What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4899120?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Maria Zita Mcfarland at apartment 1320, 72 Nelson Street,

How much money was awarded in case 4899120?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4899120?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4899120?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10467446-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4899120?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Maria Zita Mcfarland at apartment 1320, 72 Nelson Street,

How much money was awarded in case 4899120?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4899120?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4899120?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10467446-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Apartment 1320, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4899120 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Maria Zita Mcfarland at apartment 1320, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, Zest is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited, at 11.59pm on Monday 1 July 2024.
The landlord must immediately inform the tenant of this order and provide her with a copy of the order as soon as reasonably possible and in any case within 24 hours of receiving it.
Maria Zita Mcfarland must pay Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited $20.44 immediately for the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is refused.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Both parties attended. Ms Bidois represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Background
The landlord is a social housing provider. It granted a tenancy of the premises to the tenant on 31 March 2021.
The premises consist of an apartment within a body corporate development. The premises are surrounded by other apartments and their occupants, and the body corporate has responsibility for the site.
The tenant is required to comply with the body corporate rules as well as with her tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
There have been numerous complaints from the body corporate to the landlord about the behaviour of the tenant and a guest of the tenant, Mr Phillip Murray.
The complaints include tailgating cars entering through the security gates onto the site, abusing (including racially abusing) the body corporate’s representative on the site, dumping rubbish outside the premises, refusing access to the premises for necessary maintenance, damaging a security camera and stealing mail from the mail room.
The landlord believes that Mr Murray is residing at the premises. The tenancy agreement restricts the number of people who can reside in the premises to one, namely the tenant.
On 14 November 2023, 15 March 2024 and 11 April 2024 the landlord served breach notices on the tenant for the breach of allowing another person to reside in the premises.
On 6 May 2024, the landlord served a breach notice on the tenant for breaches of the tenancy agreement, breaches of the body corporate rules and breaches of the Act, including anti-social behaviour.
The landlord has not served three anti-social behaviour notices under s55A of the Act. 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) of 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. Discussion and Decision
I am satisfied that the tenant has committed the breaches as alleged by the landlord and by the body corporate. She is responsible for Mr Murray’s behaviour because he is her guest.
There was no live evidence from the body corporate, but the written evidence from them is compelling. I see no reason why they would make the detailed and repeated written complaints about the tenant and Mr Murray without good reason.
As well, the tenant did not expressly deny the allegations. She said that she has health problems, and that Mr Murray is her carer. She denied that Mr Murray was residing in the premises with her but at the same time she said, in effect, that she needs 24-hour care from him and that he is of no fixed abode.
I am satisfied from the tenant’s own evidence that Mr Murray is and has been, for all intents and purposes, residing in the premises.
The tenant posed the question, is she required to do without a carer or to vacate the premises? The answer to that is that if the carer is not willing or able to behave reasonably, and she is not willing get another carer who is, then yes she must vacate the premises.
There is no evidence that the tenant has done anything to change Mr Murray’s behaviour or to find another carer who can behave well.
In any case, the tenant is not permitted to have someone else living with her in the premises. There is no evidence that the tenant has attempted to explain her situation to the landlord or to seek the landlord’s permission for the arrangement that she has with Mr Murray.
In my view, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the situation at present is unacceptable for the landlord, the body corporate and for other occupations of the development. The tenant has received plenty of warning, and there is nothing to suggest that she has done anything to address the situation. Nor is there any indication from her that the situation will change.
The tenant said that if the Tribunal terminates her tenancy, she will need at least a month to vacate. Ms Bidois said that given the circumstances, she wanted an order that required the tenant to vacate in no longer than two weeks. I have decided that the tenant must vacate within 14 days. I note that Ms Bidois, on behalf of the landlord, offered to assist the tenant find other accommodation. The tenant rejected that offer.
The landlord has succeeded and so I have ordered the tenant to pay the filing fee.
The landlord’s application requested name suppression, but the issue was not discussed at the hearing. I can see no good reason for name suppression for either party that would overcome the principle of open justice. I have therefore refused name suppression.
Because the tenant does not have an email address, I have ordered the landlord to inform her of this order as soon as they receive it and to provide a copy of it to her within 24 hours.

