What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4848083?

The tribunal order states: The Kareponia Marae Trust (Phil Subritzky, Hohepa Maclean, Joseph

How much money was awarded in case 4848083?

Cleaning: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4848083?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4848083?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10264390-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4848083?

The tribunal order states: The Kareponia Marae Trust (Phil Subritzky, Hohepa Maclean, Joseph

How much money was awarded in case 4848083?

Cleaning: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4848083?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4848083?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10264390-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 1, 5987 State Highway 10, Awanui 0483 (Kareponia Tenancy Tribunal Case 4848083 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4848083. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
e Trust (Phil Subritzky, Hohepa Maclean, Joseph Matthews, Caron Johnson, Robyn Herewini, Ruben Paparoa, and Doreen Papar	$20.44		e Trust (Phil Subritzky, Hohepa Maclean, Joseph Matthews, Caron Johnson, Robyn Herewini, Ruben Paparoa, and Doreen Papar

Order

The Kareponia Marae Trust (Phil Subritzky, Hohepa Maclean, Joseph Matthews, Caron Johnson, Robyn Herewini, Ruben Paparoa, and Doreen Paparoa: Trustees) is granted possession of the premises at Flat 1, 5987 State Highway 10, Awanui 0483 (Kareponia Marae) immediately.
Ruth Murray is to pay The Kareponia Marae Trust (Phil Subritzky, Hohepa Maclean, Joseph Matthews, Caron Johnson, Robyn Herewini, Ruben Paparoa, and Doreen Paparoa: Trustees) $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee for this application.

