What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4791697?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited at Unit 1, 16 Park Avenue, Kensington,

How much money was awarded in case 4791697?

De Leith Realty Limited T/A Raywhite…: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4791697?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4791697?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10027342-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4791697?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited at Unit 1, 16 Park Avenue, Kensington,

How much money was awarded in case 4791697?

De Leith Realty Limited T/A Raywhite…: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4791697?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4791697?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10027342-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 1, 16 Park Avenue, Kensington, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4791697 — Harassment

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4791697. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
de Leith Realty Limited T/A Raywhite, at 12.00 noon on 12 April 2024. 2. Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited is to pay Goode Leith Rea	$20.44		de Leith Realty Limited T/A Raywhite, at 12.00 noon on 12 April 2024. 2. Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited is to pay Goode Leith Rea

Order

The tenancy of Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited at Unit 1, 16 Park Avenue, Kensington, Whangarei 0112 is terminated, and possession is granted to Goode Leith Realty Limited T/A Raywhite, at 12.00 noon on 12 April 2024.
Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited is to pay Goode Leith Realty Ltd $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee for this application.

Reasons

Background

The application seeks termination of the tenancy due to car parking and noise issues.
The tenancy began in May 2020.
Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited is a social housing provider. The premises are sub-let with the landlord’s consent.
The tenanted premises is one of three adjoining units at 16 Park Avenue. Each unit has a garage. There is a right of way that provides access to the two rear units. Unit 1 is the front unit.
In December 2023 Ray White began receiving multiple complaints from the occupant of Unit 2 about noise from Unit 1 and cars blocking the right of way.
Ray White issued a breach notice about parking on 13 December 2023, and anti-social behaviour notices on 17 December, 21 December, and 2 January.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 1 March 2024. Ms Seymour represented the landlord. Ms Gardiner represented Kāhui Tū Kaha.
At the hearing, Ms Gardiner stated that Kāhui Tū Kaha wanted to retain the head tenancy if possible, and it was prepared to bring a Tenancy Tribunal application seeking termination of the sub-tenancy. However, Ms Seymour confirmed that the landlord is seeking termination of the head tenancy. Findings
The claim is brought alternatively as termination for breach 1 , and termination for anti-social behaviour 2 .
The Tenancy Tribunal may terminate a tenancy if: a. The tenant has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement or of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986; and b. In the case of a breach that is capable of being remedied, the landlord has given the tenant a notice detailing the breach and giving the tenant a reasonable period of time (not less than 14-days) to remedy the breach; and c. The breach was not remedied within the notice period; and d. The nature and extent of the breach is such that it would be inequitable to refuse the request for termination.
The Tenancy Tribunal must terminate a tenancy if: a. On 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. On each occasion the landlord gave the tenant notice of the anti-social behaviour. c. Anti-social behaviour is defined as: i. Harassment; or ii. Any other act or omission (whether intentional or not) if the act or omission reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor. 1 Section 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 55A RTA
Ray White’s submissions raise an issue to do with noise, but the breach notice and all of the anti-social behaviour notices relate to parking only.,
Ms Seymour provided photographs showing that the tenant or the tenant’s guests parked on the right of way, or partially on the right of way, on multiple occasions in December and January.
Kāhui Tū Kaha have spoken to the tenant about this, but the situation does not seem to be improving.
The tenancy agreement includes the following provisions about parking: The tenant agrees that 1 space is provided for a vehicle and is included in the rent. The tenant agrees to park in this space or on the street. Guests must park on the street. No off street parking is provided for the guests of the tenant. The tenant is aware he needs to keep the driveway clear at all times for the use of the neighbours in the back house. The tenant must ensure that they and their visitors do not park on the shared driveway. The tenant agrees not to obstruct the neighbour’s parking or thoroughfare.
Ray White has proved that the tenant breached those provisions on multiple occasions.
The breach is capable of being remedied in the sense that the tenant could take steps to ensure that the first incident was a ‘one-off’ that would not be repeated. Unfortunately, that has not happened.
I’m satisfied that the obstructions caused a “nuisance that is more than minor” for the occupants of the rear units.
There are grounds for termination of the tenancy for breach and for anti-social behaviour. Therefore, the request for termination is granted.
Ms Seymour stated that the landlord was willing to allow the tenancy to continue for a further 6 weeks. The tenancy will terminate on 12 April 2024.
The landlord has been successful in this application and I must award the landlord the filing fee. N Blake, 01 March 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4791697. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
de Leith Realty Limited T/A Raywhite, at 12.00 noon on 12 April 2024. 2. Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited is to pay Goode Leith Rea	$20.44		de Leith Realty Limited T/A Raywhite, at 12.00 noon on 12 April 2024. 2. Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited is to pay Goode Leith Rea