Order

The tenancy of Maria Zita Mcfarland at apartment 1320, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, Zest is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited, at 11.59pm on Monday 1 July 2024.
The landlord must immediately inform the tenant of this order and provide her with a copy of the order as soon as reasonably possible and in any case within 24 hours of receiving it.
Maria Zita Mcfarland must pay Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited $20.44 immediately for the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is refused.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Both parties attended. Ms Bidois represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Background
The landlord is a social housing provider. It granted a tenancy of the premises to the tenant on 31 March 2021.
The premises consist of an apartment within a body corporate development. The premises are surrounded by other apartments and their occupants, and the body corporate has responsibility for the site.
The tenant is required to comply with the body corporate rules as well as with her tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
There have been numerous complaints from the body corporate to the landlord about the behaviour of the tenant and a guest of the tenant, Mr Phillip Murray.
The complaints include tailgating cars entering through the security gates onto the site, abusing (including racially abusing) the body corporate’s representative on the site, dumping rubbish outside the premises, refusing access to the premises for necessary maintenance, damaging a security camera and stealing mail from the mail room.
The landlord believes that Mr Murray is residing at the premises. The tenancy agreement restricts the number of people who can reside in the premises to one, namely the tenant.
On 14 November 2023, 15 March 2024 and 11 April 2024 the landlord served breach notices on the tenant for the breach of allowing another person to reside in the premises.
On 6 May 2024, the landlord served a breach notice on the tenant for breaches of the tenancy agreement, breaches of the body corporate rules and breaches of the Act, including anti-social behaviour.
The landlord has not served three anti-social behaviour notices under s55A of the Act. 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) of 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. Discussion and Decision
I am satisfied that the tenant has committed the breaches as alleged by the landlord and by the body corporate. She is responsible for Mr Murray’s behaviour because he is her guest.
There was no live evidence from the body corporate, but the written evidence from them is compelling. I see no reason why they would make the detailed and repeated written complaints about the tenant and Mr Murray without good reason.
As well, the tenant did not expressly deny the allegations. She said that she has health problems, and that Mr Murray is her carer. She denied that Mr Murray was residing in the premises with her but at the same time she said, in effect, that she needs 24-hour care from him and that he is of no fixed abode.
I am satisfied from the tenant’s own evidence that Mr Murray is and has been, for all intents and purposes, residing in the premises.
The tenant posed the question, is she required to do without a carer or to vacate the premises? The answer to that is that if the carer is not willing or able to behave reasonably, and she is not willing get another carer who is, then yes she must vacate the premises.
There is no evidence that the tenant has done anything to change Mr Murray’s behaviour or to find another carer who can behave well.
In any case, the tenant is not permitted to have someone else living with her in the premises. There is no evidence that the tenant has attempted to explain her situation to the landlord or to seek the landlord’s permission for the arrangement that she has with Mr Murray.
In my view, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the situation at present is unacceptable for the landlord, the body corporate and for other occupations of the development. The tenant has received plenty of warning, and there is nothing to suggest that she has done anything to address the situation. Nor is there any indication from her that the situation will change.
The tenant said that if the Tribunal terminates her tenancy, she will need at least a month to vacate. Ms Bidois said that given the circumstances, she wanted an order that required the tenant to vacate in no longer than two weeks. I have decided that the tenant must vacate within 14 days. I note that Ms Bidois, on behalf of the landlord, offered to assist the tenant find other accommodation. The tenant rejected that offer.
The landlord has succeeded and so I have ordered the tenant to pay the filing fee.
The landlord’s application requested name suppression, but the issue was not discussed at the hearing. I can see no good reason for name suppression for either party that would overcome the principle of open justice. I have therefore refused name suppression.
Because the tenant does not have an email address, I have ordered the landlord to inform her of this order as soon as they receive it and to provide a copy of it to her within 24 hours.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4899120 — 14-day notice at Apartment 1320, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4899120 — 14-day notice at Apartment 1320, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central,

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