What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4716877?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4716877?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4716877?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4716877?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9653114-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4716877?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4716877?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4716877?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4716877?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9653114-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Marua Road, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4716877 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenants.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers - As Agent For Earp Investments Limited claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.

The premises consist of a one-bedroom unit.

Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenancy agreement specifies that the maximum number of two people may live in the premises during the tenancy.

The landlord is seeking termination based on the tenants exceeding the maximum number of people residing at the property. The landlord says that the breach, capable of remedy, has not been addressed.

During the hearing the landlord stated that they were alerted to issue by the neighbours. The landlord says that the neighbours advised them by telephone that there was overcrowding at the address. The landlord says that the neighbours provided photographs in support of the claim. This evidence was not provided to the Tribunal in support of the application.

The landlord says that the tenants acknowledged there were other people staying at the address.

In response to the neighbour’s allegation the landlord issued the tenants with a notice to remedy dated 14 September 2023.

The landlord then undertook an inspection on 20 September 2023 and a further re-inspection on 6 October 2023.

During the hearing the landlord provided two inspection reports with supporting photographs. In support of the overcrowding claim the landlord relies on a limited number of photographs taken of the bedroom showing an extra bed and a child’s cot.

During the hearing the landlord forwarded an email to the Tribunal dated 19 September 2023 from the tenant with the following explanation in response to the overcrowding claim: “And as for overcrowding, I just have my brother here for the summer holidays with his baby as visitors. The cat came with them but its going to be going to a good home very soon. They do not reside here permanently.”

I am not persuaded that the tenants have failed to remedy the breach as alleged by the landlord. The landlord has not provided convincing evidence confirming that the tenants have failed to respond to the notice to remedy. The landlord’s evidence does not support the claim that other people are still residing permanently at the address. The only evidence provided by the landlord in support of the claim was the notice to remedy dated 14 September 2023; the two inspection reports and an email from the tenant dated 19 September 2023.

The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenants have failed to remedy the breach as alleged by the landlord.

Accordingly, the landlord’s application must be dismissed.

Because the landlord has been unsuccessful I do not reimburse the filing fee.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenants.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
Mog Limited T/A Angel Property Managers - As Agent For Earp Investments Limited claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
The premises consist of a one-bedroom unit.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement specifies that the maximum number of two people may live in the premises during the tenancy.
The landlord is seeking termination based on the tenants exceeding the maximum number of people residing at the property. The landlord says that the breach, capable of remedy, has not been addressed.
During the hearing the landlord stated that they were alerted to issue by the neighbours. The landlord says that the neighbours advised them by telephone that there was overcrowding at the address. The landlord says that the neighbours provided photographs in support of the claim. This evidence was not provided to the Tribunal in support of the application.
The landlord says that the tenants acknowledged there were other people staying at the address.
In response to the neighbour’s allegation the landlord issued the tenants with a notice to remedy dated 14 September 2023.
The landlord then undertook an inspection on 20 September 2023 and a further re-inspection on 6 October 2023.
During the hearing the landlord provided two inspection reports with supporting photographs. In support of the overcrowding claim the landlord relies on a limited number of photographs taken of the bedroom showing an extra bed and a child’s cot.
During the hearing the landlord forwarded an email to the Tribunal dated 19 September 2023 from the tenant with the following explanation in response to the overcrowding claim: “And as for overcrowding, I just have my brother here for the summer holidays with his baby as visitors. The cat came with them but its going to be going to a good home very soon. They do not reside here permanently.”
I am not persuaded that the tenants have failed to remedy the breach as alleged by the landlord. The landlord has not provided convincing evidence confirming that the tenants have failed to respond to the notice to remedy. The landlord’s evidence does not support the claim that other people are still residing permanently at the address. The only evidence provided by the landlord in support of the claim was the notice to remedy dated 14 September 2023; the two inspection reports and an email from the tenant dated 19 September 2023.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenants have failed to remedy the breach as alleged by the landlord.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application must be dismissed.
Because the landlord has been unsuccessful I do not reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4716877 — Exemplary damages at 14 Marua Road, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4716877 — Exemplary damages at 14 Marua Road, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051

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