Reasons

Background

Ms Murray occupies one of two adjoining flats located at the Kareponia Marae. Ms Subritzky occupies the other.
This is Kaumātua/Kuia housing. The rent charged is substantially below market rent.
On 1 December 2023, the Trust issued termination notices to both Ms Murray and Ms Subritzky. The stated grounds for termination is that the landlord intends to carry out extensive repair work 1 .
Ms Murray and Ms Subritzsky disputed the notices, and they have not vacated the premises.
The landlord filed applications seeking orders for possession of both premises.
The two applications were heard together at the Kaitaia Court on 22 April 2024. All parties attended the hearing. Mr Maclean, Mr Matthews, and Mr Phil Subritzsky represented the Trust. Mr Bill Subritzsky assisted Ms Matthews and Ms Subritzsky. Findings
These are not “usual” residential tenancies. The Trust is not out to make a profit from the flats. The tenants have been in the flats for a long time – more than 20 years in Ms Matthews’ case.
However, the legal principles that apply to these tenancies are the same principles that apply to all residential tenancies.
A tenancy can be ended by notice 2 . Landlords can only terminate a tenancy by notice on certain grounds 3 .
If a tenancy is lawfully terminated, the tenant must vacate the premises 4 .
One of the lawful grounds for termination of a tenancy by the landlord is if: a. The landlord intends to carry out “extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises”; and b. The work is to begin, or “material steps towards it are to be taken”, within 90-days of the end of the tenancy; and c. It would not be “reasonably practicable” for the tenant to remain in the premises while the work is undertaken.
Mr Maclean submitted that: a. The Trust obtained a building report in October 2023. b. The report identified many defects in the flats that require repairs, including the roof, exterior cladding, showers (possible water ingress through deteriorated shower liners), flooring (rot), and some leaks. 1 Section 51(2)(f) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). 2 Unless it is a fixed term tenancy. These are periodic tenancies. 3 Section 51(2) RTA 4 Section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA c. The Trust also wanted to remove the deck and exterior stairs and replace the stairs with a ramp. d. The Trust was able to obtain funding for the work. e. Because the tenants failed to vacate, the opportunity to do the work passed and the funding is no longer available. The only work that could be completed (because it was separately funded) was replacement of the roof. This was carried out with the tenants in situ. f. The next step that the Trust intends to carry out is invasive testing (removing flooring) to ascertain the extent of rot / water damage. This will be done by the same builder who provided the initial report. g. The flats do not meet the healthy homes standards.
Having regard to the criteria for terminating a tenancy (detailed above): a. The scope of work that the landlord wishes to do is in the category of “extensive repairs”. b. When the Trust issued the notice on 1 December 2023, they had every intention of commencing the work within 90-days of the end of the tenancy. Because the tenants did not leave, the Trust lost its funding, and it is now unlikely that they will be able to start the repair work within the next 90- days. The Trust is currently seeking new funding. The Trust does intend to do the more detailed / invasive assessment within 90-days of the end of the tenancy. The question is whether this amounts to a “material step” towards the work. “Material step” is a defined term in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 5 . The definition is: applying for regulatory consent, seeking engineering or other professional advice, or taking any other significant step I am satisfied that carrying out a detailed / invasive assessment and obtaining a further report meets the criteria of ‘material step’, as defined above. It is the taking of “professional advice” and it is also a “significant step” towards the work. It is a necessary step, to ascertain the extent of any hidden damage so that the landlords can obtain a detailed scope of works and then a quote. It will render the premises uninhabitable (parts of the flooring need to be removed), and it shows the landlord’s clear intention to progress towards necessary repairs. c. It would not be reasonably practicable for Ms Murray and Ms Subritzsky to remain in the flats when the work is carried out. 5 Section 51(2A) RTA Ms Murray and Ms Subritzsky both showed an admirable willingness to “work in with” the builders. As noted above, they both remained in the flats when the property was re-roofed. However, the fact that Ms Murray and Ms Subritzsky are willing to tolerate significant disruption is not the only criteria. The landlord and the builder have a duty to ensure that the site is safe when the work is carried out. Part of the flooring needs to be removed and replaced, and the extent of flooring work won’t be fully known until the detailed / invasive assessment is done. It is reasonable for the Trust to rely on their builder’s advice that the work cannot be done safely with tenants still occupying the flats.
Therefore I find that the criteria for issuing a termination notice were met. The landlord had grounds to issue the notice.
The notice contains all of the information required under the RTA 6 . It gave the tenant the correct period of notice. It was served on the tenant in a manner that complied with the RTA.
The period of the notice has expired. The tenancy has ended. The landlord is entitled to an order for immediate possession 7 .
Therefore, I must make that order.
Because the landlord has been successful in this application, I must also award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44 8 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4848083. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
e Trust (Phil Subritzky, Hohepa Maclean, Joseph Matthews, Caron Johnson, Robyn Herewini, Ruben Paparoa, and Doreen Papar	$20.44		e Trust (Phil Subritzky, Hohepa Maclean, Joseph Matthews, Caron Johnson, Robyn Herewini, Ruben Paparoa, and Doreen Papar

Order

The Kareponia Marae Trust (Phil Subritzky, Hohepa Maclean, Joseph Matthews, Caron Johnson, Robyn Herewini, Ruben Paparoa, and Doreen Paparoa: Trustees) is granted possession of the premises at Flat 1, 5987 State Highway 10, Awanui 0483 (Kareponia Marae) immediately.
Ruth Murray is to pay The Kareponia Marae Trust (Phil Subritzky, Hohepa Maclean, Joseph Matthews, Caron Johnson, Robyn Herewini, Ruben Paparoa, and Doreen Paparoa: Trustees) $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee for this application.

