What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4726909?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Helen Campbell and David R Logan at 26 Opaheke Road,

How much money was awarded in case 4726909?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4726909?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4726909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10039778-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4726909?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Helen Campbell and David R Logan at 26 Opaheke Road,

How much money was awarded in case 4726909?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4726909?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4726909?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10039778-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26 Opaheke Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4726909 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Helen Campbell and David R Logan at 26 Opaheke Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 is terminated, and possession is granted to TBT Property Management Limited, at midnight on Thursday 6 March 2024.
Helen Campbell and David R Logan must pay TBT Property Management Limited $20.44 immediately, for the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 March 2024. The tenant, Ms Campbell, was supported by her daughter who is also named as a tenant in the tenancy agreement.
On 31 October 2023 the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The landlord said the application was based on section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) (termination for anti-social behaviour). However, the notices required under that section have not been served. Therefore, the application can only proceed under section 56 (termination for breach).
A previous application for termination was dismissed on 24 March 2022. In that case the required notices served by the landlord did not comply with the requirements of section 55A(2) of the Act in several respects. For example, the notices did not clearly describe the specific behaviour that was considered to be anti-social. The tenant explained that treatment for her pain relating to a medical condition caused her to cry out.
Faced with a lack of detail about the anti-social behaviour, and the tenant’s explanation of how her health condition may have caused some noise disturbance, the Tribunal dismissed the application.
The tenant relied on this order (she referred to directions from “the Judge”) as the reason why the landlord had not been permitted access to the premises to perform maintenance and inspections. I return to this again below.
The landlord submitted that (a) the tenant had caused interference with the quiet enjoyment of other persons residing in the neighbourhood, in breach of section 40(2)(c) of the Act; and (b) had refused access for inspections and made threats of assault against the landlord’s agents. The landlord said they had also been threatened with assault by the tenant’s partner when they tried to conduct an inspection.
Supporting the application were voluminous emails and correspondence from neighbours who did not wish to be identified and did not attend to give evidence. The Tribunal also heard by telephone from two tradespeople engaged by the landlord to perform roofing and glass repairs at the premises.
The evidence presented by the landlord at the hearing had an obvious gap: there was no evidence from the Police. The landlord said only the person complaining to the Police can request disclosure of information relating to the property. I would have expected the owner to have a right to request information about anti-social activity at their property. Anti-social behaviour
The evidence from the neighbours can be summarised as follows: • They had experienced frequent loud disturbances and domestic altercations at the property since late 2021 with regular Police attendance. This was happening on at least a weekly basis. For example, on 8 January 2023, a neighbour wrote: “Police finally here again after the entire neighbourhood has had to listen to your tenants swearing, fighting, screaming and shouting all day once again”. • There had been at least one fight between the tenants and another group of people at the property which extended to the street. • There were accusations of drug use and drug transactions at the property. • The loud swearing and shouting leading to repeated Police presence had disrupted the peace on weekdays, weekends, and late at night, keeping people awake. It also resulted in several neighbours moving away. • The tenant let their dogs roam over other properties and neighbours would be verbally abused if they said anything. • In January this year the tenant had verbally abused a neighbour who was hosting family outside in their garden. According to the neighbour, the tenant swore at them and raised her fist.
In essence, there had been bad language, shouting, and fighting at the property for a sustained period of time. This caused neighbours to feel unsafe.
The landlord served notices to remedy the excessive noise and disturbance on 10 January 2023 and 9 February 2023. The first notice said nearby residents were complaining about noise “every alternate day”.
The tenant’s response can be summarised as follows: • They had good relations with their neighbours and the complaints were only coming from a couple of people. • They denied having any dogs. They accused a neighbour’s children of bringing back stray dogs from school. • There was one occasion when a family member was antagonised by a neighbour who made a “cut-throat” motion with his hand. The Police warned the neighbour about his behaviour. • They only told one neighbour to stop looking over her fence at them. The neighbour would go onto their deck to look at the tenant and the other residents. • The tenant has treatment for a medical issue which requires her partner to provide a massage and when he does so she shouts at him. This was said to explain one of the audio files that the Tribunal played at the hearing. It was accepted that the second audio file was the tenant’s daughter shouting at the tenant.
The tenant did accept that there had been domestic incidents between the tenant and her partner, and the other residents would call the Police. They acknowledged that they have teenage boys living with them and naturally they do make noise. Access for maintenance
The evidence from the tradespeople can be summarised as follows: • The owner of the glass company said the tenant was angry with him when he tried to make an appointment to fix some door glass last year (based on the text messages, it was around 19 October 2023). He did not know why. The tenant did not allow them to go to the property. • The roofer said he went to the property before Christmas last year (I note it was probably on or about 28 October 2023) to fix the roof and had to leave some materials there. When he returned a man at the property was very aggressive and told him to leave and take his materials. These were too big for the Ute and so were left behind. The roofer said the man threatened to stab him and his daughter came out of the house to calm him down.
The tenant said they told the roofer to wait until they had filed an application with the Tribunal, as advised by the Judge. The tenant said her partner threatened to stab the roofer after he pushed her out of the way.
There are emails from the tenant denying access: • On 3 October 2023 the tenant emailed that there were major leaks inside various rooms and gave the landlord 14 days to remedy. The tenants said there would be no sale sign or viewings until the maintenance had been remedied (they had been advised that the property was being put on the market for sale). • On 4 October 2023, in response to advice that a maintenance inspection needed to be performed, the tenant emailed that they would not be allowing viewings until maintenance issues were remedied. • On 5 October 2023, in response to notification that a tradesperson would attend tomorrow, the tenant said she had spoken to the Tribunal, and they had instructed her to put in an application for a ruling. She was putting in an application to the Tribunal for a ruling and until then there would be no viewings, and no one could come over. • On 6 October 2023 the tenant reiterated that no one would be entering the property until they went to the Tribunal.
The landlord served breach notices about the tenant denying access to tradespeople on 9 October 2023, 31 October 2023, and 10 December 2023.
The tenant referred several times to advice from a Judge that they should not let the landlord, or their agents, enter the property until they had been to the Tribunal.
The tenant could not deny attendance by the landlord’s agents to perform necessary maintenance or repairs because of an intended application to the Tribunal about maintenance issues. The “Judge” referred to may be me because I issued the Tribunal’s decision of 24 March 2022. It is not my practice to instruct anyone to file an application. I more likely said that the tenant could file her own application if she had reason to believe the landlord had not complied with its maintenance obligations.
At the hearing on 4 March 2024, the tenant spent a lot of time addressing alleged maintenance issues with the house and how these had negatively affected their health. As I indicated at the hearing, these issues were not relevant to this application. I make no findings about maintenance.

