What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4916933?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kimberly Pegler Davies at Unit/Flat 3, 21 Third Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 4916933?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916933?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10555973-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4916933?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kimberly Pegler Davies at Unit/Flat 3, 21 Third Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 4916933?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916933?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10555973-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 21 Third Avenue, Avenues, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4916933 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The tenancy of Kimberly Pegler Davies at Unit/Flat 3, 21 Third Avenue, Avenues, Whangarei 0110 is terminated, and possession is granted to Olga Vladimirovna Neunzerling, at 11.59pm on 9 July 2024.

The Bond Centre is to pay $20.44 from the bond (3218617-018) to Olga Vladimirovna Neunzerling immediately to reimburse her for the filing fee. The remainder of the bond is to remain at the bond centre pending further order of the Tribunal or the agreement by the parties.

The landlord’s claim in relation to compensation for damage to light switches is withdrawn.

The landlord’s claim in relation to compensation for damage to the wall is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served and so the hearing proceeded in her absence.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, assault and damage. The landlord says that the tenant has assaulted neighbours, caused damage to the premises and has caused the surrounding neighbours and tenants to be fearful and to have suffer loss. The landlord also referred to the tenant exceeding the permitted occupancy by having her boyfriend live at the property.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Olga Vladimirovna Neunzerling claims the tenant has disturbed the neighbours. A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

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. See section 56(1) RTA.

Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.

I find that the tenant has breached her obligation not to interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood because: a. The tenant lives in one of six flats. b. I heard how the tenant caused significant damage to a neighbour’s car and I accept this evidence. I heard how the tenant had taken a crowbar to the car hitting it multiple times and slashed the tyres with a knife. I heard direct evidence from a witness who says he saw this activity from his own flat and this was also supported by two statements (including one by the person who I heard direct evidence from) that were taken by the police in relation to the incident. Photographic evidence of the damage was also provided. c. I also heard from the same witness how the tenant had threatened to damage his van. This is also supported in a statement given to the police. d. I also heard from the same witness how the tenant had often used racial slurs against him and his wife. This is also supported in the statement given to the police. e. I also heard from this same witness how the tenant had been abusive towards him and his wife, including slapping his wife. The witness said his wife was slapped around her head but that he did not see this himself. However, the fact an assault occurred is however supported by the police produced witness statement. Although the purpose of that police statement was the incident relating to the car, the statement also refers to the assault. In the absence of any evidence from the tenant this, in itself, is sufficient to terminate the tenancy under s 55(1)(c) RTA. f. I heard from the witness that he was moving out. He says he will be leaving as he does not feel safe especially for his wife.

Additional statements were provided from others living in the flats.

A police statement and a written statement is provided by a neighbour who is the owner of the vehicle referred to above relating to that incident. This supports the witness’s account. An email from the same neighbour refers to the tenant using abusive language and throwing pots. Photographs provided support this.

I also have a written statement from another tenant of the landlord. It sets out a separate incident of the tenant interfering with their car, racial abuse and says the tenant ‘beat on my husband’s hand’. This statement carries less weight as it is not supported by a formal police witness statement and the witness was not available to give evidence to the Tribunal. I cannot find that it is more likely than not that any assault took place from this limited evidence. However, this statement does corroborate the evidence given by the witness in relation to general abusive language and attacks on cars.

I find that this breach is not capable of remedy because the effect of the incidents cannot be undone. The breach is serious. The witnesses spoke of being fearful for themselves and their neighbourhood. This is echoed in the written information filed from the other tenants/neighbours.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the impact this behaviour has had on the neighbourhood.

The tenancy is therefore terminated. I have terminated the tenancy immediately due to the nature of the breach.

Even if I am wrong in this, I am satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant is also causing substantial damage to the premises (s 55(1)(b), RTA).

The landlord provided photographs of multiple large holes caused to the walls at the property. She provided evidence showing only minor marking to the walls prior to the tenancy starting. I accept her evidence that the holes pictured were caused during the course of the tenancy. I accept that they are substantial. Some of them are large and they are in both the lounge and the bedroom and this is a one bedroomed flat.

I do not however award compensation in relation to this damage. The landlord says that she was not interested in pursing this. There was no invoice to support any compensation claim. She took the view she would fix it but that she was mainly concerned for the neighbourhood.

The landlord withdrew her claim in relation to the light switches she says the tenant damaged. Occupancy

The landlord says that the tenant has the maximum occupancy permitted by the tenancy agreement that specified one person. She says her boyfriend is living there. However, there was insufficient evidence to support this. In any event, 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. No such notice has been provided. I have not taken this into account when making my decision to terminate the tenancy. Filing fee

As the landlord was the substantially successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee from the bond.

The remainder of the bond is to remain at the Bond Centre until further order of the Tribunal or agreement between the landlord and the tenant.