. The tenant and her visitors use the front portion of the driveway to access the parking area in front of her flat. There is no garden area attached to the flat.
One of the complaints is that the rear tenants have made to the landlord is that the tenant or her visitors have been parking in the driveway preventing them from using it. Another is that the tenant has been closing the gate, often repeatedly during the day and at night. The nighttime closing is particularly problematic because the gate is difficult to see in the dark.
Section 40(2)(c) of the Act provides that a tenant must not cause or permit interference with the peace, comfort or privacy of other tenants in their use of their premises. Failing to stop a visitor from doing so constitutes permitting it.
I can see no justification for the tenant or her visitors parking in the driveway. I would regard that as a breach of the Act.
I can see very little justification for closing the gate and certainly not for closing it repeatedly or at night. The tenant has children and if they are outside and cannot be trusted to remain on the property, they should be supervised. I note that the gate is low, and a child could easily climb over it.
Unless tenant changes her ways, I can see the landlords coming back to this Tribunal seeking to terminate this tenancy. The outcome of another application may well be different from the outcome today.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5184654 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5184654 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions