What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5159207?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of CHLOE JOYCE STANNARD at 18 Orr Street, Netherby,

How much money was awarded in case 5159207?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5159207?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5159207?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11491425-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5159207?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of CHLOE JOYCE STANNARD at 18 Orr Street, Netherby,

How much money was awarded in case 5159207?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5159207?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5159207?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11491425-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18 Orr Street, Netherby, Ashburton 7700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5159207 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of CHLOE JOYCE STANNARD at 18 Orr Street, Netherby, Ashburton 7700 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

A representative of Kainga Ora Homes and Communities attended the hearing that was conducted by phone. Three attempts were made to contact Ms Stannard by phone but went to answer phone. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
Ms Stannard is a resident of a 2 bedroomed property where she lives with her young son. Her tenancy commenced on 27 May 2024.
KO is seeking to terminate Ms Stannard ’s tenancy on 2 grounds: • Ms Stannard has assaulted, or has threatened to assault a neighbour of the premises; •Ms Stannard or someone permitted to be at the premises has breached her neighbour’s peace, comfort and privacy in the use of their premises and the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable for the Tribunal to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not, that the events outlined occurred. Assault
Section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: (1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— ... (c) the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons: (v) any neighbour of the premises, or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
Section 55(2) provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy in certain circumstances but in particular where they are satisfied the tenant is unlikely to commit another breach of its kind. Assault or threatened assault KO evidence
On 27 October 2024, at around 10pm, the private owners, Mr and Mrs M, whose property is behind the tenancy address, could hear a child crying, seeming to be in distress.
Mrs M asked Mr M to go out and check as she was concerned. Mr M walked to the back fence and saw Ms Stannard’s son in a push chair crying and screaming. Loud music was playing, and it appeared that Ms Stannard and 2 other friends were partying in the backyard and not paying mind to the child.
Mr M spoke over the music and said to Ms Stannard, “Really?”, referring to the child outside in a stroller at the time of the night, crying while Ms Stannard was partying with her friends.
Ms Stannard then grabbed the child from the stroller and brought him inside the house.
Ms Stannard then went back outside the house and started yelling to Mr M, which was also heard by Mrs M, that she was going to burn the house down, kill his wife and their dog.
Ms Stannard was charged and convicted on 25 November 2024 for threatening to kill Mrs M. She was sentenced to 9 months supervision and ordered not to be within 1 metre of the neighbour’s property.
Both Mr and Mrs M provided statements to KO and Mrs M also attended the hearing to give her evidence, confirming the version of the events outlined in the statements.
In a discussion with KO Ms Stannard denied the threat had occurred but said she had plead guilty to get it over with.
KO issued a 1 st notice under s.55A in relation to this incident.
In the absence of any evidence from Ms Stannard to the contrary, apart from her response to KO, I find it is more likely than not that Ms Stannard did threaten to assault the neighbour. This is a breach incapable of remedy and I am not satisfied, particularly given the more recent events outlined below, that it is unlikely that Ms Stannard will commit another act of this kind. On this basis the tenancy is terminated. Breach of neighbours quiet enjoyment
In the alternative KO seek to terminate Ms Stannard’s tenancy pursuant to s.56 RTA.
Section 56 of the RTA allows KO to apply for termination of a tenancy, and the Tribunal to make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that – (a) The tenant has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement or the tenant’s obligations under the RTA; and (b) The tenant has failed to remedy the breach after being issued a 14-day notice to remedy the breach (not applicable where the breach is not capable of remedy); and (c) The breach is of such a nature or such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA states that Ms Stannard, or anyone permitted to be at the premises, shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. KO Evidence
On 6/7 November 2024, Mr and Mrs M reported an incident to KO where stones were being thrown at their property by Ms Stannard at 3am on the morning of the 7th. They had been woken by a loud ‘bang’ hitting the house. They provided video provided footage of the incident which showed Ms Stannard and a male by their back door. The male went inside and came back with a large ‘stick like’ object and hid down behind the neighbours’ fence and Ms Stannard was seen to be throwing a large object at the house, which was discovered to be a large stone. This was reported to the Police.
On 29 November 2024, Mr M reported to KO that about 11.30am he was in his workshop at the back of the property and heard a man yelling loudly and in a very abusive way at him. He went outside and Ms Stannard’s partner accused him of breaking a window in their house. The tempers got frayed but on returning inside Mr M reviewed the video footage which showed a woman trying to break into the tenancy address by breaking the window. Mr M reported this to KO, who also viewed the video footage, and the police, as he was aware only 2 days earlier Ms Stannard was convicted of threatening to kill. A second 55A notice was issued to Ms Stannard for this incident.
On 14 December 2024, at approximately 10:30pm, the fire brigade was called to the tenancy address to put out a fire, with the flames reaching as high as 6 feet. There were strong nor wester winds blowing and a fire ban was in place at the time. Mrs M stated in evidence that the tenant has a fire very close to their fence line and backing onto their shed and regularly has large fires which are very concerning to them given their proximity to the shed and the damage that could be caused.
In addition, the neighbours stated there are regularly all night parties at the address.

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

I find given the nature of the breaches and frequency I find they are not breaches capable of remedy.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

The District Court set out the various factors that can be considered in making this decision in Huff v Central City Property Management Ltd [2020] NZDC 19229: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
During the short period of the current tenancy it is clear there have been numerous breaches that have repeatedly targeted Mr and Mrs M. There has been involvement with the tenant by KO and the Police but it appears unlikely the tenant will comply with her obligations in the future. The behaviours are causing considerable distress and worry to Mr and Mrs M in living peacefully in their home. They are living in fear of what might happen next and do not feel able to travel away from home on holiday as they are concerned not only about their own safety when at home, but the safety of their home when they are away. I find that termination of the tenancy is an appropriate response to this application.

Order

The tenancy of CHLOE JOYCE STANNARD at 18 Orr Street, Netherby, Ashburton 7700 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

A representative of Kainga Ora Homes and Communities attended the hearing that was conducted by phone. Three attempts were made to contact Ms Stannard by phone but went to answer phone. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
Ms Stannard is a resident of a 2 bedroomed property where she lives with her young son. Her tenancy commenced on 27 May 2024.
KO is seeking to terminate Ms Stannard ’s tenancy on 2 grounds: • Ms Stannard has assaulted, or has threatened to assault a neighbour of the premises; •Ms Stannard or someone permitted to be at the premises has breached her neighbour’s peace, comfort and privacy in the use of their premises and the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable for the Tribunal to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not, that the events outlined occurred. Assault
Section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: (1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— ... (c) the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons: (v) any neighbour of the premises, or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
Section 55(2) provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy in certain circumstances but in particular where they are satisfied the tenant is unlikely to commit another breach of its kind. Assault or threatened assault KO evidence
On 27 October 2024, at around 10pm, the private owners, Mr and Mrs M, whose property is behind the tenancy address, could hear a child crying, seeming to be in distress.
Mrs M asked Mr M to go out and check as she was concerned. Mr M walked to the back fence and saw Ms Stannard’s son in a push chair crying and screaming. Loud music was playing, and it appeared that Ms Stannard and 2 other friends were partying in the backyard and not paying mind to the child.
Mr M spoke over the music and said to Ms Stannard, “Really?”, referring to the child outside in a stroller at the time of the night, crying while Ms Stannard was partying with her friends.
Ms Stannard then grabbed the child from the stroller and brought him inside the house.
Ms Stannard then went back outside the house and started yelling to Mr M, which was also heard by Mrs M, that she was going to burn the house down, kill his wife and their dog.
Ms Stannard was charged and convicted on 25 November 2024 for threatening to kill Mrs M. She was sentenced to 9 months supervision and ordered not to be within 1 metre of the neighbour’s property.
Both Mr and Mrs M provided statements to KO and Mrs M also attended the hearing to give her evidence, confirming the version of the events outlined in the statements.
In a discussion with KO Ms Stannard denied the threat had occurred but said she had plead guilty to get it over with.
KO issued a 1 st notice under s.55A in relation to this incident.
In the absence of any evidence from Ms Stannard to the contrary, apart from her response to KO, I find it is more likely than not that Ms Stannard did threaten to assault the neighbour. This is a breach incapable of remedy and I am not satisfied, particularly given the more recent events outlined below, that it is unlikely that Ms Stannard will commit another act of this kind. On this basis the tenancy is terminated. Breach of neighbours quiet enjoyment
In the alternative KO seek to terminate Ms Stannard’s tenancy pursuant to s.56 RTA.
Section 56 of the RTA allows KO to apply for termination of a tenancy, and the Tribunal to make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that – (a) The tenant has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement or the tenant’s obligations under the RTA; and (b) The tenant has failed to remedy the breach after being issued a 14-day notice to remedy the breach (not applicable where the breach is not capable of remedy); and (c) The breach is of such a nature or such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA states that Ms Stannard, or anyone permitted to be at the premises, shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. KO Evidence
On 6/7 November 2024, Mr and Mrs M reported an incident to KO where stones were being thrown at their property by Ms Stannard at 3am on the morning of the 7th. They had been woken by a loud ‘bang’ hitting the house. They provided video provided footage of the incident which showed Ms Stannard and a male by their back door. The male went inside and came back with a large ‘stick like’ object and hid down behind the neighbours’ fence and Ms Stannard was seen to be throwing a large object at the house, which was discovered to be a large stone. This was reported to the Police.
On 29 November 2024, Mr M reported to KO that about 11.30am he was in his workshop at the back of the property and heard a man yelling loudly and in a very abusive way at him. He went outside and Ms Stannard’s partner accused him of breaking a window in their house. The tempers got frayed but on returning inside Mr M reviewed the video footage which showed a woman trying to break into the tenancy address by breaking the window. Mr M reported this to KO, who also viewed the video footage, and the police, as he was aware only 2 days earlier Ms Stannard was convicted of threatening to kill. A second 55A notice was issued to Ms Stannard for this incident.
On 14 December 2024, at approximately 10:30pm, the fire brigade was called to the tenancy address to put out a fire, with the flames reaching as high as 6 feet. There were strong nor wester winds blowing and a fire ban was in place at the time. Mrs M stated in evidence that the tenant has a fire very close to their fence line and backing onto their shed and regularly has large fires which are very concerning to them given their proximity to the shed and the damage that could be caused.
In addition, the neighbours stated there are regularly all night parties at the address.

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

I find given the nature of the breaches and frequency I find they are not breaches capable of remedy.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

The District Court set out the various factors that can be considered in making this decision in Huff v Central City Property Management Ltd [2020] NZDC 19229: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
During the short period of the current tenancy it is clear there have been numerous breaches that have repeatedly targeted Mr and Mrs M. There has been involvement with the tenant by KO and the Police but it appears unlikely the tenant will comply with her obligations in the future. The behaviours are causing considerable distress and worry to Mr and Mrs M in living peacefully in their home. They are living in fear of what might happen next and do not feel able to travel away from home on holiday as they are concerned not only about their own safety when at home, but the safety of their home when they are away. I find that termination of the tenancy is an appropriate response to this application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5159207 — 14-day notice at 18 Orr Street, Netherby, Ashburton 7700

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5159207 — 14-day notice at 18 Orr Street, Netherby, Ashburton 7700

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions