What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5075188?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5075188?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5075188?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5075188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11187384-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5075188?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5075188?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5075188?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5075188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11187384-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 10 Lotus Lane, Mangere East, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5075188 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone conference.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The premises are in a group of three unit with neighbours either side of them. The landlord has other tenants in one unit and the third one is owner occupied.

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, RTA.
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.
The landlord served two 14-day notices that were undated. As part of the emailed notices confirmation dates were provided listing the time and dates that the notices were delivered and opened.
Copies of the 14-day notices were provided. The landlord claimed that there was a 14-day notice issued in May 2024, but this was not produced. A copy of an antisocial notice of that date was in the evidence but termination of the tenancy section 55A, RTA was not pursued.
The first 14-day notice was delivered and opened on 18 July 2024 and nature of the breach specified was; • On Tuesday 16 July 2024 the tenants partner put a dead cat on neighbours’ deck, put rocks on the entrance to neighbour’s property and exposed himself and used abusive language. •On Monday 6 May 2024 the tenant threw a glass at the neighbour’s deck, turned over the rubbish bin and used excessive foul language. •And previous nuisance that an anti-social notice was issued. It was not specified which notice this was and what behaviour it related to.
No further evidence was provided supporting these claims.
The tenant said she was at work so could not say what her partner had done, but he has been arrested and trespassed for the property. She said that he did strip to his underwear but was not naked. A tenant is responsible for the actions of persons in the premises with the tenant’s permission. See section 41,RTA.
The tenant confirmed that there had been an argument with the neighbours about carparking in front of the units with the tenant being told that she did not have a carpark. It was later confirmed by the landlord that she did. The tenant agreed that she got angry and pushed the rubbish bin over and threw a glass at the balcony. The tenant confirmed that she was charged with this act, but it was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
The second 14-day notice was delivered and opened on 11 November 2024. The nature of the breach specified was; • being abusive and generally displaying anti-social gestures. •Previous anti-social notices for causing a nuisance to the neighbourhood, which were not specified.
The landlord said that they received a phone call about the tenant and were acting on what they were told. No further evidence was provided.
The tenant said that her partner was removed and arrested on that day and then someone called the Police about her. She said she saw the neighbours looking through the curtains so gave them the fingers as she believed it was them. The tenant said that there was no disturbance as she cleaned up after the arrest, put washing out then went on her phone. She told the Police on their return that she was fine and had no issues and they left.
The tenant said that she had been blamed for a lot of things that were not happening.
The landlord said the tenant had not complied with the 14-day notices and evidence of this was the anti-social notices issued. None of the notices issued were supported by evidence.
The landlords had one copy of a Police acknowledgment form dated 17 August 2024, for ‘speaks threateningly’. It was not expanded on who this complaint was about or when incident it was. There were no statements from the complainant provided.
The landlord is required first to establish that the tenant has breached the agreement or Residential Tenancies Act 1986.The tenant agreed to have argued over parking and giving the fingers. The actions of her partner were disputed and the landlord must establish the claim on the balance of probabilities did not provide further evidence.
Once a breach is established the tenant is required to remedy the breach within a reasonable time period being not less than 14 days. The tenant’s partner has been arrested and trespassed and the landlord said that they have not heard anything further after the last 14-day notice was issued.
I find that the landlord has not established that the tenant failed to remedy a notice issued under section 56, RTA and did not establish that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
This application is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone conference.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The premises are in a group of three unit with neighbours either side of them. The landlord has other tenants in one unit and the third one is owner occupied.

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, RTA.
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.
The landlord served two 14-day notices that were undated. As part of the emailed notices confirmation dates were provided listing the time and dates that the notices were delivered and opened.
Copies of the 14-day notices were provided. The landlord claimed that there was a 14-day notice issued in May 2024, but this was not produced. A copy of an antisocial notice of that date was in the evidence but termination of the tenancy section 55A, RTA was not pursued.
The first 14-day notice was delivered and opened on 18 July 2024 and nature of the breach specified was; • On Tuesday 16 July 2024 the tenants partner put a dead cat on neighbours’ deck, put rocks on the entrance to neighbour’s property and exposed himself and used abusive language. •On Monday 6 May 2024 the tenant threw a glass at the neighbour’s deck, turned over the rubbish bin and used excessive foul language. •And previous nuisance that an anti-social notice was issued. It was not specified which notice this was and what behaviour it related to.
No further evidence was provided supporting these claims.
The tenant said she was at work so could not say what her partner had done, but he has been arrested and trespassed for the property. She said that he did strip to his underwear but was not naked. A tenant is responsible for the actions of persons in the premises with the tenant’s permission. See section 41,RTA.
The tenant confirmed that there had been an argument with the neighbours about carparking in front of the units with the tenant being told that she did not have a carpark. It was later confirmed by the landlord that she did. The tenant agreed that she got angry and pushed the rubbish bin over and threw a glass at the balcony. The tenant confirmed that she was charged with this act, but it was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
The second 14-day notice was delivered and opened on 11 November 2024. The nature of the breach specified was; • being abusive and generally displaying anti-social gestures. •Previous anti-social notices for causing a nuisance to the neighbourhood, which were not specified.
The landlord said that they received a phone call about the tenant and were acting on what they were told. No further evidence was provided.
The tenant said that her partner was removed and arrested on that day and then someone called the Police about her. She said she saw the neighbours looking through the curtains so gave them the fingers as she believed it was them. The tenant said that there was no disturbance as she cleaned up after the arrest, put washing out then went on her phone. She told the Police on their return that she was fine and had no issues and they left.
The tenant said that she had been blamed for a lot of things that were not happening.
The landlord said the tenant had not complied with the 14-day notices and evidence of this was the anti-social notices issued. None of the notices issued were supported by evidence.
The landlords had one copy of a Police acknowledgment form dated 17 August 2024, for ‘speaks threateningly’. It was not expanded on who this complaint was about or when incident it was. There were no statements from the complainant provided.
The landlord is required first to establish that the tenant has breached the agreement or Residential Tenancies Act 1986.The tenant agreed to have argued over parking and giving the fingers. The actions of her partner were disputed and the landlord must establish the claim on the balance of probabilities did not provide further evidence.
Once a breach is established the tenant is required to remedy the breach within a reasonable time period being not less than 14 days. The tenant’s partner has been arrested and trespassed and the landlord said that they have not heard anything further after the last 14-day notice was issued.
I find that the landlord has not established that the tenant failed to remedy a notice issued under section 56, RTA and did not establish that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
This application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5075188 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 10 Lotus Lane, Mangere East, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5075188 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 10 Lotus Lane, Mangere East, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions