What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4619010?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4619010?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4619010?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4619010?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9262672-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4619010?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4619010?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4619010?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4619010?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9262672-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 41 White Swan Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4619010 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4619010 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Paige Marcel Neilson Muir at Flat 3, 41 White Swan Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland, Auckland 1041 is terminated and possession is granted to the Landlord at 5.00pm on 14 August 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tenant attended by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Landlords case

The Landlord sought termination based on a breach of the Tenancy Agreement because the Tenant allowed a dog onto the property contrary to the Tenancy Agreement. The Landlord submitted he saw a dog twice at the property when he drove past the house. On the second occasion, the Landlord took a photograph which was submitted in evidence. It showed a dog sitting on the balcony. The landlord gave the Tenant a 14-day notice on 24 March 2023 to remove the dog but then subsequently saw the dog on 27 June 2023 when he drove past the property.
The Landlord also claimed termination as a result of the Tenant’s partner assaulting him. The Landlord submitted he attended the property around 9am on 4 July 2023 for an inspection with the Healthy Homes Assessment inspector and the Tenant’s partner pushed him onto the ground. According to the Landlord, this occurred because the Tenant’s partner was not happy with the inspection proceeding, despite the Landlord giving notice to the Tenant on 30 June 2023. The Landlord then attended with his medical practitioner where he reported the Tenant’s partner pushed him and then reported the incident again to the police. A medical certificate and police report was provided. The Tenant’s case
The Tenant submitted the dog belonged to her but stayed at her mother’s house because the Tenancy Agreement did not permit pets. Her mother was visiting with the dog during the times the Landlord saw it.
The Tenant submitted they did not receive any notice of the inspection on 4 July 2023 so were startled when they woke up to find the Landlord was in their property. The Tenants partner was undressed and asked the Landlord repeatedly to wait outside for a few minutes whilst they changed. The Landlord refused to wait outside and whilst he was arguing with the Tenant’s partner, the Landlord tripped backwards onto the carpet. The Tenant’s partner offered to help him up. The Tenant’s partner was not present at the hearing to give evidence of what happened. The Law
The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where: (A) Section 55 (1)(c ) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) The tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons: (i) the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family: (ii) the owner of the premises or any member of the owner’s family: (iii)any agent of the landlord: (iv)any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part: (v)any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part. See section 55(1)( c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. (B) Section 56(1)RTA (1) On an application made to it under this section by the landlord or the tenant, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— a. the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement (including provisions relating to the payment of rent) or of this Act; and b. In the case of a breach capable of remedy,— (i)the applicant gave to the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given; and (ii)the other party failed to remedy the default within the required period; and c. that the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the Tenant’s partner assaulted the Landlord in reaction to the Landlord’s presence in their property. The Tenant’s partner had just woken up and was undressed so it is plausible that they would have been highly distressed with the Landlord’s presence. The Landlord then reported the assault to the police and their medical practitioner which was filed with the Tribunal. The Tenant did not have their partner available at the hearing to support the Tenant’s account. For this reason, I consider the Tenant’s partner did push the Landlord and termination is therefore granted pursuant to section 55(1)( c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
As this ground for termination has been established, it is not necessary to consider termination due to the Tenant permitting a pet on the property.
As the Landlord has been successful, the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee. No suppression order has been made as tis has not been requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4619010 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Paige Marcel Neilson Muir at Flat 3, 41 White Swan Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland, Auckland 1041 is terminated and possession is granted to the Landlord at 5.00pm on 14 August 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tenant attended by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Landlords case

The Landlord sought termination based on a breach of the Tenancy Agreement because the Tenant allowed a dog onto the property contrary to the Tenancy Agreement. The Landlord submitted he saw a dog twice at the property when he drove past the house. On the second occasion, the Landlord took a photograph which was submitted in evidence. It showed a dog sitting on the balcony. The landlord gave the Tenant a 14-day notice on 24 March 2023 to remove the dog but then subsequently saw the dog on 27 June 2023 when he drove past the property.
The Landlord also claimed termination as a result of the Tenant’s partner assaulting him. The Landlord submitted he attended the property around 9am on 4 July 2023 for an inspection with the Healthy Homes Assessment inspector and the Tenant’s partner pushed him onto the ground. According to the Landlord, this occurred because the Tenant’s partner was not happy with the inspection proceeding, despite the Landlord giving notice to the Tenant on 30 June 2023. The Landlord then attended with his medical practitioner where he reported the Tenant’s partner pushed him and then reported the incident again to the police. A medical certificate and police report was provided. The Tenant’s case
The Tenant submitted the dog belonged to her but stayed at her mother’s house because the Tenancy Agreement did not permit pets. Her mother was visiting with the dog during the times the Landlord saw it.
The Tenant submitted they did not receive any notice of the inspection on 4 July 2023 so were startled when they woke up to find the Landlord was in their property. The Tenants partner was undressed and asked the Landlord repeatedly to wait outside for a few minutes whilst they changed. The Landlord refused to wait outside and whilst he was arguing with the Tenant’s partner, the Landlord tripped backwards onto the carpet. The Tenant’s partner offered to help him up. The Tenant’s partner was not present at the hearing to give evidence of what happened. The Law
The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where: (A) Section 55 (1)(c ) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) The tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons: (i) the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family: (ii) the owner of the premises or any member of the owner’s family: (iii)any agent of the landlord: (iv)any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part: (v)any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part. See section 55(1)( c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. (B) Section 56(1)RTA (1) On an application made to it under this section by the landlord or the tenant, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— a. the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement (including provisions relating to the payment of rent) or of this Act; and b. In the case of a breach capable of remedy,— (i)the applicant gave to the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given; and (ii)the other party failed to remedy the default within the required period; and c. that the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
In considering the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the Tenant’s partner assaulted the Landlord in reaction to the Landlord’s presence in their property. The Tenant’s partner had just woken up and was undressed so it is plausible that they would have been highly distressed with the Landlord’s presence. The Landlord then reported the assault to the police and their medical practitioner which was filed with the Tribunal. The Tenant did not have their partner available at the hearing to support the Tenant’s account. For this reason, I consider the Tenant’s partner did push the Landlord and termination is therefore granted pursuant to section 55(1)( c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
As this ground for termination has been established, it is not necessary to consider termination due to the Tenant permitting a pet on the property.
As the Landlord has been successful, the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee. No suppression order has been made as tis has not been requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4619010 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3, 41 White Swan Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4619010 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3, 41 White Swan Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions