What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4769298?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Toni-Lee Hall at 5C St Olpherts Avenue, Hamilton East,

How much money was awarded in case 4769298?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4769298?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4769298?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10059701-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4769298?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Toni-Lee Hall at 5C St Olpherts Avenue, Hamilton East,

How much money was awarded in case 4769298?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4769298?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4769298?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10059701-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5C St Olpherts Avenue, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4769298 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4769298 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

The tenancy of Toni-Lee Hall at 5C St Olpherts Avenue, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 is terminated, and possession is granted to Quality Rental Management Limited as Agent for Di Liu, at midnight on Monday 18 March 2024.
Toni-Lee Hall must pay Quality Rental Management Limited as Agent for Di Liu $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 27 February 2022. The property is a two-bedroom flat. The agreement allows for two occupants, one adult and one child. Following an inspection on 30 October 2023, the landlord issued a 14-day notice requiring the tenant to remove four additional occupants, namely an adult male, four young children, along with a dog, chicken, and several vehicles. The tenant failed to remedy the notice. On 02 February 2024, the landlord also issued a 14-day notice requiring the tenant remove an unfenced portable pool, which due to the layout of the property, posed a risk to the health and safety of neighbouring tenants and children.
On 18 December 2023, the landlord filed a claim seeking termination of the tenancy for failure to remedy the breach notice issued on 30 October 2023.
Under section 56(1)(c) of the Act, 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.
Where a breach of the agreement or Act 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.
In determining the exercise of the discretion in section 56(1)(c), the District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management Limited [2020] NZDC 19229, stated at [61]: [61] Factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate this tenancy include: ▪ The history of the tenancy. ▪ Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. ▪ Whether the history of breaches was such that it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. ▪ Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. ▪ The conduct of the landlord. ▪ The gravity of the breach. ▪ Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The matter was listed for hearing on 12 February 2024. On that date there was no appearance by the tenant. After hearing from the landlord and considering the relevant evidence the Tribunal was satisfied that the breach, capable of remedy by compliance, had not been remedied, and further that it would be inequitable to refuse termination taking into account that the breach was deliberate. Although the tenant was up to date with their rent, having seven occupants in a two-bedroom flat resulted in significant overcrowding. This was impacting on the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of the occupants of neighbouring flats, also tenants of the landlord. There had been repeated requests made to remove the additional occupants, and the issue concerning the unlawfully erected pool remained outstanding.
The matter was then adjourned to Friday 8 March 2024 at 2pm to give the tenant the opportunity to comply with the notice issued on 30 October 2023, remove the additional occupants and animals, and avoid termination.
On 07 March 2024, the tenant sought an adjournment on the basis that they were unable to attend due to work commitments. The request was declined, and the matter proceeded. Ms Harrison and Mrs Marsters have appeared for the landlord.
Ms Harrison states that she conducted a property inspection yesterday, Thursday 07 March 2024. Ms Harrison states that both the tenant and the male were present, as were the four children, dog, and the chicken. Ms Harrison states that the tenant was aware of today’s hearing but advised that they could not attend. Neither offered an explanation as to why the tenant had not complied. Ms Harrison states that since the last hearing, the landlord had continued to receive complaints from the other neighbours concerning overcrowding, adding that the male had four vehicles parked on the property, and a van and caravan parked on the roadside nearby. Concerning the unlawful swimming pool, Ms Harrison states that the Councill has been involved and that the pool had been removed.
The adjournment order of 12 February 2024 gave the tenant ample opportunity to remedy the breach. Had the tenant complied, the Tribunal would not have terminated the tenancy. Regrettably this has not been the case.
The tenancy is terminated, and possession granted to the landlord at midnight on Monday 18 March 2024. Costs
As the landlord has been wholly successful, I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
Although the landlord has been wholly successful and are entitled, they do not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4769298 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

The tenancy of Toni-Lee Hall at 5C St Olpherts Avenue, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 is terminated, and possession is granted to Quality Rental Management Limited as Agent for Di Liu, at midnight on Monday 18 March 2024.
Toni-Lee Hall must pay Quality Rental Management Limited as Agent for Di Liu $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 27 February 2022. The property is a two-bedroom flat. The agreement allows for two occupants, one adult and one child. Following an inspection on 30 October 2023, the landlord issued a 14-day notice requiring the tenant to remove four additional occupants, namely an adult male, four young children, along with a dog, chicken, and several vehicles. The tenant failed to remedy the notice. On 02 February 2024, the landlord also issued a 14-day notice requiring the tenant remove an unfenced portable pool, which due to the layout of the property, posed a risk to the health and safety of neighbouring tenants and children.
On 18 December 2023, the landlord filed a claim seeking termination of the tenancy for failure to remedy the breach notice issued on 30 October 2023.
Under section 56(1)(c) of the Act, 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.
Where a breach of the agreement or Act 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.
In determining the exercise of the discretion in section 56(1)(c), the District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management Limited [2020] NZDC 19229, stated at [61]: [61] Factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate this tenancy include: ▪ The history of the tenancy. ▪ Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. ▪ Whether the history of breaches was such that it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. ▪ Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. ▪ The conduct of the landlord. ▪ The gravity of the breach. ▪ Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The matter was listed for hearing on 12 February 2024. On that date there was no appearance by the tenant. After hearing from the landlord and considering the relevant evidence the Tribunal was satisfied that the breach, capable of remedy by compliance, had not been remedied, and further that it would be inequitable to refuse termination taking into account that the breach was deliberate. Although the tenant was up to date with their rent, having seven occupants in a two-bedroom flat resulted in significant overcrowding. This was impacting on the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of the occupants of neighbouring flats, also tenants of the landlord. There had been repeated requests made to remove the additional occupants, and the issue concerning the unlawfully erected pool remained outstanding.
The matter was then adjourned to Friday 8 March 2024 at 2pm to give the tenant the opportunity to comply with the notice issued on 30 October 2023, remove the additional occupants and animals, and avoid termination.
On 07 March 2024, the tenant sought an adjournment on the basis that they were unable to attend due to work commitments. The request was declined, and the matter proceeded. Ms Harrison and Mrs Marsters have appeared for the landlord.
Ms Harrison states that she conducted a property inspection yesterday, Thursday 07 March 2024. Ms Harrison states that both the tenant and the male were present, as were the four children, dog, and the chicken. Ms Harrison states that the tenant was aware of today’s hearing but advised that they could not attend. Neither offered an explanation as to why the tenant had not complied. Ms Harrison states that since the last hearing, the landlord had continued to receive complaints from the other neighbours concerning overcrowding, adding that the male had four vehicles parked on the property, and a van and caravan parked on the roadside nearby. Concerning the unlawful swimming pool, Ms Harrison states that the Councill has been involved and that the pool had been removed.
The adjournment order of 12 February 2024 gave the tenant ample opportunity to remedy the breach. Had the tenant complied, the Tribunal would not have terminated the tenancy. Regrettably this has not been the case.
The tenancy is terminated, and possession granted to the landlord at midnight on Monday 18 March 2024. Costs
As the landlord has been wholly successful, I order reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
Although the landlord has been wholly successful and are entitled, they do not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4769298 — Tenancy dispute at 5C St Olpherts Avenue, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4769298 — Tenancy dispute at 5C St Olpherts Avenue, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions