What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5416148 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 5416148?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416148?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13067716-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5416148 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 5416148?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416148?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13067716-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5416148 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
If, within the next 90 days, the Mauha Huatahi Fawcett parks or allows others to park a car in an area that is not permitted or in any way impedes the neighbours’ peace, comfort or enjoyment of their property, including access to their premises, the tenancy at 34B Arawhata Street, Ranui, Porirua 5024 will terminate on 48 hours’ notice and possession is granted to the landlord,

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, which was conducted by video. The tenant did not join the hearing. An attempt to reach the tenant by phone was unsuccessful.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. They seek a conditional termination.

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 tenancy is for a flat which is one in a duplex.
The tenant has breached their obligations by repeatedly parking too many cars in the driveway, blocking the neighbour’s access. The landlord has received multiple complaints from the owner of the other flat. Between 31 March and 15 December, the tenant has been issued with 5 notices regarding this.
Under section 40(2), the tenant must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
The landlord has given the tenant 14-day notices. The problem with these is that they simply tell the tenant to remedy the breach within 14 days. In fact, this can be confusing, and suggest that they tenant should not commit the breach for a 14-day period.
Strictly speaking, the breaches are not capable of remedy because they cannot be undone. That said, if the tenant stopped interfering with the neighbours’ peace and comfort, there would be no further complaints. The landlord has made the tenant aware that his conduct is a breach of this obligations.
I indicated at the hearing that in order to decide whether the breach is of such seriousness that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, it would have been preferable to have had evidence showing the parking and to have had evidence from the neighbour about the impact of the parking. However, I have taken into account the following: a. the property manager said she has received many complaints from the neighbour, and she has issued at least 8 notices regarding breaches of their enjoyment, including the 5 concerning the parking. b. the tenant has not provided any response, attended the hearing, or answered the phone when called
Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
However, given the fact that the notices might have been confusing for the tenant, and that the landlord is seeking a conditional termination, I have decided to the give the tenant one last chance to comply with his obligations. If there is a further breach within 90 days of this order, the tenancy will terminated and possession granted to the landlord. The landlord must give the tenant 48 hours’ notice to vacate.
If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
If, within the next 90 days, the Mauha Huatahi Fawcett parks or allows others to park a car in an area that is not permitted or in any way impedes the neighbours’ peace, comfort or enjoyment of their property, including access to their premises, the tenancy at 34B Arawhata Street, Ranui, Porirua 5024 will terminate on 48 hours’ notice and possession is granted to the landlord,

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, which was conducted by video. The tenant did not join the hearing. An attempt to reach the tenant by phone was unsuccessful.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. They seek a conditional termination.

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 tenancy is for a flat which is one in a duplex.
The tenant has breached their obligations by repeatedly parking too many cars in the driveway, blocking the neighbour’s access. The landlord has received multiple complaints from the owner of the other flat. Between 31 March and 15 December, the tenant has been issued with 5 notices regarding this.
Under section 40(2), the tenant must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
The landlord has given the tenant 14-day notices. The problem with these is that they simply tell the tenant to remedy the breach within 14 days. In fact, this can be confusing, and suggest that they tenant should not commit the breach for a 14-day period.
Strictly speaking, the breaches are not capable of remedy because they cannot be undone. That said, if the tenant stopped interfering with the neighbours’ peace and comfort, there would be no further complaints. The landlord has made the tenant aware that his conduct is a breach of this obligations.
I indicated at the hearing that in order to decide whether the breach is of such seriousness that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, it would have been preferable to have had evidence showing the parking and to have had evidence from the neighbour about the impact of the parking. However, I have taken into account the following: a. the property manager said she has received many complaints from the neighbour, and she has issued at least 8 notices regarding breaches of their enjoyment, including the 5 concerning the parking. b. the tenant has not provided any response, attended the hearing, or answered the phone when called
Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
However, given the fact that the notices might have been confusing for the tenant, and that the landlord is seeking a conditional termination, I have decided to the give the tenant one last chance to comply with his obligations. If there is a further breach within 90 days of this order, the tenancy will terminated and possession granted to the landlord. The landlord must give the tenant 48 hours’ notice to vacate.
If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5416148 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5416148 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions