What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4752370?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Elizabeth Rose Raupokira Karaka at 40 Nottingham St.

How much money was awarded in case 4752370?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4752370?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4752370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9963621-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4752370?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Elizabeth Rose Raupokira Karaka at 40 Nottingham St.

How much money was awarded in case 4752370?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4752370?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4752370?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9963621-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

40 Nottingham Street, Westmere, Auckland 1022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4752370 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenancy of Elizabeth Rose Raupokira Karaka at 40 Nottingham St. Westmere, Auckland 1022 is terminated and possession returned to John Norman Coster and Gabrielle Johnston at 11:59 pm on Sunday 19 May 2024.
By consent the tenant may end the tenancy on giving 24 hours notice in writing.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlords were represented by Mr Coster.
The landlord applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has breached her obligation under s.40(2)(c), not to “.....cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.”
On 14 December 2023, having heard the evidence presented then, I was satisfied that the tenant had breached her obligations under s.40(2)(c). I was also satisfied that in terms of s.56(1)(c) it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
For reasons set out in that Order I adjourned the hearing to provide the tenant a final opportunity to demonstrate that she can occupy the premises in a way that does not unreasonably interfere with her neighbours’ peace, comfort and privacy.
That Order specifically provided that: “Between now and the next hearing the tenant must not cause or allow any interference with the reasonable peace comfort or privacy of neighbouring residents. In particular that means there must not be swearing, yelling or use of offensive language that the neighbours can hear, playing high volume music, making noise at unreasonable hours, or illegal driving or parking (noting that if the tenant’s disabled father occasionally parks over the footpath for short periods while remaining in the vehicle that is unlikely to be seen as a breach)”
The Order noted that: “I will not refuse the landlord’s application but instead adjourn the hearing on the basis that if there is evidence of further serious breaches before the next hearing, the tenant can expect that I will feel obliged to make an Order terminating the tenancy.”
Mr Coster’s evidence is that he has witnessed on three different occasions, three different cars parked in a way that blocks the footpath outside the premises. He has also, late at night, heard from the street, noise coming from the premises. The landlord has also provided a summary of complaints he has received from the neighbours on some 13 different occasions since the date of the last order.
Although that evidence is hearsay and to be given less weight accordingly, it is consistent with evidence presented at the last hearing. I accept Mr Coster’s evidence that the complaints are not from a single source but supported by multiple neighbours.
In summary Mr Coster says that, “Compared with the previous period reported (2 October 26 November 2023) noise and activity at the property seems to have decreased but are still ongoing at a relatively high level compared with other properties in the street. Neighbours consistently report cars coming and going from the property day and night”. Mr Coster’s evidence also includes reports of ongoing instances of loud and abusive language from the premises.
The tenant says that she believes the neighbours have decided they don't want her and her family living amongst them and are unfairly judgmental and hypersensitive to anything that happens at her home. I suspect there is probably some truth to that and I take no account of the neighbours’ suspicions about drug dealing happening at the property. There is no credible evidence of that.
The tenant also notes that there have been no calls to noise control and that instead the neighbours pressure the landlords. Again, there may be some truth to that.
Nevertheless. the tenant does not deny that, while she gives reasons for those incidents occurring, factually the reported incidents happened, which interfered with the neighbours’ right to the reasonable peace comfort and privacy of their homes and breached the terms of the previous Order.
That being so, I find again that it would be inequitable to refuse an Order terminating the tenancy.
The landlords are conscious of the implications of that Order for the tenant and her family and agree that the termination Order should not be effective for 90 days. They also agree that if the tenant wishes to end the tenancy earlier, she may do so on 24 hours notice, to avoid any risk of having to pay rent for two properties during a notice period.
Those are significantly more generous terms than I would have felt able to make without the landlords’ agreement.
Order 1 is without prejudice to the landlords’ right to apply for earlier termination in the event of further/ other breaches.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4752370 — Tenancy dispute at 40 Nottingham Street, Westmere, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4752370 — Tenancy dispute at 40 Nottingham Street, Westmere, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions