What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4896540?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Sean Moore at Unit 18, 56 Avalon Street, Richmond,

How much money was awarded in case 4896540?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4896540?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4896540?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10729814-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4896540?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Sean Moore at Unit 18, 56 Avalon Street, Richmond,

How much money was awarded in case 4896540?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4896540?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4896540?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10729814-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 18, 56 Avalon Street, Richmond, Christchurch 8013, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4896540 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Sean Moore at Unit 18, 56 Avalon Street, Richmond, Christchurch 8013, H P Smith Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Wednesday 2 October 2024.
Sean Moore must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $20.44 filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 August 2024.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for the tenant’s failure to comply with breach notices and for causing substantial damage to the premises. Background
This tenancy began in January 2021. The tenant lives alone in the premises.
The tenant perceived that the tenant in the adjoining unit was smoking in front of the units and that the cigarette smoke was entering his unit and doing him harm.
He also had concerns about contaminants in the outside environment generally and believed that smoke was coming through the concrete slab beneath his unit and that he was at risk of harm from them.
Therefore, in December 2022 he set about trying to insulate himself from these perceived dangers by sealing potential entry points with duct tape, silicone and filling compounds. He sealed around windows and doors, extractor fans and covered the soil stack on the roof of the unit. He put damp towels down over the carpet and soap powder, tea bags and coffee powder along the junction of floors and walls.
Unsurprisingly, the landlord was not happy about the tenant’s actions. They were concerned that the tape would lead to damage to the premises by inhibiting ventilation and by the effect of the tape on the surfaces on which they were applied. They were also concerned about the tenant’s safety in the premises if he needed to make a quick exit from them.
The landlord served two breach notices on the tenant on the tenant on 23 April 2024. One was for breach of the tenant’s obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and other for causing damage to the premises. The landlord offered to assist the tenant remove the additions he had made to the premises.
When the landlord inspected the premises on 22 May, the tenant had done nothing to comply with the notices.
Recently, the tenant has removed a significant quantity of his additions to the premises, and he said that he would remove the remaining ones when the weather was warmer, and his budget allows. He said that the air temperature needs to reach 25 Celsius before he can safely remove the remaining tape. An inspection by the landlord on 15 August, the day before the hearing, confirmed the situation.
The landlord’s evidence is that there has already been damage to the premises due to the tenant’s actions and it is likely that they will find more damage when all the additions have been removed and they have properly inspected the premises. They say that the carpet will need to be replaced due to dampness and mould and that there will likely be damage caused by removing the remaining tape and resulting from the build-up of moisture in the premises.
The landlord originally sought a work order but then amended their application to claim termination. At the hearing, they sought to amend their claim to add substantial damage as a ground for termination and I allowed the amendment. Law
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. (s56(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.
The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where the tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises. (s55(1)(b) of the Act). Discussion and Decision
The tenant has put the landlord between a rock and a hard place. The landlord has done their best to resolve this situation without terminating the tenancy but now, they don’t see that that they have any other option.
There has already been damage to the premises due to the tenant’s actions. The carpet will need replacing and it is likely that there will be other damage from removing the remaining tape and from the effects of sealing the premises. If they allow the tenant to attempt to remedy the situation, they fear even more damage and that the tenant will not adequately remediate the consequential damage.
The tenant was not justified in taking the measures he has taken in the belief that they were necessary to protect his wellbeing. If he was concerned about his neighbour smoking, he should have reported it to the landlord and asked them to act. The other reasons for his actions are not rational and no credible evidence has been provided to justify them.
There is no viable or reasonable alternative to terminating the tenancy and giving the landlord vacant possession of the premises so that they can be fully and properly inspected and remediated.
For these reasons it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The landlord needs possession of the premises so that they can mitigate the damage already done and properly remediate the premises.
I am also satisfied that the tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises and that it is likely that there has been more damage from his actions that has yet to be revealed. It follows that the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. There is no realistic prospect of the tenant remedying the situation.
The landlord is willing to allow a generous six weeks for the tenant to vacate and so I have given effect to that in the order.
The landlord has succeeded and so the tenant must pay the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of Sean Moore at Unit 18, 56 Avalon Street, Richmond, Christchurch 8013, H P Smith Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Wednesday 2 October 2024.
Sean Moore must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $20.44 filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 August 2024.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for the tenant’s failure to comply with breach notices and for causing substantial damage to the premises. Background
This tenancy began in January 2021. The tenant lives alone in the premises.
The tenant perceived that the tenant in the adjoining unit was smoking in front of the units and that the cigarette smoke was entering his unit and doing him harm.
He also had concerns about contaminants in the outside environment generally and believed that smoke was coming through the concrete slab beneath his unit and that he was at risk of harm from them.
Therefore, in December 2022 he set about trying to insulate himself from these perceived dangers by sealing potential entry points with duct tape, silicone and filling compounds. He sealed around windows and doors, extractor fans and covered the soil stack on the roof of the unit. He put damp towels down over the carpet and soap powder, tea bags and coffee powder along the junction of floors and walls.
Unsurprisingly, the landlord was not happy about the tenant’s actions. They were concerned that the tape would lead to damage to the premises by inhibiting ventilation and by the effect of the tape on the surfaces on which they were applied. They were also concerned about the tenant’s safety in the premises if he needed to make a quick exit from them.
The landlord served two breach notices on the tenant on the tenant on 23 April 2024. One was for breach of the tenant’s obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and other for causing damage to the premises. The landlord offered to assist the tenant remove the additions he had made to the premises.
When the landlord inspected the premises on 22 May, the tenant had done nothing to comply with the notices.
Recently, the tenant has removed a significant quantity of his additions to the premises, and he said that he would remove the remaining ones when the weather was warmer, and his budget allows. He said that the air temperature needs to reach 25 Celsius before he can safely remove the remaining tape. An inspection by the landlord on 15 August, the day before the hearing, confirmed the situation.
The landlord’s evidence is that there has already been damage to the premises due to the tenant’s actions and it is likely that they will find more damage when all the additions have been removed and they have properly inspected the premises. They say that the carpet will need to be replaced due to dampness and mould and that there will likely be damage caused by removing the remaining tape and resulting from the build-up of moisture in the premises.
The landlord originally sought a work order but then amended their application to claim termination. At the hearing, they sought to amend their claim to add substantial damage as a ground for termination and I allowed the amendment. Law
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. (s56(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.
The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where the tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises. (s55(1)(b) of the Act). Discussion and Decision
The tenant has put the landlord between a rock and a hard place. The landlord has done their best to resolve this situation without terminating the tenancy but now, they don’t see that that they have any other option.
There has already been damage to the premises due to the tenant’s actions. The carpet will need replacing and it is likely that there will be other damage from removing the remaining tape and from the effects of sealing the premises. If they allow the tenant to attempt to remedy the situation, they fear even more damage and that the tenant will not adequately remediate the consequential damage.
The tenant was not justified in taking the measures he has taken in the belief that they were necessary to protect his wellbeing. If he was concerned about his neighbour smoking, he should have reported it to the landlord and asked them to act. The other reasons for his actions are not rational and no credible evidence has been provided to justify them.
There is no viable or reasonable alternative to terminating the tenancy and giving the landlord vacant possession of the premises so that they can be fully and properly inspected and remediated.
For these reasons it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The landlord needs possession of the premises so that they can mitigate the damage already done and properly remediate the premises.
I am also satisfied that the tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises and that it is likely that there has been more damage from his actions that has yet to be revealed. It follows that the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. There is no realistic prospect of the tenant remedying the situation.
The landlord is willing to allow a generous six weeks for the tenant to vacate and so I have given effect to that in the order.
The landlord has succeeded and so the tenant must pay the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4896540 — 14-day notice at Unit 18, 56 Avalon Street, Richmond, Christchurch 8013,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4896540 — 14-day notice at Unit 18, 56 Avalon Street, Richmond, Christchurch 8013,

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