What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4955693?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4955693?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4955693?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4955693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10909304-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4955693?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4955693?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4955693?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4955693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10909304-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

64 Sunstone Crescent, Brown Owl, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4955693 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Angie Godfrey at 64 Sunstone Crescent, Brown Owl, Upper Hutt 5018 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm on 12 December 2024.

Reasons

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, in particular the tenant failing to allow the landlord entry to the tenancy for inspections following notice.
This matter came to the Tribunal on 3 October 2024. The landlord applied for a termination of the tenancy on the ground that the tenant refused to allow the landlord entry to the premises for inspections. I set out the obligations on the tenant around inspections, and adjourned the hearing for a period of 6 months having set out those obligations, confirming that if there were further episodes of the tenant refusing the landlord entry, the matter could be brought back to me, and I would likely then terminate the tenancy. I now set out the primary parts of my order from 3 October 2024: Failure to allow the landlord entry.
The second claim from the landlord relates to a tenant not allowing entry.
The Property Manager states that the previous property manager had handed back the property to the owner, because the tenant was difficult to engage with.
The landlord states often when inspections are being undertaken, the tenant will leave a note saying they cannot get in, or the tenant would put a metal rod at the bottom of the door so the landlord could not get in, or the door would be barricaded in some way.
The tenant states that on one occasion the landlord entered the premises after the landlord being told she was unwell. Otherwise the tenant states that the lock is faulty
The landlord disputes that the lock does not work. Further the landlord states that the tenant put a plate on the back door so the door could not be opened, and on another occasion, the front door has been barricaded. Analysis
Again at the hearing I confirmed to the tenant, that there is a statutory right for the landlord to undertake inspections of the premises. Section 48 of the RTA confirms that the landlord can undertake inspections every 4 weeks (at most), and with 48 hours notice. If that notice is given, then the tenant must permit the inspection unless she has good reason not to allow it.
If what the landlord told me was correct, that the tenant was in effect barricading or interfering with the door so the landlord could not get in, then the tenant would be breaching her obligation to allow the landlord entry.
However I will give the benefit of the doubt to the tenant having clarified the situation. But in doing so, I will adjourn this claim only for 6 months. If the landlord continues to be barred from entering the premises for an inspection after notice, then the landlord can ask for the termination application to be considered at that time. If such a request is made, I direct the application be referred back to myself.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have indicated to the Tenant that if the matter returns in the next six months, and I find then that she has not reasonably allowed the landlord entry for inspections, then it is likely the tenancy will be terminated at that time.
However, having clarified matters in this decision, I am hopeful that the parties will use this as an opportunity to draw a line in the sand, and move forward in their landlord / tenant relationship on a better footing.
The landlord has requested a further hearing, and again seeks a termination of the tenancy on the basis that despite (multiple) further requests for inspection, the tenant has not allowed those to occur.
I convened a telephone video hearing on 4 December 2024 to consider that further request, although the tenant attended the hearing by phone. Current position of the parties
The landlord seeks a termination of the tenancy. The landlord states that a notice of inspection was sent for 23 October 2024, however the tenant requested a rescheduling of the inspection on the ground that the tenant’s daughter was in labour, and the landlord agreed to a later inspection date of inspection on 25 October. However again the tenant requested another date. It was agreed to an inspection on 29 October. The tenant then requested on 28 October that the date be changed yet again.
The landlord then issued the tenant a 14 day notice of a breach around failure to allow the inspection and advising of an inspection for 12 November 2024.
On 12 November 2024, the landlord arrived for an inspection in the morning, finding a note left on the door stating that the landlord was not to enter because the tenant was in the shower with a baby, and asking the landlord to go back in an hour. The landlord returned later in the afternoon and stated the sign was still on the door. The landlord tried to open the front door, but the keys would not work. The landlord then tried the back door, but that was blocked so it could not be opened. The landlord states that they stayed at the house for about 20 minutes knocking on the door, and there was no answer. The tenant’s cars were there, but no one answered the door.
The landlord states that efforts were made to contact the tenant, but she would not respond.
The tenant states in response that the front door lock is ‘playing up’ and needs to be fixed.
The tenant says she has no communication because her phone is playing up (although I note that the tenant was attending the hearing by telephone).
The tenant states her grandchild was born on 26 October 2025. The tenant stated there was a high risk of lung infections, and they did not want anyone to come into the house because of that risk.
The tenant states that on 12 November the child was with the tenant, and they were in the shower in the morning. Then she went out with her daughter, and then came home, assuming the inspection had occurred.
The tenant says that she has been complaining about the door lock, and the tenant disputes that the back door has been barricaded, stating that the tenant’s daughter would use the back door.
I note the landlord responded that no request around the door lock had been made, although I observe that was noted at the earlier hearing.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
On balance, I consider it more likely than not that the tenant has unreasonably refused the landlord entry to the premises. The evidence at the first hearing came very close to supporting a termination then, but the tenant was given a final opportunity to allow the landlord entry, but has failed to so, even after my putting the tenant on notice of what the consequence would be for continued failure to allow entry.
I accept that the landlord gave the tenant notice. Plainly the tenant was aware of the inspection, given her note on the door that the landlord was not to enter the premises. I accept that note was left on the door all day, being there in the afternoon when the landlord returned.
I am not persuaded that the lock was faulty, the tenant has provided no evidence of that other than her verbal statement. I also accept that the back door was blocked as the landlord described it. If the lock was faulty, then the tenant could have formally requested the landlord to repair the lock, and presumably, it would have also meant she could not enter the premises herself.
The tenant has provided me with no medical evidence to support that it would be medically unreasonable to allow the landlord to enter the premises for an inspection. I note that the tenant’s evidence was that on the afternoon of 12 November the tenant and her daughter, and presumably the child, left the premises. It is difficult to understand why there would be any greater infection risk for the child going into the community as opposed to a property inspection.
For those reasons I find that a breach has occurred.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the landlord has a statutory right to inspect the premises which I consider the tenant is denying. Further I consider the extent of the opportunities the tenant had to remedy the breach, and the number of times the landlord tried to undertake the inspection, does support sufficient gravity to require termination of the tenancy. Termination is ordered.
The landlord has applied for name suppression which is granted given the landlord has been wholly successful in this hearing.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Angie Godfrey at 64 Sunstone Crescent, Brown Owl, Upper Hutt 5018 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm on 12 December 2024.

Reasons

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, in particular the tenant failing to allow the landlord entry to the tenancy for inspections following notice.
This matter came to the Tribunal on 3 October 2024. The landlord applied for a termination of the tenancy on the ground that the tenant refused to allow the landlord entry to the premises for inspections. I set out the obligations on the tenant around inspections, and adjourned the hearing for a period of 6 months having set out those obligations, confirming that if there were further episodes of the tenant refusing the landlord entry, the matter could be brought back to me, and I would likely then terminate the tenancy. I now set out the primary parts of my order from 3 October 2024: Failure to allow the landlord entry.
The second claim from the landlord relates to a tenant not allowing entry.
The Property Manager states that the previous property manager had handed back the property to the owner, because the tenant was difficult to engage with.
The landlord states often when inspections are being undertaken, the tenant will leave a note saying they cannot get in, or the tenant would put a metal rod at the bottom of the door so the landlord could not get in, or the door would be barricaded in some way.
The tenant states that on one occasion the landlord entered the premises after the landlord being told she was unwell. Otherwise the tenant states that the lock is faulty
The landlord disputes that the lock does not work. Further the landlord states that the tenant put a plate on the back door so the door could not be opened, and on another occasion, the front door has been barricaded. Analysis
Again at the hearing I confirmed to the tenant, that there is a statutory right for the landlord to undertake inspections of the premises. Section 48 of the RTA confirms that the landlord can undertake inspections every 4 weeks (at most), and with 48 hours notice. If that notice is given, then the tenant must permit the inspection unless she has good reason not to allow it.
If what the landlord told me was correct, that the tenant was in effect barricading or interfering with the door so the landlord could not get in, then the tenant would be breaching her obligation to allow the landlord entry.
However I will give the benefit of the doubt to the tenant having clarified the situation. But in doing so, I will adjourn this claim only for 6 months. If the landlord continues to be barred from entering the premises for an inspection after notice, then the landlord can ask for the termination application to be considered at that time. If such a request is made, I direct the application be referred back to myself.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have indicated to the Tenant that if the matter returns in the next six months, and I find then that she has not reasonably allowed the landlord entry for inspections, then it is likely the tenancy will be terminated at that time.
However, having clarified matters in this decision, I am hopeful that the parties will use this as an opportunity to draw a line in the sand, and move forward in their landlord / tenant relationship on a better footing.
The landlord has requested a further hearing, and again seeks a termination of the tenancy on the basis that despite (multiple) further requests for inspection, the tenant has not allowed those to occur.
I convened a telephone video hearing on 4 December 2024 to consider that further request, although the tenant attended the hearing by phone. Current position of the parties
The landlord seeks a termination of the tenancy. The landlord states that a notice of inspection was sent for 23 October 2024, however the tenant requested a rescheduling of the inspection on the ground that the tenant’s daughter was in labour, and the landlord agreed to a later inspection date of inspection on 25 October. However again the tenant requested another date. It was agreed to an inspection on 29 October. The tenant then requested on 28 October that the date be changed yet again.
The landlord then issued the tenant a 14 day notice of a breach around failure to allow the inspection and advising of an inspection for 12 November 2024.
On 12 November 2024, the landlord arrived for an inspection in the morning, finding a note left on the door stating that the landlord was not to enter because the tenant was in the shower with a baby, and asking the landlord to go back in an hour. The landlord returned later in the afternoon and stated the sign was still on the door. The landlord tried to open the front door, but the keys would not work. The landlord then tried the back door, but that was blocked so it could not be opened. The landlord states that they stayed at the house for about 20 minutes knocking on the door, and there was no answer. The tenant’s cars were there, but no one answered the door.
The landlord states that efforts were made to contact the tenant, but she would not respond.
The tenant states in response that the front door lock is ‘playing up’ and needs to be fixed.
The tenant says she has no communication because her phone is playing up (although I note that the tenant was attending the hearing by telephone).
The tenant states her grandchild was born on 26 October 2025. The tenant stated there was a high risk of lung infections, and they did not want anyone to come into the house because of that risk.
The tenant states that on 12 November the child was with the tenant, and they were in the shower in the morning. Then she went out with her daughter, and then came home, assuming the inspection had occurred.
The tenant says that she has been complaining about the door lock, and the tenant disputes that the back door has been barricaded, stating that the tenant’s daughter would use the back door.
I note the landlord responded that no request around the door lock had been made, although I observe that was noted at the earlier hearing.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
On balance, I consider it more likely than not that the tenant has unreasonably refused the landlord entry to the premises. The evidence at the first hearing came very close to supporting a termination then, but the tenant was given a final opportunity to allow the landlord entry, but has failed to so, even after my putting the tenant on notice of what the consequence would be for continued failure to allow entry.
I accept that the landlord gave the tenant notice. Plainly the tenant was aware of the inspection, given her note on the door that the landlord was not to enter the premises. I accept that note was left on the door all day, being there in the afternoon when the landlord returned.
I am not persuaded that the lock was faulty, the tenant has provided no evidence of that other than her verbal statement. I also accept that the back door was blocked as the landlord described it. If the lock was faulty, then the tenant could have formally requested the landlord to repair the lock, and presumably, it would have also meant she could not enter the premises herself.
The tenant has provided me with no medical evidence to support that it would be medically unreasonable to allow the landlord to enter the premises for an inspection. I note that the tenant’s evidence was that on the afternoon of 12 November the tenant and her daughter, and presumably the child, left the premises. It is difficult to understand why there would be any greater infection risk for the child going into the community as opposed to a property inspection.
For those reasons I find that a breach has occurred.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the landlord has a statutory right to inspect the premises which I consider the tenant is denying. Further I consider the extent of the opportunities the tenant had to remedy the breach, and the number of times the landlord tried to undertake the inspection, does support sufficient gravity to require termination of the tenancy. Termination is ordered.
The landlord has applied for name suppression which is granted given the landlord has been wholly successful in this hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4955693 — Tenancy dispute at 64 Sunstone Crescent, Brown Owl, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4955693 — Tenancy dispute at 64 Sunstone Crescent, Brown Owl, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions