What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4626010?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4626010?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4626010?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4626010?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9347114-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4626010?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4626010?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4626010?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4626010?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9347114-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 van Dyke Place, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4626010 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4626010 — 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 Raewyn Martha Bennett at 15 van Dyke Place, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 is terminated, and possession is granted to Razia Nisa For Taz & Raz Services Limited T/A Pukeko Rental Managers Acting Agent For Rohan Wijeratne Razia - Nisa, at 5:00 pm on Friday 1 st September 2023.
Raewyn Martha Bennett must pay Razia Nisa For Taz & Raz Services Limited T/A Pukeko Rental Managers Acting Agent For Rohan Wijeratne Razia - Nisa $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant had applied for loss of quiet enjoyment and harassment from neighbours, breach of the tenant’s rights, the premises being an unlawful dwelling, breach of Healthy Homes Standards, discrimination based on religious beliefs, false accusation, unlawful breach of tax laws by property manager and neighbour, breach of tenancy agreement and breach of 14-day notices.
The landlord made a cross-application for termination for anti-social behaviour and breach of the tenant’s obligation not to cause interference with the reasonable peace and comfort of the neighbours. Background
The tenancy was for a fixed-term tenancy from 29 th December 2022 to 28 th January 2024.
The landlord gave the tenant her first notice regarding her anti-social behaviour on 19 th February 2023.
On 21 st February 2023, the landlord gave the tenant a 14-days’ notice to remedy her behaviour asked her to respect the neighbour’s privacy and boundaries. The details about her behaviour were fully written out in an email to her including the allegations by the neighbour.
Further notices regarding her anti-social behaviours were given on 24 th May 2023 and 28 th July 2023.
The tenant’s behaviour included cursing the neighbour with religious statements, racist remarks and threatening to end the lives. The tenant’s application treated as abandoned
In her application, the tenant had requested for interpreters due to her extreme hearing loss.
At the hearing, there were 2 sign-language interpreters present. However, the tenant clarified that she did not require sign-language interpreters but needed a room where the voices could be amplified sufficiently through the microphones and speakers. The tenant wanted someone also to sit by her to tell her if there was anything she had missed.
Unfortunately, Hearing Room 10 at the Waitakere District Court did not have those facilities.
The hearing was adjourned for 10 minutes to see whether the tenant’s requests could be accommodated. It was explained to the parties that if it was not 4626010, 46269113 possible to accommodate the tenant’s request today, the hearing would have to be adjourned to another day.
Efforts were made to see if the hearing could take place in another room within the Court building but was unsuccessful.
When the parties were brought back in, the tenant did not want to sit down and wanted to refer to the Bible instead. The tenant was given opportunities to sit down for the hearing to be adjourned to another date. However, the tenant did not sit down. The tenant continued making references to the Bible and made racist remarks both to the landlord and the Adjudicator. Security had to escort the tenant outside.
As the tenant did not want to wait for the hearing to be adjourned or abide by the Tribunal’s request, I treat the tenant’s actions as abandoning her application. The landlord’s cross-application for termination
In the absence of the tenant, I proceeded with the landlord’s cross-application.
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 (“RTA”).
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 tenant has breached her obligation under section 40(2)(c) RTA by interfering with the reasonable peace and comfort of the neighbours residing in the neighbourhood.
The landlord provided videos taken by the neighbours showing the tenant saying derogative racists statements towards the neighbours with references to Bible verses. There were 3 separate videos taken at different times.
The remarks were extremely racist towards the neighbours.
The tenant had been warned about her actions by the landlord by email, yet they continued.
I do not find that the breach is capable of remedy.
The landlord also applied for termination based on 3 anti-social behaviour notices within a 90-day period. However, as this tenancy was for a fixed-term, 4626010, 46269114 the anti-social behaviour termination provision under section 55A RTA does not apply.
As I find that the tenant’s breach was of such a nature and extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy, I grant the landlord’s application for termination.
The tenant’s tenancy is terminated and possession is granted to the landlord at 5:00 pm on Friday 1 st September 2023. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4626010 — 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 Raewyn Martha Bennett at 15 van Dyke Place, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 is terminated, and possession is granted to Razia Nisa For Taz & Raz Services Limited T/A Pukeko Rental Managers Acting Agent For Rohan Wijeratne Razia - Nisa, at 5:00 pm on Friday 1 st September 2023.
Raewyn Martha Bennett must pay Razia Nisa For Taz & Raz Services Limited T/A Pukeko Rental Managers Acting Agent For Rohan Wijeratne Razia - Nisa $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant had applied for loss of quiet enjoyment and harassment from neighbours, breach of the tenant’s rights, the premises being an unlawful dwelling, breach of Healthy Homes Standards, discrimination based on religious beliefs, false accusation, unlawful breach of tax laws by property manager and neighbour, breach of tenancy agreement and breach of 14-day notices.
The landlord made a cross-application for termination for anti-social behaviour and breach of the tenant’s obligation not to cause interference with the reasonable peace and comfort of the neighbours. Background
The tenancy was for a fixed-term tenancy from 29 th December 2022 to 28 th January 2024.
The landlord gave the tenant her first notice regarding her anti-social behaviour on 19 th February 2023.
On 21 st February 2023, the landlord gave the tenant a 14-days’ notice to remedy her behaviour asked her to respect the neighbour’s privacy and boundaries. The details about her behaviour were fully written out in an email to her including the allegations by the neighbour.
Further notices regarding her anti-social behaviours were given on 24 th May 2023 and 28 th July 2023.
The tenant’s behaviour included cursing the neighbour with religious statements, racist remarks and threatening to end the lives. The tenant’s application treated as abandoned
In her application, the tenant had requested for interpreters due to her extreme hearing loss.
At the hearing, there were 2 sign-language interpreters present. However, the tenant clarified that she did not require sign-language interpreters but needed a room where the voices could be amplified sufficiently through the microphones and speakers. The tenant wanted someone also to sit by her to tell her if there was anything she had missed.
Unfortunately, Hearing Room 10 at the Waitakere District Court did not have those facilities.
The hearing was adjourned for 10 minutes to see whether the tenant’s requests could be accommodated. It was explained to the parties that if it was not 4626010, 46269113 possible to accommodate the tenant’s request today, the hearing would have to be adjourned to another day.
Efforts were made to see if the hearing could take place in another room within the Court building but was unsuccessful.
When the parties were brought back in, the tenant did not want to sit down and wanted to refer to the Bible instead. The tenant was given opportunities to sit down for the hearing to be adjourned to another date. However, the tenant did not sit down. The tenant continued making references to the Bible and made racist remarks both to the landlord and the Adjudicator. Security had to escort the tenant outside.
As the tenant did not want to wait for the hearing to be adjourned or abide by the Tribunal’s request, I treat the tenant’s actions as abandoning her application. The landlord’s cross-application for termination
In the absence of the tenant, I proceeded with the landlord’s cross-application.
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 (“RTA”).
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 tenant has breached her obligation under section 40(2)(c) RTA by interfering with the reasonable peace and comfort of the neighbours residing in the neighbourhood.
The landlord provided videos taken by the neighbours showing the tenant saying derogative racists statements towards the neighbours with references to Bible verses. There were 3 separate videos taken at different times.
The remarks were extremely racist towards the neighbours.
The tenant had been warned about her actions by the landlord by email, yet they continued.
I do not find that the breach is capable of remedy.
The landlord also applied for termination based on 3 anti-social behaviour notices within a 90-day period. However, as this tenancy was for a fixed-term, 4626010, 46269114 the anti-social behaviour termination provision under section 55A RTA does not apply.
As I find that the tenant’s breach was of such a nature and extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy, I grant the landlord’s application for termination.
The tenant’s tenancy is terminated and possession is granted to the landlord at 5:00 pm on Friday 1 st September 2023. Filing fee reimbursement
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4626010 — Tenancy dispute at 15 van Dyke Place, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4626010 — Tenancy dispute at 15 van Dyke Place, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions