What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4677211?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy at Unit 8, 730 Pioneer Highway, Takaro, Palmerston North

How much money was awarded in case 4677211?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677211?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9571872-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4677211?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy at Unit 8, 730 Pioneer Highway, Takaro, Palmerston North

How much money was awarded in case 4677211?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677211?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9571872-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 8, 730 Pioneer Highway, Takaro, Palmerston Tenancy Tribunal Case 4677211 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, represented by Ms Pere. There was no appearance for the tenant.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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 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 their obligations by interfering with the security cameras at a large residential complex.

Ms Pere said that there are a number of security cameras around the premises. Recordings are produced on request of insurers or the police investigating an incident. Following a request from another tenant’s insure who was assessing a claim for damage to a car, it was discovered that the system had kept no recordings for a 3-month period. There is a video from June showing the tenant entering a cupboard under the stairs. This is a secure cupboard which houses power and internet switchboards and the hardware for the security cameras. No footage was available after he entered this cupboard. The inference is that he interfered with the security cameras.

Ms Pere said that he is the person shown in the footage and she also produced a copy of his drivers’ licence. She said that when she spoke to the tenant about it, he did not deny that he had entered the cupboard but said that he had done so to rectify his internet connection. He said that the door was unlocked.

Ms Pere disputes that the door was unlocked. She said that it appears he had a key to the cupboard but she does not know who he got this.

I am satisfied that there was no reason for the tenant to enter this cupboard, that he had no right to be there and that immediately following his entry, the security cameras did not work. Therefore, it is more likely than not that he interfered with the device that is there for the security of all residents.

Under section 40(2) the tenant must not intentionally damage the premises, which includes “facilities”. The definition of facilities in section 2 includes lifts and stairways, and communication facilities. I find that he has breached section 40(2).

The breach is not capable of remedy because the landlord has lost 3 months of the security that was intended by the operation of the cameras.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant’s actions have interfered with the safety and security of other tenants as well as causing damage to the landlord’s property. This is a serious breach of the tenant’s responsibilities. The termination is effective immediately.

The landlord may decide when to enforce it, bearing in mind section 64 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986

Because Home in Place (New Zealand) Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy at Unit 8, 730 Pioneer Highway, Takaro, Palmerston North between Home in Place (New Zealand) Limited and Jesse Guild is terminated immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, represented by Ms Pere. There was no appearance for the tenant.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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 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 their obligations by interfering with the security cameras at a large residential complex.
Ms Pere said that there are a number of security cameras around the premises. Recordings are produced on request of insurers or the police investigating an incident. Following a request from another tenant’s insure who was assessing a claim for damage to a car, it was discovered that the system had kept no recordings for a 3-month period. There is a video from June showing the tenant entering a cupboard under the stairs. This is a secure cupboard which houses power and internet switchboards and the hardware for the security cameras. No footage was available after he entered this cupboard. The inference is that he interfered with the security cameras.
Ms Pere said that he is the person shown in the footage and she also produced a copy of his drivers’ licence. She said that when she spoke to the tenant about it, he did not deny that he had entered the cupboard but said that he had done so to rectify his internet connection. He said that the door was unlocked.
Ms Pere disputes that the door was unlocked. She said that it appears he had a key to the cupboard but she does not know who he got this.
I am satisfied that there was no reason for the tenant to enter this cupboard, that he had no right to be there and that immediately following his entry, the security cameras did not work. Therefore, it is more likely than not that he interfered with the device that is there for the security of all residents.
Under section 40(2) the tenant must not intentionally damage the premises, which includes “facilities”. The definition of facilities in section 2 includes lifts and stairways, and communication facilities. I find that he has breached section 40(2).
The breach is not capable of remedy because the landlord has lost 3 months of the security that was intended by the operation of the cameras.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant’s actions have interfered with the safety and security of other tenants as well as causing damage to the landlord’s property. This is a serious breach of the tenant’s responsibilities. The termination is effective immediately.
The landlord may decide when to enforce it, bearing in mind section 64 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986
Because Home in Place (New Zealand) Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677211 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 8, 730 Pioneer Highway, Takaro, Palmerston

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677211 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 8, 730 Pioneer Highway, Takaro, Palmerston

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions