What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5072548?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Carla Nathan at Room Suite 3P, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5072548?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5072548?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5072548?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11236856-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5072548?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Carla Nathan at Room Suite 3P, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5072548?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5072548?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Harassment, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5072548?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11236856-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room Suite 3P, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5072548 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Room Suite 3P, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5072548 — 14-day notice | TenantCheck

Order

The tenancy of Carla Nathan at Room Suite 3P, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Airedale Property Trust Sofia Michael Garcia, at midday on the 21 December 2024.
I grant leave for the possession order to be enforced immediately after midday on the 21 December 2024 on the grounds that there is a risk to the security to the property if enforcement is delayed.

Reasons

This is a cross application.
At today’s hearing Ms Garcia for the landlord and Ms Nathan attended. I also heard from the building managing and the building security officer.
On the 14 November the tenant applied to the Tribunal claiming that her toilet was leaking and had not been repaired and that there is an infestation of cockroaches in her flat.
On the 15 November the landlord applied to the Tribunal seeking termination on various grounds: a. Tenant has committed a breach not capable of remedy. b. The tenant’s invitees have committed multiple breaches of antisocial behaviour, including tagging the lifts of the common area, fighting in the common area and lifts, removing security cameras, tampering with other residents mail, being allowed access when trespassed. c. Tenant’s invites have threatened to kill the building manager and assault the security officer. d. That the tenant has not remedied a 14-day breach notice given to keep th property reasonably clean and tidy.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The tenant does not want her tenancy to be terminated. She says that she has not been problematic, but it is the people who live with her or visit her that cause problems. She says that she does not let people into the building, but rather they tailgate people coming in and then use the lifts to get into her floor. She says that she leaves her door open, or they rig the door open.
Section 41 of the RTA provides that the tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person 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.
The landlord says that the tenant lets people into the building, she swipes them in, or has provided a swipe card. When they get to her door, she lets them in.
The tenant says she lets the people in because they threatened to do damage to the property or cause a scene and jeopardise her tenancy if she does not let them in. Essentially the tenant says she is powerless to stop the people who come to visit her and cannot be responsible for their behaviour.
Section 55 RTA requires the tribunal upon application by the landlord to make an order terminating a tenancy if the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault any person who is an occupier of the building the premises is situated in.
Having heard all of the evidence and carefully considered the submissions of both the landlord and the tenant I am satisfied that the tenants tenancy should be terminated because: a. I am satisfied that the tenant allowed her friend Moi and their partner Lisa to stay at the property, The tenant said at the beginning of the hearing that they had stayed with her. I am satisfied that during the time that Lisa and Moi stayed with the tenant, on or about the 13 November that Lisa threatened the building manager Nala (an occupier of the building) by telling her that she would kill her. b. I am satisfied that the tenant allows her partner Francis to come into the building (on the 4 December she was caught on CCTV swiping him into the building) even though he is trespassed. I am satisfied that Francis threatened to harm the security officer (an occupier of the building) by threatening him that he (Francis) and his boys would “f him up”. c. I am satisfied that there have been numerous incidents of antisocial behaviour and the landlord. The landlord has given over 10 breach notice since August and the tenant has not challenged any of the notices. d. The tenant is causing damage to the property. There are holes in the walls and the sliding door cavity has been bent out of shape. e. The tenant has failed to comply with the landlord notice of 5 December 2024 requiring her to keep the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The landlord reinspected the property yesterday and the property is not in a reasonable state of cleanliness.

Did the landlord fail to repair the toilet?

The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to repair the toilet which is leaking. The tenant says that she has notified the landlord of the leaking toilet on the first day of her tenancy. There landlord says that the tenant did not report the leak. As there is no evidence that the leak was ever reported in writing. I dismiss the tenant’s claim for failure to repair the toilet.

Is the landlord responsible for the cockroach infestation?

The tenant claims that the property is infested with cockroaches.
The landlord says that the previous tenants left the property with cockroaches and that the landlord completed pest control between tenancies.
I consider that it is more likely that the cause of the cockroaches is the way that the tenant lives in the property. The inspection photos show a property that is cluttered and dirty, there is a considerable amount of food left out. The tenant has not proven her claim that the landlord is responsible for the cockroaches. The claim is dismissed. Name suppression.
I note that the tenant asked for name suppression at today’s hearing. Whilst I have sympathy for the tenant in that it is because of her invitees not her own conduct that her tenancy is being terminated. I consider that the principles of open justice and the public interest in knowing who the tenants are when tenancies are terminated for these serious breaches outweighs the tenant’s interests. Possession order may be carried immediately.
Usually, a possession order cannot be enforced (an eviction actioned) until 48 hours after the order is made. However, I can grant leave for the order to be enforced immediately; see section 138(1) of the District Court Act 2016. Section 106(2) RTA states that s 138(1) applies as if the reference to a District Court Judge, were a reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator.
The landlord may make an immediate application for an eviction warrant to have bailiff and/or police assistance to obtain possession, if required.

Order

The tenancy of Carla Nathan at Room Suite 3P, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Airedale Property Trust Sofia Michael Garcia, at midday on the 21 December 2024.
I grant leave for the possession order to be enforced immediately after midday on the 21 December 2024 on the grounds that there is a risk to the security to the property if enforcement is delayed.

Reasons

This is a cross application.
At today’s hearing Ms Garcia for the landlord and Ms Nathan attended. I also heard from the building managing and the building security officer.
On the 14 November the tenant applied to the Tribunal claiming that her toilet was leaking and had not been repaired and that there is an infestation of cockroaches in her flat.
On the 15 November the landlord applied to the Tribunal seeking termination on various grounds: a. Tenant has committed a breach not capable of remedy. b. The tenant’s invitees have committed multiple breaches of antisocial behaviour, including tagging the lifts of the common area, fighting in the common area and lifts, removing security cameras, tampering with other residents mail, being allowed access when trespassed. c. Tenant’s invites have threatened to kill the building manager and assault the security officer. d. That the tenant has not remedied a 14-day breach notice given to keep th property reasonably clean and tidy.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The tenant does not want her tenancy to be terminated. She says that she has not been problematic, but it is the people who live with her or visit her that cause problems. She says that she does not let people into the building, but rather they tailgate people coming in and then use the lifts to get into her floor. She says that she leaves her door open, or they rig the door open.
Section 41 of the RTA provides that the tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person 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.
The landlord says that the tenant lets people into the building, she swipes them in, or has provided a swipe card. When they get to her door, she lets them in.
The tenant says she lets the people in because they threatened to do damage to the property or cause a scene and jeopardise her tenancy if she does not let them in. Essentially the tenant says she is powerless to stop the people who come to visit her and cannot be responsible for their behaviour.
Section 55 RTA requires the tribunal upon application by the landlord to make an order terminating a tenancy if the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault any person who is an occupier of the building the premises is situated in.
Having heard all of the evidence and carefully considered the submissions of both the landlord and the tenant I am satisfied that the tenants tenancy should be terminated because: a. I am satisfied that the tenant allowed her friend Moi and their partner Lisa to stay at the property, The tenant said at the beginning of the hearing that they had stayed with her. I am satisfied that during the time that Lisa and Moi stayed with the tenant, on or about the 13 November that Lisa threatened the building manager Nala (an occupier of the building) by telling her that she would kill her. b. I am satisfied that the tenant allows her partner Francis to come into the building (on the 4 December she was caught on CCTV swiping him into the building) even though he is trespassed. I am satisfied that Francis threatened to harm the security officer (an occupier of the building) by threatening him that he (Francis) and his boys would “f him up”. c. I am satisfied that there have been numerous incidents of antisocial behaviour and the landlord. The landlord has given over 10 breach notice since August and the tenant has not challenged any of the notices. d. The tenant is causing damage to the property. There are holes in the walls and the sliding door cavity has been bent out of shape. e. The tenant has failed to comply with the landlord notice of 5 December 2024 requiring her to keep the property in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The landlord reinspected the property yesterday and the property is not in a reasonable state of cleanliness.

Did the landlord fail to repair the toilet?

The tenant claims that the landlord has failed to repair the toilet which is leaking. The tenant says that she has notified the landlord of the leaking toilet on the first day of her tenancy. There landlord says that the tenant did not report the leak. As there is no evidence that the leak was ever reported in writing. I dismiss the tenant’s claim for failure to repair the toilet.

Is the landlord responsible for the cockroach infestation?

The tenant claims that the property is infested with cockroaches.
The landlord says that the previous tenants left the property with cockroaches and that the landlord completed pest control between tenancies.
I consider that it is more likely that the cause of the cockroaches is the way that the tenant lives in the property. The inspection photos show a property that is cluttered and dirty, there is a considerable amount of food left out. The tenant has not proven her claim that the landlord is responsible for the cockroaches. The claim is dismissed. Name suppression.
I note that the tenant asked for name suppression at today’s hearing. Whilst I have sympathy for the tenant in that it is because of her invitees not her own conduct that her tenancy is being terminated. I consider that the principles of open justice and the public interest in knowing who the tenants are when tenancies are terminated for these serious breaches outweighs the tenant’s interests. Possession order may be carried immediately.
Usually, a possession order cannot be enforced (an eviction actioned) until 48 hours after the order is made. However, I can grant leave for the order to be enforced immediately; see section 138(1) of the District Court Act 2016. Section 106(2) RTA states that s 138(1) applies as if the reference to a District Court Judge, were a reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator.
The landlord may make an immediate application for an eviction warrant to have bailiff and/or police assistance to obtain possession, if required.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5072548 — 14-day notice at Room Suite 3P, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5072548 — 14-day notice at Room Suite 3P, 147 Hobson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Did the landlord fail to repair the toilet?

Is the landlord responsible for the cockroach infestation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Did the landlord fail to repair the toilet?

Is the landlord responsible for the cockroach infestation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions