What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4886360?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for termination is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4886360?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4886360?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4886360?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10542161-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4886360?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for termination is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4886360?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4886360?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice, Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4886360?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10542161-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

30A Opaheke Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4886360 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The landlord’s application for termination is dismissed.

The tenant must remedy the breach of the tenancy agreement by removing the dog from the premises by 5pm on Friday 2 August 2024.

Monita Lornene Victor must pay Emerald Real Estate Limited - as Agent for Vishal Gupta the filing fee of $20.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 July 2024.

The periodic tenancy started on 29 January 2024. On 13 May 2024 the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, carpet cleaning, an advertising fee, and refund of the bond.

The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 17 May 2024 about an inspection on 4 April 2024. Termination

The landlord sought termination for rent arrears, and the rent was more than 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed (section 55(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).

The landlord’s rent summary showed that, since late March 2024, the tenant has been paying rent every few weeks in lump sums rather than weekly as required by the tenancy agreement. The tenant said she became “disheartened” after an inspection on 4 April 2024, an event I discuss further below. The arrears of $2,310.00 to 7 July 2024 were paid by the tenant on 3 July 2024 at

10pm (i.e., the day before the hearing).

There are few occasions when tenants can withhold rent under the Act, and this is not one of them. The tenant was able to confirm that she would pay the rent while she is living in the premises, in response to my request for confirmation that she will now start paying the rent weekly as she is contractually required to do.

I acknowledge the landlord’s frustration with the stop/start of rent payments and the lack of confidence they have that this will not happen again. However, the rent has now been paid up to date, and the tenant has confirmed her ongoing liability for rent during the tenancy. The issue which the landlord has identified (a tenant who waits until enforcement action is taken before paying the rent) was the reason why section 55(1)(aa) of the Act was introduced. The landlord has already served several notices under this provision, which may come into operation if there are further rent arrears.

The landlord has served notices under section 55A (anti-social behaviour) but the section has not yet been brought into operation, because only two notices have been served. I have not considered and express no opinion on the validity of those notices.

The landlord also sought termination of the tenancy for breach of the “no pets” clause. On 17 April 2024 the landlord served a notice to remedy requiring the tenant to remove a dog. Clause 24 of the general conditions in the tenancy agreement requires the landlord’s consent to a pet to be in writing. The tenant said she had verbal permission for the dog, which the landlord denied giving. Pursuant to the tenancy agreement, written consent was needed before the tenant could have a pet.

The issue under section 56 of the Act is whether the breach is of such a nature or such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

The breed of dog is American Bully. He is still a puppy. The landlord said this breed requires proper training or it will damage the premises. The landlord admitted that they do not have any evidence the dog is causing damage or increased wear and tear at the premises, and they have assumed that this is the case (or will be). The tenant needs to remove the dog, but I am not satisfied on the available evidence that the nature of the breach justifies termination of the tenancy at this stage. The position may be different if the tenant does not remove the dog as directed.

For these reasons, I decline to terminate the tenancy on this occasion. The landlord claimed the cost of advertising the property if the Tribunal terminated the tenancy. As this has not happened, the advertising cost cannot be awarded. I also decline to award the claimed carpet cleaning costs, which the landlord acknowledged have not been incurred.

The landlord raised other issues, such as the tenant parking on the berm to the annoyance of the local neighbourhood and the tenant removing a smoke alarm. As these issues were not part of the landlord’s application, it is not appropriate for me to address them. Breach of quiet enjoyment

The tenant said her quiet enjoyment was breached. In the application form, she referred to an inspection on 4 April 2024. The tenant said she runs a clothing business or boutique from the garage of the premises. She complained that the property managers (who are mother and daughter) were taking pictures of the clothing and noted that she has vendor and customer details in the garage. The tenant concluded: “...Plus [the property manager] is aware about my saree bouquet [sic] because when I was looking for the place, I did mention I need a place with garage for my saree bouquet [sic]. For me the bullying me, mental harassment, using the power, etc. after when I caught them taking pictures or doing black magic the video shows that [the property manager] is hiding something in her gown and bringing something inside my house.”

The inspection on 4 April 2024 was notified by the landlord in writing on 27 March 2024. The tenant said the landlord called to remind her about the inspection. She produced several short videos from a doorbell camera showing the property managers at the front door. The tenant alleged that the mother and daughter were talking to each other in Fijian Indian saying that the tenant was not home, and they wanted to take a photograph of a saree. The tenant said she has Indian clothing and jewellery in the garage, as well as customer’s and vendor’s details.

The landlord said they only opened the doors under the sink and the storage door under the stairs, and they produced a copy of the 4 April 2024 inspection report. This includes a few photographs of the garage, including clothing.

In performing the inspection, the landlord had an obligation not to breach the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy. There may be a breach if, for example, the landlord takes an excessive number of photographs, or the photographs are otherwise unreasonably intrusive.

The landlord said the tenant was running a business from the garage without the landlord’s knowledge. Whether that is the case or not, the landlord had a legitimate interest in inspecting the garage to ensure there was no health and safety risk presented by the tenant’s activities and that the tenant was otherwise complying with her obligations under the tenancy agreement. The inspection was not overly intrusive. I am unable to find that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment in the way the inspection was conducted, and the available evidence does not show that the landlord took an unprofessional or personal interest in the clothing. Nor do the photographs provided show any confidential paperwork or indeed business records of any kind.

The tenant’s reference to black magic and to the landlord bringing something into the property under her clothing does not amount to a justiciable complaint. The tenant’s objection that the landlord brought a new property manager to the inspection on 4 April 2024 also fails to engage the Act. The tenant knew that the property managers would be attending, and that a new person would be involved in management. Filing fee and suppression

The landlord’s application has partly succeeded. A direction has been made for the dog to be removed. I award the filing fee.

The tenant requested suppression. The tenant has not been “wholly or substantially” successful in the proceedings. I decline to grant suppression.

Order

The landlord’s application for termination is dismissed.

The tenant must remedy the breach of the tenancy agreement by removing the dog from the premises by 5pm on Friday 2 August 2024.

Monita Lornene Victor must pay Emerald Real Estate Limited - as Agent for Vishal Gupta the filing fee of $20.44 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 4 July 2024.

The periodic tenancy started on 29 January 2024. On 13 May 2024 the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, carpet cleaning, an advertising fee, and refund of the bond.

The tenant applied to the Tribunal on 17 May 2024 about an inspection on 4 April 2024. Termination

10pm (i.e., the day before the hearing).

The issue under section 56 of the Act is whether the breach is of such a nature or such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

The landlord’s application has partly succeeded. A direction has been made for the dog to be removed. I award the filing fee.

The tenant requested suppression. The tenant has not been “wholly or substantially” successful in the proceedings. I decline to grant suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4886360 — Rent arrears at 30A Opaheke Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4886360 — Rent arrears at 30A Opaheke Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

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