What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4911213?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Paumea McKay at Flat 4, 29 Bonnett Road, Kaitaia 0410 is

How much money was awarded in case 4911213?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911213?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10925970-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4911213?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Paumea McKay at Flat 4, 29 Bonnett Road, Kaitaia 0410 is

How much money was awarded in case 4911213?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4911213?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4911213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10925970-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 4, 29 Bonnett Road, Kaitaia 0410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4911213 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenancy of Paumea McKay at Flat 4, 29 Bonnett Road, Kaitaia 0410 is terminated, and possession is granted to Far North Real Estate (2010) Limited, at 12.00 noon on Monday 21 October 2024.
Paumea McKay must pay Far North Real Estate (2010) Limited $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee for this application.

Reasons

Background

The application seeks termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant: a. Exceeded the maximum number of occupants permitted in the tenancy agreement. b. Carried out alterations to the premises without consent.
The hearing took place in Kaitaia on 8 October 2024. Ms Ponsonby and Ms Vokins represented the landlord at the hearing. There was no appearance by Mr McKay. Findings
The Tenancy Tribunal may make an order terminating a tenancy if: 1 a. The tenant has breached a term of the tenancy agreement or of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986; and b. In the case of a breach that is capable of being remedied, the landlord gave the tenant a notice describing the breach and allowing the tenant a reasonable period of time (not less than 14-days) to remedy the breach; and c. The breach was not remedied within the notice period; and d. The nature and extent of the breach is such that it would be unreasonable to refuse the request for termination.
On 23 May 2024, the landlord issued a breach notice in respect of exceeding the maximum number of occupants permitted under the terms of the written tenancy agreement. The maximum number of occupants is one. Mr McKay had one other person living there and indicated that he may bring in two more.
Mr McKay did not remedy the breach within the 14-day period stipulated in the breach notice.
On 3 July, Mr McKay sent the landlord a defiant and largely nonsensical letter using language and style associated with the pseudolegal Freeman on the land / Sovereign Citizen movement. The “legal” arguments promoted by this movement have not been successfully argued in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world during its approximately 30-year history.
At the hearing today Ms Ponsonby noted that Mr McKay seems to be living on his own again, not due to any voluntary compliance with his obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement, but due to a “falling out” with the unlawful additional occupant.
The alleged continuing breach relates to what Mr McKay has done to the gardens and exterior of the property.
The landlord gave consent for Mr McKay to have a small raised garden and a small kitset shed.
Mr McKay has instead: a. Established a temporary shelter with a tarpaulin, attached to the fence. b. Brought in a substantial amount of roofing iron, which is piled in a stack on the lawn. c. Used the existing boxed garden to pile up bottles and other rubbish rather than to grow things in it. 1 Section 56, Residential Tenancies Act 1986 d. Buried food scraps in the garden causing a rat problem. e. Began work on created new ‘paths’ in the lawn, without the landlord’s consent. f. Dug out the base of the wooden fence and put roofing iron against it. g. Dumped soil on the lawn at the side of the unit.
The landlord issued a breach notice about this on 23 May 2024. The notice includes a letter detailing the breaches, noting that the tenant does not have permission to landscape or to lay a footpath, and that the tenant does have an obligation to keep the grounds in a reasonably tidy condition.
Ms Ponsonby provided photographs, taken on the day of the hearing, showing that the situation has worsened since May.
Again, Mr McKay’s only response has been Sovereign Citizen jargon.
To be clear: a. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies to this tenancy. b. The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy that the RTA applies to. 2 c. That jurisdiction does not depend on the consent of either the landlord or the tenant.
Mr McKay has breached the RTA by: a. Failing to keep the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. 3 b. Carrying out alterations to the premises without the landlord’s consent. 4
The breaches are capable of being remedied. The landlord gave the tenant notices of the breaches and allowed a reasonable period of time for the tenant to remedy them.
The tenant failed to remedy the breaches.
I am satisfied that would be inequitable to refuse the landlord’s request for termination having regard to the following factors: a. The unconsented alterations have increased and are likely to continue to increase given Mr McKay’s unrepentant attitude and his false believe that tenancy law does not apply to him and that Raine & Horne is not the landlord. 5 2 Section 77(1) RTA 3 Section 40(1)(c) RTA 4 Section 42(1) RTA 5 The definition of landlord in the RTA includes an agent of the landlord (section 2 RTA) b. Mr McKay has also threatened to make unconsented alterations to the unit itself. c. The state of the garden, and Mr McKay’s attitude, is causing distress to the occupants of the adjoining units.
The tenancy is terminated.
Far North Real Estate (2010) Limited has succeeded in this application and I must also award them the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of Paumea McKay at Flat 4, 29 Bonnett Road, Kaitaia 0410 is terminated, and possession is granted to Far North Real Estate (2010) Limited, at 12.00 noon on Monday 21 October 2024.
Paumea McKay must pay Far North Real Estate (2010) Limited $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee for this application.

Reasons

Background

The application seeks termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant: a. Exceeded the maximum number of occupants permitted in the tenancy agreement. b. Carried out alterations to the premises without consent.
The hearing took place in Kaitaia on 8 October 2024. Ms Ponsonby and Ms Vokins represented the landlord at the hearing. There was no appearance by Mr McKay. Findings
The Tenancy Tribunal may make an order terminating a tenancy if: 1 a. The tenant has breached a term of the tenancy agreement or of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986; and b. In the case of a breach that is capable of being remedied, the landlord gave the tenant a notice describing the breach and allowing the tenant a reasonable period of time (not less than 14-days) to remedy the breach; and c. The breach was not remedied within the notice period; and d. The nature and extent of the breach is such that it would be unreasonable to refuse the request for termination.
On 23 May 2024, the landlord issued a breach notice in respect of exceeding the maximum number of occupants permitted under the terms of the written tenancy agreement. The maximum number of occupants is one. Mr McKay had one other person living there and indicated that he may bring in two more.
Mr McKay did not remedy the breach within the 14-day period stipulated in the breach notice.
On 3 July, Mr McKay sent the landlord a defiant and largely nonsensical letter using language and style associated with the pseudolegal Freeman on the land / Sovereign Citizen movement. The “legal” arguments promoted by this movement have not been successfully argued in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world during its approximately 30-year history.
At the hearing today Ms Ponsonby noted that Mr McKay seems to be living on his own again, not due to any voluntary compliance with his obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement, but due to a “falling out” with the unlawful additional occupant.
The alleged continuing breach relates to what Mr McKay has done to the gardens and exterior of the property.
The landlord gave consent for Mr McKay to have a small raised garden and a small kitset shed.
Mr McKay has instead: a. Established a temporary shelter with a tarpaulin, attached to the fence. b. Brought in a substantial amount of roofing iron, which is piled in a stack on the lawn. c. Used the existing boxed garden to pile up bottles and other rubbish rather than to grow things in it. 1 Section 56, Residential Tenancies Act 1986 d. Buried food scraps in the garden causing a rat problem. e. Began work on created new ‘paths’ in the lawn, without the landlord’s consent. f. Dug out the base of the wooden fence and put roofing iron against it. g. Dumped soil on the lawn at the side of the unit.
The landlord issued a breach notice about this on 23 May 2024. The notice includes a letter detailing the breaches, noting that the tenant does not have permission to landscape or to lay a footpath, and that the tenant does have an obligation to keep the grounds in a reasonably tidy condition.
Ms Ponsonby provided photographs, taken on the day of the hearing, showing that the situation has worsened since May.
Again, Mr McKay’s only response has been Sovereign Citizen jargon.
To be clear: a. The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies to this tenancy. b. The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy that the RTA applies to. 2 c. That jurisdiction does not depend on the consent of either the landlord or the tenant.
Mr McKay has breached the RTA by: a. Failing to keep the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. 3 b. Carrying out alterations to the premises without the landlord’s consent. 4
The breaches are capable of being remedied. The landlord gave the tenant notices of the breaches and allowed a reasonable period of time for the tenant to remedy them.
The tenant failed to remedy the breaches.
I am satisfied that would be inequitable to refuse the landlord’s request for termination having regard to the following factors: a. The unconsented alterations have increased and are likely to continue to increase given Mr McKay’s unrepentant attitude and his false believe that tenancy law does not apply to him and that Raine & Horne is not the landlord. 5 2 Section 77(1) RTA 3 Section 40(1)(c) RTA 4 Section 42(1) RTA 5 The definition of landlord in the RTA includes an agent of the landlord (section 2 RTA) b. Mr McKay has also threatened to make unconsented alterations to the unit itself. c. The state of the garden, and Mr McKay’s attitude, is causing distress to the occupants of the adjoining units.
The tenancy is terminated.
Far North Real Estate (2010) Limited has succeeded in this application and I must also award them the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911213 — Tenancy dispute at Flat 4, 29 Bonnett Road, Kaitaia 0410

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4911213 — Tenancy dispute at Flat 4, 29 Bonnett Road, Kaitaia 0410

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions