What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452601 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5452601?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452601?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452601?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13291586-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452601 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5452601?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452601?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452601?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13291586-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4E, 2 Whitaker Place, Grafton, Auckland 1010, The Tenancy Tribunal Case 5452601 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
I have delayed issuing this order to allow the landlord to provide further evidence in support of its claim. That evidence has been received and considered. Jurisdiction
The tenant is a social housing provider. The agreement notes as a special condition: “The mission on Kahui Te Kaha has been explained to the landlord and approval is given to Kahui Tu Kaha to enter into a subletting arrangement with its clients.”
This is a residential tenancy agreement of a type that is excluded from the RTA by s.5(1)(s). 1
Under s.8 RTA, parties to an excluded tenancy agreement can still agree that the RTA should apply to their relationship. Both parties agree that is what they have done here, by signing a residential tenancy agreement which applies the provisions of the RTA.
I therefore find that their agreement is within the RTA and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The tenant has sublet the premises to one of their clients (“the occupant”). The tenant is responsible for the actions of their client. 2
The landlord has issued the tenant a 90 day termination notice. The tenant has issued their client a 90 day termination notice,.
In this application the landlord seeks immediate termination of the tenancy due to the conduct of the occupant. Grounds
The landlord seeks termination on the grounds of repeated anti-social behaviour by the occupant. Evidence has been provided of multiple notices given by the Body Corporate manager to the owners, alleging breaches of the Body Corporate rules.
That evidence suggests that the occupier may have engaged in anti-social behaviour, Before the tenancy can be terminated on those grounds or under s.56 3 the tenant must be given the required notices.
No notices were given by the landlord to the tenant under s.55A or s.56(1)(b), so the grounds for termination under those provisions are not established.
The landlord says it is entitled to an Order terminating the tenancy under s.55(1)(c) on the grounds that the occupant has threated to assault building occupiers or neighbours. That is a serious allegation of criminal conduct. There is no direct evidence of such threats. CCTV camera footage shows the occupant calling out to a passerby but there is no audio and no way of knowing what was said. 1 The TRA does not apply, “..where the tenancy agreement— (i) is genuinely entered into to enable a tenant (the sublandlord) to sublet the premises to provide accommodation for......persons with special housing needs . 2 S.41(1) RTA 3 Breach of agreement not remedied
The landlord also says it is entitled to an Order for termination under s.55(1)(b) RTA, on the grounds that the occupant is responsible for substantial damage to the building.
CCTV footage shows the occupant allowing another person onto the building. Later it shows that guest being unable to open the garage roller door to leave. It shows him trying to lift it up, unsuccessfully, then trying other means of opening the roller door before giving up.
After the hearing the landlord provided a copy of an invoice which I understand was sent by the Body Corporate to the owners seeking compensation, for $317.70 with the narration, “Door not coming down someone had kicked beam realigned it and tested door now running well”
That evidence, in combination with the CCTV footage, does not prove damage to the property that was substantial.
Moreover, the CCTV evidence does not show the occupant’s guest kicking a beam, or anything else. It shows the door unable to be raised by him, not stuck and unable to come down. In short, even if the damage could be considered substantial, the evidence does not prove the damage to have been caused by the actions of the occupant’s guest.
Finally, I note that the additional evidence provided by the landlord includes a photo of what appears to be torn wire mesh. No context or other evidence about that photo is provided.
I do not find any of the grounds on which the landlord asks for termination of the tenancy, proved.
The application is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
I have delayed issuing this order to allow the landlord to provide further evidence in support of its claim. That evidence has been received and considered. Jurisdiction
The tenant is a social housing provider. The agreement notes as a special condition: “The mission on Kahui Te Kaha has been explained to the landlord and approval is given to Kahui Tu Kaha to enter into a subletting arrangement with its clients.”
This is a residential tenancy agreement of a type that is excluded from the RTA by s.5(1)(s). 1
Under s.8 RTA, parties to an excluded tenancy agreement can still agree that the RTA should apply to their relationship. Both parties agree that is what they have done here, by signing a residential tenancy agreement which applies the provisions of the RTA.
I therefore find that their agreement is within the RTA and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The tenant has sublet the premises to one of their clients (“the occupant”). The tenant is responsible for the actions of their client. 2
The landlord has issued the tenant a 90 day termination notice. The tenant has issued their client a 90 day termination notice,.
In this application the landlord seeks immediate termination of the tenancy due to the conduct of the occupant. Grounds
The landlord seeks termination on the grounds of repeated anti-social behaviour by the occupant. Evidence has been provided of multiple notices given by the Body Corporate manager to the owners, alleging breaches of the Body Corporate rules.
That evidence suggests that the occupier may have engaged in anti-social behaviour, Before the tenancy can be terminated on those grounds or under s.56 3 the tenant must be given the required notices.
No notices were given by the landlord to the tenant under s.55A or s.56(1)(b), so the grounds for termination under those provisions are not established.
The landlord says it is entitled to an Order terminating the tenancy under s.55(1)(c) on the grounds that the occupant has threated to assault building occupiers or neighbours. That is a serious allegation of criminal conduct. There is no direct evidence of such threats. CCTV camera footage shows the occupant calling out to a passerby but there is no audio and no way of knowing what was said. 1 The TRA does not apply, “..where the tenancy agreement— (i) is genuinely entered into to enable a tenant (the sublandlord) to sublet the premises to provide accommodation for......persons with special housing needs . 2 S.41(1) RTA 3 Breach of agreement not remedied
The landlord also says it is entitled to an Order for termination under s.55(1)(b) RTA, on the grounds that the occupant is responsible for substantial damage to the building.
CCTV footage shows the occupant allowing another person onto the building. Later it shows that guest being unable to open the garage roller door to leave. It shows him trying to lift it up, unsuccessfully, then trying other means of opening the roller door before giving up.
After the hearing the landlord provided a copy of an invoice which I understand was sent by the Body Corporate to the owners seeking compensation, for $317.70 with the narration, “Door not coming down someone had kicked beam realigned it and tested door now running well”
That evidence, in combination with the CCTV footage, does not prove damage to the property that was substantial.
Moreover, the CCTV evidence does not show the occupant’s guest kicking a beam, or anything else. It shows the door unable to be raised by him, not stuck and unable to come down. In short, even if the damage could be considered substantial, the evidence does not prove the damage to have been caused by the actions of the occupant’s guest.
Finally, I note that the additional evidence provided by the landlord includes a photo of what appears to be torn wire mesh. No context or other evidence about that photo is provided.
I do not find any of the grounds on which the landlord asks for termination of the tenancy, proved.
The application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452601 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 4E, 2 Whitaker Place, Grafton, Auckland 1010, The

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452601 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 4E, 2 Whitaker Place, Grafton, Auckland 1010, The

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions