What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4599770?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4599770?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4599770?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4599770?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9273954-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4599770?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4599770?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4599770?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4599770?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9273954-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room D, 302 Pages Road, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4599770 — 14-day notice

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply to publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Rajiv Vishal Reddy at Room D, 302 Pages Road, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Liam Edser, at
59pm on Wednesday 6 September 2023.
Rajiv Viahal Reddy must pay Liam Edser $20.44 filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Dianne Astle, the landlord’s agent, also attended.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy following a termination notice and for breach of the tenant’s obligations following a breach notice. Background
The premises consist of a three-bedroom house with two self-contained units at the back. The landlord occupies one of the bedrooms in the house. The tenant occupies the adjacent bedroom, and another tenant occupies the third bedroom on the other side of the tenant’s bedroom.
The three occupants of the house have the use of the common areas and the facilities such as the living area, the kitchen and laundry. The tenant chooses not to use the common areas.
The landlord granted the tenant a tenancy from 24 August 2022. The arrangement would normally be excluded from the operation of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) because the landlord has continued to use the premises principally as a place of residence. But the tenancy agreement has all the hallmarks of an agreement under the Act and the parties agree that the Tribunal has jurisdiction. I therefore find that the parties have contracted back into the Act. Termination Notice – Occupation by a Family Member
The landlord served a termination notice on the tenant on 26 April 2023 on the ground that he required the premises for occupation by his toddler daughter.
The landlord has care of the child, during the day, for six days a week. The rest of the time she stays with her mother. The landlord wants the tenant’s room for the child’s use when she is with him at the premises. She would be able to use the room when she needs to sleep during the day, or example.
The question for me is whether that arrangement constitutes using the premises as the child’s principal place of residence under s51(1)(a) of the Act.
I find that it doesn’t. Although the child is spending a substantial part of every week at the premises, she does not sleep there and that, in my view, is an essential element of someone’s principal place of residence. In my view, the child’s principal place of residence is her mother’s house. Termination for Breach
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) of the Act.
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 asserts that the tenant has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of his other tenants in the premises or any other persons ordinarily residing in the neighbourhood. The landlord falls within the second named group of those two groups of people.
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 it. See s56(1) of the Act.
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 gave evidence that the tenant has been loudly abusive towards him using foul language and that he has been on his computer into the early hours of the morning with sound from the computer at a high level preventing the landlord from sleeping. The tenant chooses not to use headphones. The landlord said that the abuse and foul language has been used when his daughter is in the premises, and he has had to take her out to his car to remove her from the situation.
The landlord produced and played a sound recording from the beginning of July at around 9pm that recoded the tenant loudly berating and abusing him from his bedroom. I would call it a tirade that included a good deal of foul language. The tenant was plainly upset about the landlord’s attempts to remove him from the premises, among other things.
The landlord served a breach notice on the tenant on 1 June 2023 referring to anti-social behaviour and quiet enjoyment. The notice could have been clearer in terms of what it was asking the tenant to remedy, but I find that the tenant would have been aware that it required him to act with reasonable consideration for the landlord and others’ peace and comfort in their use of the premises.
There was written evidence from the other tenant in the house referring to the tenant’s loud music and screaming in the premises.
I accept that landlord’s evidence that there have been instances of loud persistent noise from the tenant’s room at unsocial hours and abuse by the tenant against the landlord.
The tenant said that he was unhappy at the premises, and he referred to some of the landlord’s actions that he suggested had provoked him. His main complaints appeared to be that the landlord was trying to remove him from the premises and that the landlord spoke to him after he had told him not to.
It was obvious to me after hearing from the parties, and I believe it was obvious to the tenant as well, that the relationship between the parties in the premises make it untenable for the current situation to continue. There is no law that requires the parties to be friendly, but they must at least act with reasonable consideration towards each other.
I find that the tenant has breached his obligations by interfering with the landlord’s and the other tenant’s reasonable peace comfort and privacy in their use of the premises.
The landlord has served a breach notice on the tenant and the tenant has not remedied the breach.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because I cannot see the situation improving in any meaningful way. The tenant made it clear that because he pays rent for his room, he can do in it as he pleases. That is not correct because the tenant has obligations in terms of how his actions affect others living in the premises.
I have therefore made an order terminating the tenancy and giving possession of the premises to the landlord after 28 days. The landlord was willing to give the tenant a reasonable time to find other accommodation provided he acted with consideration towards him and the other tenant and I would expect the tenant to do so during his remaining time in the premises.
The landlord has succeeded and so the tenant must pay the filing fee.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply to publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Rajiv Vishal Reddy at Room D, 302 Pages Road, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Liam Edser, at
59pm on Wednesday 6 September 2023.
Rajiv Viahal Reddy must pay Liam Edser $20.44 filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Dianne Astle, the landlord’s agent, also attended.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy following a termination notice and for breach of the tenant’s obligations following a breach notice. Background
The premises consist of a three-bedroom house with two self-contained units at the back. The landlord occupies one of the bedrooms in the house. The tenant occupies the adjacent bedroom, and another tenant occupies the third bedroom on the other side of the tenant’s bedroom.
The three occupants of the house have the use of the common areas and the facilities such as the living area, the kitchen and laundry. The tenant chooses not to use the common areas.
The landlord granted the tenant a tenancy from 24 August 2022. The arrangement would normally be excluded from the operation of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) because the landlord has continued to use the premises principally as a place of residence. But the tenancy agreement has all the hallmarks of an agreement under the Act and the parties agree that the Tribunal has jurisdiction. I therefore find that the parties have contracted back into the Act. Termination Notice – Occupation by a Family Member
The landlord served a termination notice on the tenant on 26 April 2023 on the ground that he required the premises for occupation by his toddler daughter.
The landlord has care of the child, during the day, for six days a week. The rest of the time she stays with her mother. The landlord wants the tenant’s room for the child’s use when she is with him at the premises. She would be able to use the room when she needs to sleep during the day, or example.
The question for me is whether that arrangement constitutes using the premises as the child’s principal place of residence under s51(1)(a) of the Act.
I find that it doesn’t. Although the child is spending a substantial part of every week at the premises, she does not sleep there and that, in my view, is an essential element of someone’s principal place of residence. In my view, the child’s principal place of residence is her mother’s house. Termination for Breach
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) of the Act.
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 asserts that the tenant has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of his other tenants in the premises or any other persons ordinarily residing in the neighbourhood. The landlord falls within the second named group of those two groups of people.
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 it. See s56(1) of the Act.
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 gave evidence that the tenant has been loudly abusive towards him using foul language and that he has been on his computer into the early hours of the morning with sound from the computer at a high level preventing the landlord from sleeping. The tenant chooses not to use headphones. The landlord said that the abuse and foul language has been used when his daughter is in the premises, and he has had to take her out to his car to remove her from the situation.
The landlord produced and played a sound recording from the beginning of July at around 9pm that recoded the tenant loudly berating and abusing him from his bedroom. I would call it a tirade that included a good deal of foul language. The tenant was plainly upset about the landlord’s attempts to remove him from the premises, among other things.
The landlord served a breach notice on the tenant on 1 June 2023 referring to anti-social behaviour and quiet enjoyment. The notice could have been clearer in terms of what it was asking the tenant to remedy, but I find that the tenant would have been aware that it required him to act with reasonable consideration for the landlord and others’ peace and comfort in their use of the premises.
There was written evidence from the other tenant in the house referring to the tenant’s loud music and screaming in the premises.
I accept that landlord’s evidence that there have been instances of loud persistent noise from the tenant’s room at unsocial hours and abuse by the tenant against the landlord.
The tenant said that he was unhappy at the premises, and he referred to some of the landlord’s actions that he suggested had provoked him. His main complaints appeared to be that the landlord was trying to remove him from the premises and that the landlord spoke to him after he had told him not to.
It was obvious to me after hearing from the parties, and I believe it was obvious to the tenant as well, that the relationship between the parties in the premises make it untenable for the current situation to continue. There is no law that requires the parties to be friendly, but they must at least act with reasonable consideration towards each other.
I find that the tenant has breached his obligations by interfering with the landlord’s and the other tenant’s reasonable peace comfort and privacy in their use of the premises.
The landlord has served a breach notice on the tenant and the tenant has not remedied the breach.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because I cannot see the situation improving in any meaningful way. The tenant made it clear that because he pays rent for his room, he can do in it as he pleases. That is not correct because the tenant has obligations in terms of how his actions affect others living in the premises.
I have therefore made an order terminating the tenancy and giving possession of the premises to the landlord after 28 days. The landlord was willing to give the tenant a reasonable time to find other accommodation provided he acted with consideration towards him and the other tenant and I would expect the tenant to do so during his remaining time in the premises.
The landlord has succeeded and so the tenant must pay the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4599770 — 14-day notice at Room D, 302 Pages Road, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4599770 — 14-day notice at Room D, 302 Pages Road, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061

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