What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5024308?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Yvanna Tomars at 54 Wrathall Road, Mangonui, Mangonui

How much money was awarded in case 5024308?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5024308?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5024308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11094969-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5024308?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Yvanna Tomars at 54 Wrathall Road, Mangonui, Mangonui

How much money was awarded in case 5024308?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5024308?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5024308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11094969-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

54 Wrathall Road, Mangonui, Mangonui 0420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5024308 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Yvanna Tomars at 54 Wrathall Road, Mangonui, Mangonui 0420 is terminated, and possession is granted to Far North Circle Real Estate Limited t/a Ray White Kaitaia as Agent for Paul Travers , at 11:59pm on Sunday 8 December 2024, unless the tenant ends the tenancy earlier on 48 hours’ notice in writing to the landlord.
Yvanna Tomars must pay Far North Circle Real Estate Limited t/a Ray White Kaitaia as Agent for Paul Travers $27.00 immediately being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference Background
The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy earlier this year. An Order was made by the Tribunal on 20 March 2024 in application 4800717 (“March Order”). The March Order dismissed the application for termination because: a. the anti-social behaviour which the landlord had alleged, and which formed the basis for anti-social behaviour notices issued to the tenant, were not seen as sufficiently connected to the premises; b. although the tenant had breached the agreement by having a dog at the premises “....it would be inequitable to terminate the tenancy because the offending dog, that was living at the premises, has now been destroyed and the tenant no longer has pets. In that sense the breach has been unequivocally remedied. The dog is dead it will not be returning.
The March Order also notes, “Had she not had the dog destroyed then the termination would have been immediate. If she offends again then the Tribunal is likely to take account of prior offending”
The landlord applied for a re-hearing which was granted but the application was later withdrawn.
This application is brought on the basis that there have been further breaches of the tenants’ obligations. The alleged breaches are that: a. a person (Mr Harrison) at the premises with the tenant’s consent, burgled a neighbouring property; and b. the dog referred to in the March Order remains alive and present at the premises. The Evidence Burglary
The landlord has provided a statement from the occupiers of a neighbouring property stating that, “Mr. Harrison... and his mate attempted to break into our car at 2:41am on Saturday 28 September, parked in our driveway. His mate was interrupted picking our car lock, Mr. Harrison was breaking into our boat and stole items from my property. They were chased off and had returned 45 Wrathall Rd we saw them walk down the steps into the garage. Once we confirmed it was them via security camera footage we then yelled at them to tell them we had them on camera and they would hear from police. We went over to 45 Wrathall Rd later that day to confront the residents that we wanted our things back and to return them to our driveway by the end of weekend, but no one was home. At that point we saw our craypot that was stolen, wedged between the house and the garage. Photos and video was taken and submitted to police, we left it there as evidence.”
In relation to that incident a report from the police states, “On Wednesday the 2nd of October 2024 police executed a search warrant at 54 Wrathall Rd. as well as another Wrathell Rd address looking for stolen property, Mr Harrison was the subject of this investigation. Police arrested Mr. Harrison. At the time of arrest he was in possession of keys to 54 Wrathell Rd. He used these keys to open the door and upload some of his property from the address. He also stored a three legged dog at the address prior to police transporting him.”
The tenant’s evidence, supported by that of Mr Harrison's mother, is that Mr Harrison no longer lives at the premises and nor does Cruise. They do remain in contact and Mr Harrison sometimes comes to the premises. The tenant disputes that at the time of the alleged offending for which Mr. Harrison has now been charged, he was a resident at the premises or there with her permission. The Dog
The dog in question is a distinctive 3 legged dog named Cruise.
Evidence from the police statement regarding Cruise is as follows: a. “On the 29th of April 2024 police located a vehicle at 54 Wrathall Rd that was required to be impounded for failing to stop for police and dangerous driving. Police executed a search warrant at the address and seized the vehicle in question. Present at the address was Mr. Harrison and he had his three legged dog at the address with him. The three legged dog attacked an attending police officer at the address and caused a puncture wound which required medical attention. b. On the 25th of May 2024 police attended a domestic dispute at 54 Wrathall Rd. Present at the address was Mr Harrison. It has been identified by police that Mr Harrison is in a domestic relationship with the tenant at 54 Wrathall Rd.”
As noted, the tenant disputes that Cruise either Mr Harrison or Cruise are living at her address. Mr Harrison's mother confirms that they are living with her.
The tenant also disputes the police evidence that Cruise attacked the police officer on the date alleged or that there was a domestic dispute at the tenancy address, saying that she and Mr Harrison were elsewhere, and police brought her home. The Law
Section 56(1) RTA provides: “On an application made to it under this section by the landlord or the tenant, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— (a) the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement (including provisions relating to the payment of rent) or of this Act; and (b) in the case of a breach capable of remedy,— (i) the applicant gave to the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given; and (ii) the other party failed to remedy the default within the required period; and (c) that the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.”
Under s.41 RTA, “The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.”
As this is a civil not a criminal jurisdiction, the applicant is required to prove the facts on which the application is based on the balance of probabilities ie. more likely than not, not beyond reasonable doubt.
The evidence persuades me that it is more likely than not that Mr Harrison took property from a neighbouring resident. Had the tenant engaged in that conduct it would have been a breach of her obligation under s. 40(2)(c) not to, “...cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.”
The issue is whether the tenant is responsible for Mr Harrison's conduct because he was at the premises with her permission. The evidence persuades me on balance that the Mr Harrison was a regular visitor to the premises and was given access to the premises by the tenant. The evidence suggests that Mr Harrison used that access as a base from which to visit the neighbouring property and to store stolen property.
For those reasons I find that Mr. Harrison was at the premises with the tenants’ permission and the tenant is accordingly responsible for his actions.
With regard to Cruise’s presence on the property, the tenant says that she had good reason to believe that Cruise had been put down her when she gave that evidence to the Tribunal at the hearing in March.
I have listened to the recording of that hearing. The adjudicator was told unequivocally by the tenant that Cruise had been out down. She offered to provide confirming evidence from the friend who the tenant had been looking after Cruise for.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that she had been led to believe that Cruise had been destroyed and was not deliberately misleading the Tribunal at the earlier hearing.
Nevertheless, the March Order makes it clear that had the adjudicator not been wrongly told that Cruise had been put down, the Tribunal is likely to have made an order then ending the tenancy.
The police statement satisfies me that Cruise has been brought to the property more than once and on one of those occasions again bit someone.
It may be that Cruise was brought to the premises by Mr Harrison at times when the tenant was not there but for the reasons given above, I find that the tenant is liable for Mr Harrison's actions while at the premises.
For the purposes of s.56 I find that the tenant has committed breaches of the agreement. Those breaches are not capable of remedy.
I need to consider then whether those breaches are of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable to refuse an order terminating the tenancy.
The March Order makes it clear how seriously the Tribunal views having an unapproved dog at a tenancy, particularly one that bites.
The Order also makes it clear that the Tribunal would likely take past beaches into account in looking at further applications.
The breaches are extremely serious, involving alleged burglary of a neighbouring property and continuing to have a dog at the premises which the tenant knew breached her tenancy in a fundamental way.
Since the March Order was issued: a. the tenant has been issued with breach notices for dogs being on the premises, on 27 August 2024 and 3 October 2024; b. the police evidence is that Cruise was also there on 29 April 2024.
I accept that the behaviour that breached the agreement may not have been the tenant’s own behaviour, but she has a responsibility to manage the behaviour of people she allows to be at the premises.
For those reasons I find that it would be inequitable to the landlord not to make an Order terminating the tenancy and an Order is made accordingly.
The tenant’s tenancy is being ended largely due to the actions of others and for that reason the Order is not for immediate termination.
Because the landlord has succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5024308 — 14-day notice at 54 Wrathall Road, Mangonui, Mangonui 0420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5024308 — 14-day notice at 54 Wrathall Road, Mangonui, Mangonui 0420

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