What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4855906?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Cameron Kettlewell at Unit/Flat 1, 24 Heywood Terrace,

How much money was awarded in case 4855906?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855906?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855906?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10689732-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4855906?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Cameron Kettlewell at Unit/Flat 1, 24 Heywood Terrace,

How much money was awarded in case 4855906?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855906?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855906?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10689732-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 24 Heywood Terrace, Richmond, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4855906 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The tenancy of Cameron Kettlewell at Unit/Flat 1, 24 Heywood Terrace, Richmond, Christchurch 8013 is terminated, and possession is granted to Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Properties Merivale As Agent For Ferne Osborne, at 11.59pm on Sunday 1 September 2024.

Cameron Kettlewell must pay Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Properties Merivale As Agent For Ferne Osborne $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.

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 original hearing date for this application was 20 June 2024. The Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy as from 12 July 2024.

The tenant applied for a rehearing on the basis that he could not attend the hearing for medical reasons.

A rehearing was granted on the papers.

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 under 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 tenant has breached their obligations by failing to keep the property reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 3 April 2024 and the tenant did not remedy the breach in the appropriate time frame. The landlord provided inspection reports from 22 April and 29 May to confirm that the breach had not been remedied.

The landlord had also issued 14-day notices for failure to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy on 11 September 2023 and 15 February 2024. The landlord provided evidence of inspections prior to those notices having been issued.

The landlord gave evidence that they had further conversations with the tenant in relation to this breach following the tenant’s successful application for a rehearing.

The landlord said they were open to withdrawing the application if the tenant had remedied the breach to their satisfaction before the hearing date.

The landlord completed an inspection on 5 August 2024 (five days before the hearing date). This inspection photographs show that the breach had not been remedied.

The tenant claimed that he had attended to the cleaning of the property and provided an invoice for carpet cleaning dated 10 July 2024 to support this. No further evidence was supplied.

The carpet does appear slightly cleaner in the most recent inspection report photographs, but the report still notes carpet stains in the lounge (especially in front of the sofa), in the stair way and hall and in the left bedroom.

The landlord’s main concern is that the continuing breach will lead to more permanent damage to the property. The fact that the carpet remains stained after being professionally cleaned would seem to support the validity of this concern.

The tenant made various suggestions at the hearing as to ways he could begin to comply with his obligations but, given that he has had such an extended period to comply already (including a period of about six weeks since the initial termination order was made) and had not been persuaded to comply, I consider it unlikely that he will remedy the situation.

Therefore, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has had multiple opportunities over nearly a year to remedy the situation. The property was reasonably new at the beginning of the tenancy, and I consider that there is a risk of further damage occurring.

As the landlord has been successful, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Cameron Kettlewell must pay Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Properties Merivale As Agent For Ferne Osborne $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.

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 original hearing date for this application was 20 June 2024. The Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy as from 12 July 2024.

The tenant applied for a rehearing on the basis that he could not attend the hearing for medical reasons.

A rehearing was granted on the papers.

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 under section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to keep the property reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.

The landlord gave evidence that they had further conversations with the tenant in relation to this breach following the tenant’s successful application for a rehearing.

The landlord said they were open to withdrawing the application if the tenant had remedied the breach to their satisfaction before the hearing date.

The landlord completed an inspection on 5 August 2024 (five days before the hearing date). This inspection photographs show that the breach had not been remedied.

The tenant claimed that he had attended to the cleaning of the property and provided an invoice for carpet cleaning dated 10 July 2024 to support this. No further evidence was supplied.

As the landlord has been successful, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855906 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 1, 24 Heywood Terrace, Richmond, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855906 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 1, 24 Heywood Terrace, Richmond, Christchurch

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