What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4891742?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Caitlin Siobhan Griffiths at 15 Smitheram Street, Allenton,

How much money was awarded in case 4891742?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4891742?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4891742?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10485205-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4891742?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Caitlin Siobhan Griffiths at 15 Smitheram Street, Allenton,

How much money was awarded in case 4891742?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4891742?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4891742?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10485205-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Smitheram Street, Allenton, Ashburton 7700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4891742 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Caitlin Siobhan Griffiths at 15 Smitheram Street, Allenton, Ashburton 7700 is terminated, and possession is granted to Ashburton Real Estate Limited - as Agent for Tim Eastwood, at 10.30am on Friday 21 June 2024.
Caitlin Siobhan Griffiths must pay Ashburton Real Estate Limited - as Agent for Tim Eastwood $20.44 filing fee immediately.
This order may be enforced immediately but no warrant of possession may be executed before Monday 8 July 2024 without permission of this Tribunal.

Reasons

Ms Sloane attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
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 it (section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).
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.
In this case the tenant has committed various breaches of the Act and the tenancy agreement.
The tenancy began in December 2022. Problems with the tenancy started to arise in October 2023 which coincided with the arrival of the tenant’s partner at the premises. The partner brought with him his dog.
The tenancy agreement limits the number of people residing in the premises to two, being the tenant and her child. It also limits pets to the tenant’s two dogs and a cat.
The arrival of the partner resulted in both those terms being breached. The landlord served a breach notice for them and other breaches on 3 October. The other breaches were for an untidy garden and cars parked on the grass.
The tenant said at the time that her partner was looking for other accommodation but according to the landlord, he is still living at the premises over eight months later.
Subsequently, there have been breach notices for damage to the premises, being two broken windows and a large hole in a hallway wall, and two anti- social behaviour notices. The behaviour complained of consists of loud arguments between the tenant and her partner involving foul language and the partner speeding off in his car.
In total, there have been eight breach notices served on the tenant. She has offered various denials, excuses and explanations but her partner and his dog remain at the premises, the damage to the premises has not been repaired and the garden in unkempt.
There was no evidence of recent complaints of anti-social behaviour, but Ms Sloane suggested that the neighbours have become inured to it. They may also be waiting for the result of this hearing.
I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy due to the number and persistence of the breaches and the tenant’s seeming inability or refusal to take any steps to remedy them. I regard the damage to the premises as substantial, which is a ground alone to terminate the tenancy. Given the circumstances, there is an obvious risk of more damage to the premises occurring if the tenancy is allowed to continue.
I have therefore terminated the tenancy with immediate effect and allowed the landlord to enforce the order immediately. The landlord recognises that the tenant should be allowed a reasonable time to vacate the premises and to comply with her-end-of-tenancy obligations, including repairing the damage. I have therefore directed that no warrant of possession may be executed (meaning a bailiff’s appointment) before 8 July. That will give the tenant 16 days to vacate the premises before she can be evicted.
The landlord has been successful and so I have ordered the tenant to pay the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of Caitlin Siobhan Griffiths at 15 Smitheram Street, Allenton, Ashburton 7700 is terminated, and possession is granted to Ashburton Real Estate Limited - as Agent for Tim Eastwood, at 10.30am on Friday 21 June 2024.
Caitlin Siobhan Griffiths must pay Ashburton Real Estate Limited - as Agent for Tim Eastwood $20.44 filing fee immediately.
This order may be enforced immediately but no warrant of possession may be executed before Monday 8 July 2024 without permission of this Tribunal.

Reasons

Ms Sloane attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
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 it (section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).
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.
In this case the tenant has committed various breaches of the Act and the tenancy agreement.
The tenancy began in December 2022. Problems with the tenancy started to arise in October 2023 which coincided with the arrival of the tenant’s partner at the premises. The partner brought with him his dog.
The tenancy agreement limits the number of people residing in the premises to two, being the tenant and her child. It also limits pets to the tenant’s two dogs and a cat.
The arrival of the partner resulted in both those terms being breached. The landlord served a breach notice for them and other breaches on 3 October. The other breaches were for an untidy garden and cars parked on the grass.
The tenant said at the time that her partner was looking for other accommodation but according to the landlord, he is still living at the premises over eight months later.
Subsequently, there have been breach notices for damage to the premises, being two broken windows and a large hole in a hallway wall, and two anti- social behaviour notices. The behaviour complained of consists of loud arguments between the tenant and her partner involving foul language and the partner speeding off in his car.
In total, there have been eight breach notices served on the tenant. She has offered various denials, excuses and explanations but her partner and his dog remain at the premises, the damage to the premises has not been repaired and the garden in unkempt.
There was no evidence of recent complaints of anti-social behaviour, but Ms Sloane suggested that the neighbours have become inured to it. They may also be waiting for the result of this hearing.
I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy due to the number and persistence of the breaches and the tenant’s seeming inability or refusal to take any steps to remedy them. I regard the damage to the premises as substantial, which is a ground alone to terminate the tenancy. Given the circumstances, there is an obvious risk of more damage to the premises occurring if the tenancy is allowed to continue.
I have therefore terminated the tenancy with immediate effect and allowed the landlord to enforce the order immediately. The landlord recognises that the tenant should be allowed a reasonable time to vacate the premises and to comply with her-end-of-tenancy obligations, including repairing the damage. I have therefore directed that no warrant of possession may be executed (meaning a bailiff’s appointment) before 8 July. That will give the tenant 16 days to vacate the premises before she can be evicted.
The landlord has been successful and so I have ordered the tenant to pay the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4891742 — 14-day notice at 15 Smitheram Street, Allenton, Ashburton 7700

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4891742 — 14-day notice at 15 Smitheram Street, Allenton, Ashburton 7700

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