Reasons

Background

Ms Murray occupies one of two adjoining flats located at the Kareponia Marae. Ms Subritzky occupies the other.
This is Kaumātua/Kuia housing. The rent charged is substantially below market rent.
On 1 December 2023, the Trust issued termination notices to both Ms Murray and Ms Subritzky. The stated grounds for termination is that the landlord intends to carry out extensive repair work 1 .
Ms Murray and Ms Subritzsky disputed the notices, and they have not vacated the premises.
The landlord filed applications seeking orders for possession of both premises.
The two applications were heard together at the Kaitaia Court on 22 April 2024. All parties attended the hearing. Mr Maclean, Mr Matthews, and Mr Phil Subritzsky represented the Trust. Mr Bill Subritzsky assisted Ms Matthews and Ms Subritzsky. Findings
These are not “usual” residential tenancies. The Trust is not out to make a profit from the flats. The tenants have been in the flats for a long time – more than 20 years in Ms Matthews’ case.
However, the legal principles that apply to these tenancies are the same principles that apply to all residential tenancies.
A tenancy can be ended by notice 2 . Landlords can only terminate a tenancy by notice on certain grounds 3 .
If a tenancy is lawfully terminated, the tenant must vacate the premises 4 .
One of the lawful grounds for termination of a tenancy by the landlord is if: a. The landlord intends to carry out “extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises”; and b. The work is to begin, or “material steps towards it are to be taken”, within 90-days of the end of the tenancy; and c. It would not be “reasonably practicable” for the tenant to remain in the premises while the work is undertaken.
Mr Maclean submitted that: a. The Trust obtained a building report in October 2023. b. The report identified many defects in the flats that require repairs, including the roof, exterior cladding, showers (possible water ingress through deteriorated shower liners), flooring (rot), and some leaks. 1 Section 51(2)(f) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). 2 Unless it is a fixed term tenancy. These are periodic tenancies. 3 Section 51(2) RTA 4 Section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA c. The Trust also wanted to remove the deck and exterior stairs and replace the stairs with a ramp. d. The Trust was able to obtain funding for the work. e. Because the tenants failed to vacate, the opportunity to do the work passed and the funding is no longer available. The only work that could be completed (because it was separately funded) was replacement of the roof. This was carried out with the tenants in situ. f. The next step that the Trust intends to carry out is invasive testing (removing flooring) to ascertain the extent of rot / water damage. This will be done by the same builder who provided the initial report. g. The flats do not meet the healthy homes standards.
Having regard to the criteria for terminating a tenancy (detailed above): a. The scope of work that the landlord wishes to do is in the category of “extensive repairs”. b. When the Trust issued the notice on 1 December 2023, they had every intention of commencing the work within 90-days of the end of the tenancy. Because the tenants did not leave, the Trust lost its funding, and it is now unlikely that they will be able to start the repair work within the next 90- days. The Trust is currently seeking new funding. The Trust does intend to do the more detailed / invasive assessment within 90-days of the end of the tenancy. The question is whether this amounts to a “material step” towards the work. “Material step” is a defined term in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 5 . The definition is: applying for regulatory consent, seeking engineering or other professional advice, or taking any other significant step I am satisfied that carrying out a detailed / invasive assessment and obtaining a further report meets the criteria of ‘material step’, as defined above. It is the taking of “professional advice” and it is also a “significant step” towards the work. It is a necessary step, to ascertain the extent of any hidden damage so that the landlords can obtain a detailed scope of works and then a quote. It will render the premises uninhabitable (parts of the flooring need to be removed), and it shows the landlord’s clear intention to progress towards necessary repairs. c. It would not be reasonably practicable for Ms Murray and Ms Subritzsky to remain in the flats when the work is carried out. 5 Section 51(2A) RTA Ms Murray and Ms Subritzsky both showed an admirable willingness to “work in with” the builders. As noted above, they both remained in the flats when the property was re-roofed. However, the fact that Ms Murray and Ms Subritzsky are willing to tolerate significant disruption is not the only criteria. The landlord and the builder have a duty to ensure that the site is safe when the work is carried out. Part of the flooring needs to be removed and replaced, and the extent of flooring work won’t be fully known until the detailed / invasive assessment is done. It is reasonable for the Trust to rely on their builder’s advice that the work cannot be done safely with tenants still occupying the flats.
Therefore I find that the criteria for issuing a termination notice were met. The landlord had grounds to issue the notice.
The notice contains all of the information required under the RTA 6 . It gave the tenant the correct period of notice. It was served on the tenant in a manner that complied with the RTA.
The period of the notice has expired. The tenancy has ended. The landlord is entitled to an order for immediate possession 7 .
Therefore, I must make that order.
Because the landlord has been successful in this application, I must also award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44 8 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 4848083 — Cleanliness at Flat 1, 5987 State Highway 10, Awanui 0483 (Kareponia

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4848083 — Cleanliness at Flat 1, 5987 State Highway 10, Awanui 0483 (Kareponia

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions