What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4838640?

The tribunal order states: The application by Tracy Lamb and Mark Lamb as Trustees of the M D & T D

How much money was awarded in case 4838640?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4838640?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4838640?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10192001-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4838640?

The tribunal order states: The application by Tracy Lamb and Mark Lamb as Trustees of the M D & T D

How much money was awarded in case 4838640?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4838640?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4838640?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10192001-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

76 Ascot Street, Saint Kilda, Dunedin 9012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4838640 — 14-day notice

Order

The application by Tracy Lamb and Mark Lamb as Trustees of the M D & T D Lamb Family Trust for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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.
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 landlord submitted that the tenant had breached his obligations by having fights in the street with his girlfriend and playing loud music in the early hours of the morning disturbing his neighbours.
In support of the claim the landlord submitted three 14 day notices, dated 23/1, 1/3 and 16/3/2024, a letter of complaint from the neighbour of the back flat and a Police report of their four visits to the premises in January 2024, during one of which a meth pipe was located.
The landlord suggested that the tenant had not remedied the breaches because she had received a complaint from the back neighbour three days before the hearing.
In response, the tenant provided a letter in support from a neighbour across the road.
The tenant submitted that he had removed the two cars which had been at the premises, did not now allow his friends access while he was away from the property and done everything else asked by the landlord.
Further the tenant denied the meth pipe located by the Police was his and suggested he had installed security cameras for safety reasons, especially to prevent his cars being stolen.
Section 40(2)(c) provides that a tenant shall not “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 person residing in the neighbourhood”.
I find the evidence supports that tenant has breached the provisions of section 40(2)(c) and I must therefore decide whether it is inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

Is it inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

In exercising the discretion under section 56 I need to consider whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the Court at paragraph 61 set out the factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with her obligations in the future d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed e. The conduct of the landlord f. The gravity of the breach g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The tenancy began on 13/11/2023 and is for a fixed term until 13/11/2024.
The evidence supports that there have been persistent failures despite repeated warnings, both verbal and written from the landlord.
On the other hand, the evidence of the tenant was that he had taken steps to remedy the problems by getting rid of the two cars he had on the premises, and restricting access to the property by his friends when he was not at home.
Further the tenant confirmed that his girlfriend did not live at the premises but only visited.
Disturbing the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours or other tenants is serious.
This is evidenced by the fact that other neighbours did not wish to provide any written statements or give evidence due to safety concerns.
The question for the Tribunal is having established that the tenant breached his obligations under the legislation, is whether as a matter of proportionality termination is an inequitable response having regard to the tenant’s conduct throughout the tenancy and the likelihood of him complying in the future with his obligations.
Termination of a tenancy has serious consequences for a tenant.
There is no evidence that the breaches were deliberately caused by the tenant intentionally disturbing his neighbours.
Rather, there appears to have been a lack of understanding on the part of the tenant about the effect of his actions on others.
However, considering the proximity of the back neighbour, the premises being comprised of two flats adjoining each other, some noise between the flats is inevitable.
The evidence of the tenant that the landlord frequently turns up without notice has not helped the situation.
Although the landlord disputed that she did not give notice, she did acknowledge that she frequently visited the tenant in the back flat.
I consider having regard to the facts of this case that it would be inequitable to terminate the tenancy.
I have taken into account the steps taken by the tenant to stop the breaches and the fact that the tenancy has an end date.
Termination would not be a proportionate response to the breaches.
The application by the landlord fails.
No filing fee is awarded because the landlord was unsuccessful.
Neither party sought name suppression.

Order

The application by Tracy Lamb and Mark Lamb as Trustees of the M D & T D Lamb Family Trust for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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.
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 landlord submitted that the tenant had breached his obligations by having fights in the street with his girlfriend and playing loud music in the early hours of the morning disturbing his neighbours.
In support of the claim the landlord submitted three 14 day notices, dated 23/1, 1/3 and 16/3/2024, a letter of complaint from the neighbour of the back flat and a Police report of their four visits to the premises in January 2024, during one of which a meth pipe was located.
The landlord suggested that the tenant had not remedied the breaches because she had received a complaint from the back neighbour three days before the hearing.
In response, the tenant provided a letter in support from a neighbour across the road.
The tenant submitted that he had removed the two cars which had been at the premises, did not now allow his friends access while he was away from the property and done everything else asked by the landlord.
Further the tenant denied the meth pipe located by the Police was his and suggested he had installed security cameras for safety reasons, especially to prevent his cars being stolen.
Section 40(2)(c) provides that a tenant shall not “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 person residing in the neighbourhood”.
I find the evidence supports that tenant has breached the provisions of section 40(2)(c) and I must therefore decide whether it is inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

Is it inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

In exercising the discretion under section 56 I need to consider whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the Court at paragraph 61 set out the factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with her obligations in the future d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed e. The conduct of the landlord f. The gravity of the breach g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The tenancy began on 13/11/2023 and is for a fixed term until 13/11/2024.
The evidence supports that there have been persistent failures despite repeated warnings, both verbal and written from the landlord.
On the other hand, the evidence of the tenant was that he had taken steps to remedy the problems by getting rid of the two cars he had on the premises, and restricting access to the property by his friends when he was not at home.
Further the tenant confirmed that his girlfriend did not live at the premises but only visited.
Disturbing the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours or other tenants is serious.
This is evidenced by the fact that other neighbours did not wish to provide any written statements or give evidence due to safety concerns.
The question for the Tribunal is having established that the tenant breached his obligations under the legislation, is whether as a matter of proportionality termination is an inequitable response having regard to the tenant’s conduct throughout the tenancy and the likelihood of him complying in the future with his obligations.
Termination of a tenancy has serious consequences for a tenant.
There is no evidence that the breaches were deliberately caused by the tenant intentionally disturbing his neighbours.
Rather, there appears to have been a lack of understanding on the part of the tenant about the effect of his actions on others.
However, considering the proximity of the back neighbour, the premises being comprised of two flats adjoining each other, some noise between the flats is inevitable.
The evidence of the tenant that the landlord frequently turns up without notice has not helped the situation.
Although the landlord disputed that she did not give notice, she did acknowledge that she frequently visited the tenant in the back flat.
I consider having regard to the facts of this case that it would be inequitable to terminate the tenancy.
I have taken into account the steps taken by the tenant to stop the breaches and the fact that the tenancy has an end date.
Termination would not be a proportionate response to the breaches.
The application by the landlord fails.
No filing fee is awarded because the landlord was unsuccessful.
Neither party sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4838640 — 14-day notice at 76 Ascot Street, Saint Kilda, Dunedin 9012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4838640 — 14-day notice at 76 Ascot Street, Saint Kilda, Dunedin 9012

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is it inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is it inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions