What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5029988?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Anthony James Haenga and Anita Tohu Gregory at 39

How much money was awarded in case 5029988?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5029988?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5029988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11073803-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5029988?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Anthony James Haenga and Anita Tohu Gregory at 39

How much money was awarded in case 5029988?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5029988?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5029988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11073803-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

39 Malaspina Place, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5029988 — Unit Titles

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The tenancy of Anthony James Haenga and Anita Tohu Gregory at 39 Malaspina Place, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 is terminated, and possession is granted to Baath Rentals Limited - as Agent for Shareeltika Darshani and Chandra Bhusan Mishra, immediately.

Anthony James Haenga and Anita Tohu Gregory must pay Baath Rentals Limited - as Agent for Shareeltika Darshani and Chandra Bhusan Mishra $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenants were unable to be contacted on the phone number specified in the Notice of hearing, which was duly served.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.

Section 55A RTA does not apply here as this was not a periodic tenancy and the notices given did not comply with the requirements of s55A(2)(b).

Multiple notices were however given by the landlord to the tenants, notifying the tenants that they were in breach of their obligations under the RTA not to interfere with the peace, comfort or privacy of the neighbours, requiring that they not continue to engage in such behaviours and putting the tenants on notice that if it continued, termination of the tenancy would be sought.

Notices to that effect were given on:

9.24

10.24

The landlord has provided copies of letters of complaint from several neighbours, which provides consistent evidence about the tenants’ behaviours and its negative effect on the neighbours’ peaceful enjoyment of their homes.

Evidence has also been provided of a notice received from the Body Corporate manager that the tenants’ behavioue constituted a breach by the landlord of the Body Corporate rules.

The evidence provided by the landlord satisfies me that: a. The tenants have breached their obligation under s.40(2)(c) not to: “...cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood”; b. in terms of s.56(1)(b) the tenants have been given notice of the breaches and that the behaviours must not continue; c. the breaches of s.40(2)(c) have continued in spite of those notices; and d. in terms of s.56(1)(c) the breaches are of such a nature and extent that it would be inequitable tor refuse an Order terminating the tenancy.

The tenancy is accordingly terminated.

Because Baath Rentals Limited - as Agent for Shareeltika Darshani and Chandra Bhusan Mishra has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Anthony James Haenga and Anita Tohu Gregory must pay Baath Rentals Limited - as Agent for Shareeltika Darshani and Chandra Bhusan Mishra $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenants were unable to be contacted on the phone number specified in the Notice of hearing, which was duly served.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.

Section 55A RTA does not apply here as this was not a periodic tenancy and the notices given did not comply with the requirements of s55A(2)(b).

Notices to that effect were given on:

9.24

10.24

Evidence has also been provided of a notice received from the Body Corporate manager that the tenants’ behavioue constituted a breach by the landlord of the Body Corporate rules.

The tenancy is accordingly terminated.

Because Baath Rentals Limited - as Agent for Shareeltika Darshani and Chandra Bhusan Mishra has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5029988 — Unit Titles at 39 Malaspina Place, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5029988 — Unit Titles at 39 Malaspina Place, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

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