Order

The tenancy of Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited at Unit 1, 16 Park Avenue, Kensington, Whangarei 0112 is terminated, and possession is granted to Goode Leith Realty Limited T/A Raywhite, at 12.00 noon on 12 April 2024.
Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited is to pay Goode Leith Realty Ltd $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee for this application.

Reasons

Background

The application seeks termination of the tenancy due to car parking and noise issues.
The tenancy began in May 2020.
Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited is a social housing provider. The premises are sub-let with the landlord’s consent.
The tenanted premises is one of three adjoining units at 16 Park Avenue. Each unit has a garage. There is a right of way that provides access to the two rear units. Unit 1 is the front unit.
In December 2023 Ray White began receiving multiple complaints from the occupant of Unit 2 about noise from Unit 1 and cars blocking the right of way.
Ray White issued a breach notice about parking on 13 December 2023, and anti-social behaviour notices on 17 December, 21 December, and 2 January.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 1 March 2024. Ms Seymour represented the landlord. Ms Gardiner represented Kāhui Tū Kaha.
At the hearing, Ms Gardiner stated that Kāhui Tū Kaha wanted to retain the head tenancy if possible, and it was prepared to bring a Tenancy Tribunal application seeking termination of the sub-tenancy. However, Ms Seymour confirmed that the landlord is seeking termination of the head tenancy. Findings
The claim is brought alternatively as termination for breach 1 , and termination for anti-social behaviour 2 .
The Tenancy Tribunal may terminate a tenancy if: a. The tenant has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement or of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986; and b. In the case of a breach that is capable of being remedied, the landlord has given the tenant a notice detailing the breach and giving the tenant a reasonable period of time (not less than 14-days) to remedy the breach; and c. The breach was not remedied within the notice period; and d. The nature and extent of the breach is such that it would be inequitable to refuse the request for termination.
The Tenancy Tribunal must terminate a tenancy if: a. On 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. On each occasion the landlord gave the tenant notice of the anti-social behaviour. c. Anti-social behaviour is defined as: i. Harassment; or ii. Any other act or omission (whether intentional or not) if the act or omission reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor. 1 Section 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 55A RTA
Ray White’s submissions raise an issue to do with noise, but the breach notice and all of the anti-social behaviour notices relate to parking only.,
Ms Seymour provided photographs showing that the tenant or the tenant’s guests parked on the right of way, or partially on the right of way, on multiple occasions in December and January.
Kāhui Tū Kaha have spoken to the tenant about this, but the situation does not seem to be improving.
The tenancy agreement includes the following provisions about parking: The tenant agrees that 1 space is provided for a vehicle and is included in the rent. The tenant agrees to park in this space or on the street. Guests must park on the street. No off street parking is provided for the guests of the tenant. The tenant is aware he needs to keep the driveway clear at all times for the use of the neighbours in the back house. The tenant must ensure that they and their visitors do not park on the shared driveway. The tenant agrees not to obstruct the neighbour’s parking or thoroughfare.
Ray White has proved that the tenant breached those provisions on multiple occasions.
The breach is capable of being remedied in the sense that the tenant could take steps to ensure that the first incident was a ‘one-off’ that would not be repeated. Unfortunately, that has not happened.
I’m satisfied that the obstructions caused a “nuisance that is more than minor” for the occupants of the rear units.
There are grounds for termination of the tenancy for breach and for anti-social behaviour. Therefore, the request for termination is granted.
Ms Seymour stated that the landlord was willing to allow the tenancy to continue for a further 6 weeks. The tenancy will terminate on 12 April 2024.
The landlord has been successful in this application and I must award the landlord the filing fee. N Blake, 01 March 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4791697 — Harassment at Unit 1, 16 Park Avenue, Kensington, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4791697 — Harassment at Unit 1, 16 Park Avenue, Kensington, Whangarei 0112

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