What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4630169?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Whetu Peipi at 12A Sabulite Road, Kelston, Auckland 0602, 12a

How much money was awarded in case 4630169?

Sion Is Granted To Dave Tomu And Moh…: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4630169?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4630169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10030194-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4630169?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Whetu Peipi at 12A Sabulite Road, Kelston, Auckland 0602, 12a

How much money was awarded in case 4630169?

Sion Is Granted To Dave Tomu And Moh…: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4630169?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4630169?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10030194-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12A Sabulite Road, Kelston, Auckland 0602 (bottom flat) Tenancy Tribunal Case 4630169 — 14-day notice

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4630169. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
sion is granted to Dave Tomu and Mohammed Rizwan Din Khan Hussain at 5pm on Wednesday 6 March 2024. 2. Whetu Peipi is to	$20.44		sion is granted to Dave Tomu and Mohammed Rizwan Din Khan Hussain at 5pm on Wednesday 6 March 2024. 2. Whetu Peipi is to

Order

The tenancy of Whetu Peipi at 12A Sabulite Road, Kelston, Auckland 0602, 12a sabulite road kelston bottom flat is terminated, and possession is granted to Dave Tomu and Mohammed Rizwan Din Khan Hussain at 5pm on Wednesday 6 March 2024.
Whetu Peipi is to pay $20.44 to Dave Tomu and Mohammed Rizwan Din Khan Hussain immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.
The claim for unpaid water charges is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 29 February 2024 which was held by video conference. Mr Peipi did not attend. The absence of a party does not prevent the hearing from proceeding. I was satisfied that there had been adequate service of the hearing notice and proceeded with the hearing in Mr Peipi’s absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and for payment of unpaid water charges.

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 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 tenant has breached their obligations by: • Not letting the agent inspect the house as per the tenancy agreement. • Keeping dogs at the house despite the agreement that pets are prohibited. • Throwing rubbish all over the compound and the neighbours rubbish bin. • Being abusive to the agent. • Causing damage to the property, including broken locks and windows and a damaged glass panel in the door.
The landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant on 23 March 2023 and 9 October 2023 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because: • The landlord is entitled to impose a no-pets policy. The landlord has produced photographs showing there is a dog still remaining at the premises. • The photographs produced also show damage to the property and the outside in a very untidy state with rubbish all over the property. The landlord has received complaints from neighbours regarding the rubbish at the premises. • Attempts made by the lawn mowing man to cut the grass have been fraught with issues due to increased accumulation of rubbish throughout the property outside, deck railing and balustrade debris on the grass area, and dog poo. • The landlord is entitled to enter the premises for an inspection of the property and to undertake repairs. Despite several requests by the landlord to carry out an inspection of the premises and attend to repairs, the tenant has consistently failed to facilitate entry. I find there are no reasonable grounds for refusal by the tenant before the Tribunal. • The landlord’s agent gave direct evidence that when he went to the premises last year to talk to Mr Peipi regarding the above issues, he became very aggressive and abusive.
Mr Peipi did not attend the hearing to dispute the claims and the landlord has had no response to the serving of the 14-day notices. A tenant may not ignore the lawful requirements of a 14-day notice to remedy.

Is the tenant liable to pay water charges?

The landlord claims unpaid water charges of $1,191.18.
Section 39 RTA deals with the responsibility of outgoings such as power, water and gas during a tenancy. Section 39 (4) RTA provides as follows: “The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities”.
Section 39 (4) states: “Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), the tenant is responsible for the following charges, incurred during the tenancy, in respect of the premises: (c) supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.”
Section 39 makes it clear that the landlord may only require the tenant to pay for water or other outgoings which are consumed by the tenant during the tenancy.
The water meter measures water used for both the upstairs and downstairs tenancies.
The landlord should have installed a separate check meter to record the water for the downstairs flat.
Section 11 RTA provides that any agreement which purports to modify or exclude the provisions of the Act or is inconsistent with the Act, shall be of no effect except where the Tribunal permits such modification taking into account all the circumstances.
In the absence of a check meter, the landlord should include an amount for water in the rent.
I find in this instance that the landlord was unable to charge water to Mr Peipi under section 39 RTA. The landlord’s claim for unpaid water charges is therefore dismissed.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I consider it reasonable to order the other party to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4630169. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
sion is granted to Dave Tomu and Mohammed Rizwan Din Khan Hussain at 5pm on Wednesday 6 March 2024. 2. Whetu Peipi is to	$20.44		sion is granted to Dave Tomu and Mohammed Rizwan Din Khan Hussain at 5pm on Wednesday 6 March 2024. 2. Whetu Peipi is to

Order

The tenancy of Whetu Peipi at 12A Sabulite Road, Kelston, Auckland 0602, 12a sabulite road kelston bottom flat is terminated, and possession is granted to Dave Tomu and Mohammed Rizwan Din Khan Hussain at 5pm on Wednesday 6 March 2024.
Whetu Peipi is to pay $20.44 to Dave Tomu and Mohammed Rizwan Din Khan Hussain immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.
The claim for unpaid water charges is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 29 February 2024 which was held by video conference. Mr Peipi did not attend. The absence of a party does not prevent the hearing from proceeding. I was satisfied that there had been adequate service of the hearing notice and proceeded with the hearing in Mr Peipi’s absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and for payment of unpaid water charges.

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 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 tenant has breached their obligations by: • Not letting the agent inspect the house as per the tenancy agreement. • Keeping dogs at the house despite the agreement that pets are prohibited. • Throwing rubbish all over the compound and the neighbours rubbish bin. • Being abusive to the agent. • Causing damage to the property, including broken locks and windows and a damaged glass panel in the door.
The landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant on 23 March 2023 and 9 October 2023 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because: • The landlord is entitled to impose a no-pets policy. The landlord has produced photographs showing there is a dog still remaining at the premises. • The photographs produced also show damage to the property and the outside in a very untidy state with rubbish all over the property. The landlord has received complaints from neighbours regarding the rubbish at the premises. • Attempts made by the lawn mowing man to cut the grass have been fraught with issues due to increased accumulation of rubbish throughout the property outside, deck railing and balustrade debris on the grass area, and dog poo. • The landlord is entitled to enter the premises for an inspection of the property and to undertake repairs. Despite several requests by the landlord to carry out an inspection of the premises and attend to repairs, the tenant has consistently failed to facilitate entry. I find there are no reasonable grounds for refusal by the tenant before the Tribunal. • The landlord’s agent gave direct evidence that when he went to the premises last year to talk to Mr Peipi regarding the above issues, he became very aggressive and abusive.
Mr Peipi did not attend the hearing to dispute the claims and the landlord has had no response to the serving of the 14-day notices. A tenant may not ignore the lawful requirements of a 14-day notice to remedy.

Is the tenant liable to pay water charges?

The landlord claims unpaid water charges of $1,191.18.
Section 39 RTA deals with the responsibility of outgoings such as power, water and gas during a tenancy. Section 39 (4) RTA provides as follows: “The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or to the tenant’s use of the facilities”.
Section 39 (4) states: “Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), the tenant is responsible for the following charges, incurred during the tenancy, in respect of the premises: (c) supply of water if the water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.”
Section 39 makes it clear that the landlord may only require the tenant to pay for water or other outgoings which are consumed by the tenant during the tenancy.
The water meter measures water used for both the upstairs and downstairs tenancies.
The landlord should have installed a separate check meter to record the water for the downstairs flat.
Section 11 RTA provides that any agreement which purports to modify or exclude the provisions of the Act or is inconsistent with the Act, shall be of no effect except where the Tribunal permits such modification taking into account all the circumstances.
In the absence of a check meter, the landlord should include an amount for water in the rent.
I find in this instance that the landlord was unable to charge water to Mr Peipi under section 39 RTA. The landlord’s claim for unpaid water charges is therefore dismissed.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I consider it reasonable to order the other party to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4630169 — 14-day notice at 12A Sabulite Road, Kelston, Auckland 0602 (bottom flat)

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4630169 — 14-day notice at 12A Sabulite Road, Kelston, Auckland 0602 (bottom flat)

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is the tenant liable to pay water charges?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is the tenant liable to pay water charges?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions