What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4982149?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4982149?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4982149?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4982149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10889332-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4982149?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4982149?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4982149?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4982149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10889332-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

250 Balmoral Drive, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4982149 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The applicant sought termination of the tenancy claiming that the tenant had failed to comply with a 14-day notice and the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986)

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy if it is satisfied that a party has committed a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RTA or tenancy agreement and in the case of a breach capable of remedy a notice was issued specifying the breach and the period of when the breach is to be remedied, and the party has failed to remedy the breach within the required period. (see s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986)

The Tribunal must also consider if, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.

In this case the landlord alleges that the tenant did not remedy the breaches contained in a breach notice dated 6 August 2024.The notice listed breaches that included, exceeding maximum occupancy, unauthorised pets’ illegal substances, exceeding vehicle allowance, damages and unauthorised changes to the premises.

In support of that claim, the landlord produced photos from a routine inspection dated 21 August 2024 which showed a dog and partial tarpaulin fence and items left outside. An earlier inspection dated 17 July 2024 showed a bus parked outside and makeshift fence.

The landlord said that they had not been allowed entry to inspect the premises to confirm if the 14-day breach notice had been complied with.

The tenant said that they had complied with the 14-day notice, except for the window repairs which they were in the process of organising. They had not received formal notice of an inspection and were unwell when the landlord wanted to reinspect.

The tenant said the bus has been removed and she owns the caravan, which is stored at the property, but no one lives in it. The landlord confirmed that the bus has been removed.

The dog was being looked after for someone but has been taken and is not returning.

The tenant confirmed that the person who was living there has left and there are no drugs stored or used at the premises. The tenant agreed that she had constructed a gate and tarpaulin fence for privacy but that these had been taken down and damages fixed. The two doors have also been fixed with a new laundry door being installed.

The tenant denied any Police charges involving illegal substances and the landlord failed to provide any evidence supporting the claim that the tenant had been prosecuted for this.

I find that the landlord has not provided evidence the 14-day notice has not been fully complied with. It is acknowledged that this could be due to the tenant refusing access when they were unwell, but the landlord did not produce a copy of any inspection notice supporting their claim.

The tenant must allow a landlord to inspect a premises after proper notice has been given to confirm that the 14-day notice has been complied with. If the tenant is unwell then they are to reschedule a time.

The applicant has not satisfied me, that it is more likely than not, that the tenant has not complied with the 14-day notice. It would not be equitable to terminate the tenancy on this basis and the application for termination is dismissed. (see s56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

The applicant was not successful and therefore the filing fee is not reimbursed.

Order

The application is dismissed.
The tenant is to allow the landlord to inspect the premises after correct notice has been given.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant sought termination of the tenancy claiming that the tenant had failed to comply with a 14-day notice and the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986)

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy if it is satisfied that a party has committed a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RTA or tenancy agreement and in the case of a breach capable of remedy a notice was issued specifying the breach and the period of when the breach is to be remedied, and the party has failed to remedy the breach within the required period. (see s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986)
The Tribunal must also consider if, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
In this case the landlord alleges that the tenant did not remedy the breaches contained in a breach notice dated 6 August 2024.The notice listed breaches that included, exceeding maximum occupancy, unauthorised pets’ illegal substances, exceeding vehicle allowance, damages and unauthorised changes to the premises.
In support of that claim, the landlord produced photos from a routine inspection dated 21 August 2024 which showed a dog and partial tarpaulin fence and items left outside. An earlier inspection dated 17 July 2024 showed a bus parked outside and makeshift fence.
The landlord said that they had not been allowed entry to inspect the premises to confirm if the 14-day breach notice had been complied with.
The tenant said that they had complied with the 14-day notice, except for the window repairs which they were in the process of organising. They had not received formal notice of an inspection and were unwell when the landlord wanted to reinspect.
The tenant said the bus has been removed and she owns the caravan, which is stored at the property, but no one lives in it. The landlord confirmed that the bus has been removed.
The dog was being looked after for someone but has been taken and is not returning.
The tenant confirmed that the person who was living there has left and there are no drugs stored or used at the premises. The tenant agreed that she had constructed a gate and tarpaulin fence for privacy but that these had been taken down and damages fixed. The two doors have also been fixed with a new laundry door being installed.
The tenant denied any Police charges involving illegal substances and the landlord failed to provide any evidence supporting the claim that the tenant had been prosecuted for this.
I find that the landlord has not provided evidence the 14-day notice has not been fully complied with. It is acknowledged that this could be due to the tenant refusing access when they were unwell, but the landlord did not produce a copy of any inspection notice supporting their claim.
The tenant must allow a landlord to inspect a premises after proper notice has been given to confirm that the 14-day notice has been complied with. If the tenant is unwell then they are to reschedule a time.
The applicant has not satisfied me, that it is more likely than not, that the tenant has not complied with the 14-day notice. It would not be equitable to terminate the tenancy on this basis and the application for termination is dismissed. (see s56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
The applicant was not successful and therefore the filing fee is not reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4982149 — Tenancy dispute at 250 Balmoral Drive, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4982149 — Tenancy dispute at 250 Balmoral Drive, Tokoroa, Tokoroa 3420

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