What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4801277?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Luke Tahere Te Whata Edmonds Chapman, Maima Fasa and

How much money was awarded in case 4801277?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4801277?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4801277?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10138139-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4801277?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Luke Tahere Te Whata Edmonds Chapman, Maima Fasa and

How much money was awarded in case 4801277?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4801277?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4801277?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10138139-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 23 Waipapa Road, Hataitai, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 4801277 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The tenancy of Luke Tahere Te Whata Edmonds Chapman, Maima Fasa and Joshua Boag at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 23 Waipapa Road, Hataitai, Wellington 6021 is terminated, and possession is granted to Trio Group (NZ) Limited, at 11.59pm today, Wednesday 27 March 2024.

Luke Tahere Te Whata Edmonds Chapman, Maima Fasa and Joshua Boag must pay Trio Group (NZ) Limited $20.44 immediately being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

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

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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 section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

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.

Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.

However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.

The premises are one of three flats contained in one building. The three tenancies share the use of the front and back yard as common areas. All three tenancies are managed by this landlord.

The tenants have breached their obligations as follows: a. Luke Chapman kept a dog at the property with the landlord’s consent but failed to clean up dog excrement from the backyard area shared with the three other flats, as required by the tenancy agreement. Neighbouring tenants complained to the tenants and the landlord about the failure from September 2023 onwards; b. Luke Chapman failed to keep his dog on a leash in the common area as required by the landlord as a condition of keeping the dog. The dog bit a neighbouring tenant when wandering around without a leash. Neighbouring tenants complained to the landlord from 26 October 2023 onwards and called Animal Control on several occasions. Animal Control seized the dog on or about 19 January 2024 and advised the landlord that they had issued 6-7 warning letters to Luke Chapman about the dog prior to the seizure. They also advised the landlord that unless Luke Chapman paid a fine and erected a fence at the premises to contain the dog, it would be put down; c. The landlord sent the tenants a letter rescinding her permission for the dog to remain at the premises because of the failure to clean up the dog’s excrement in the common area; failure to keep the dog on a leash in the common area; the dog biting the neighbouring tenant; and the warnings issued by Animal Control. The landlord had previously advised that she did not consent to a fence being erected which would affect neighbouring tenants’ access to the backyard common area. Therefore, it was not appropriate for the dog to remain at the premises; d. On or about 24 January 2024, Luke Chapman began erecting a fence and a gate at the premises without obtaining the landlord’s consent and brought the dog back to the premises without permission; e. The tenants or people at the premises with the permission of one or more tenants disturbed neighbours on numerous occasions with excessive noise, loud music and hostile behaviour. When neighbours called Animal Control about the dog, they complain that Luke Chapman and his cousin (also living at the premises at the time) made several loud verbal threats which scared them. Words were said to the effect that whoever snitched on them would be sorry; f. Luke Chapman allowed his cousin and another person to reside at the premises without the landlord’s permission since December 2023/January 2024 taking the number of occupants residing at the premises to 5, in breach of the tenancy agreement limit of 4; g. Neighbouring tenants reported assaults at the premises involving Luke Chapman and his cousin while residing there. The landlord asked that the additional occupants be required to leave the premises.

While many of the breaches were caused by one of the tenants, all tenants are jointly and severally liable for breaches caused by any one or more of them and by those at the premises with the permission of any tenant. For that reason, the landlord served 14-day notices on all the tenants regarding the various breaches.

The landlord served three 14-day notices on the tenants on 8 September 2023, 14 December 2023 and 24 January 2023 requesting that the tenants remedy the various breaches. The tenants did not remedy the breaches within the required periods. Therefore, on 8 February 2024 the landlord lodged this Tribunal application.

The extra occupants left the premises on or about 23 January 2024. By 28 February, the dog was removed and the fence and gate were mostly removed. However, these steps were not completed within the time periods specified in the 14-day notices. There is also still a fence post with protruding nails in the ground that has not been removed and damage to the house where the fence was removed.

The neighbours report continuing noise problems by the tenants or those at the premises with permission up until mid-March 2024. Although, this behaviour has improved in the last 2 weeks, the landlord believes it is only because she has made this application and likely the behaviour will continue if the tenancy is not terminated.

The landlord also provided evidence of a disturbing text message from Luke Chapman on 13 March 2024 in which he sent her a photo of one of her emails set on fire and underneath the photo he wrote “You can get fucked.” I find the nature of this text is threatening and intimidating. It would indicate that this tenant is unlikely to improve/change his behaviour and abide by his obligations not to cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of others living in the neighbourhood.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the numerous breaches by the tenants; the failures to remedy the breaches within the time periods specified in three separate 14-day notices issued over a 5-month period and the recent intimidating and threatening text from Luke Chapman which demonstrates a disregard for his obligations as a tenant. The tenancy is therefore terminated.

Because Trio Group (NZ) Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Luke Tahere Te Whata Edmonds Chapman, Maima Fasa and Joshua Boag must pay Trio Group (NZ) Limited $20.44 immediately being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

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

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The premises are one of three flats contained in one building. The three tenancies share the use of the front and back yard as common areas. All three tenancies are managed by this landlord.

Because Trio Group (NZ) Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4801277 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 23 Waipapa Road, Hataitai, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4801277 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 23 Waipapa Road, Hataitai, Wellington

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