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 56(1) of the Act).
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 had an obligation not to cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood (section 40(2)(c) of the Act).
I find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant breached section 40(2)(c) of the Act and has done so on multiple occasions over a number of years. The tenant’s need for regular medical treatment does not explain the angry shouting and swearing between the tenant and other members of her family that can be heard on the audio files. These were said to be typical of the disturbances affecting the neighbours.
Further, the tenant acknowledged that the neighbours had been disturbed by their domestic issues. While the tenant believes she has good relations with her neighbours, the complaints have been made by at least 6 different people. Even allowing for some self-interest in the reporting, the overall picture is of continuous disruption leading to genuine distress.
The tenant also had an obligation to allow the landlord to enter the premises to perform necessary repairs and maintenance. I am satisfied that the tenant failed to do so on several occasions towards the end of 2023 and the landlord served notices to remedy the breach.
I also note that the threats made to the roofer constitute a breach of section 55(1)(c) of the Act (threaten to assault) and this provides an independent ground to terminate the tenancy.
I find that these breaches establish that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. On the balance of probabilities there has been significant interference with the quiet enjoyment of numerous people residing in the neighbourhood for a lengthy period. Filing fee
The landlord’s application for termination has succeeded. I must award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4726909 — 14-day notice at 26 Opaheke Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4726909 — 14-day notice at 26 Opaheke Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions