What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5169774?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jesse Alexander Sundman and Shayna Michelle Lee Williams

How much money was awarded in case 5169774?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5169774?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5169774?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11523871-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5169774?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jesse Alexander Sundman and Shayna Michelle Lee Williams

How much money was awarded in case 5169774?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5169774?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5169774?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11523871-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

78 Polson Street, Castlecliff, Whanganui 4501 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5169774 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The tenancy of Jesse Alexander Sundman and Shayna Michelle Lee Williams at 78 Polson Street, Castlecliff, Whanganui 4501 is terminated, and possession is granted to Wayne J Toohill, at 11:59pm on Tuesday 18 March 2025.

Jesse Alexander Sundman and Shayna Michelle Lee Williams must pay Wayne J Toohill $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, which was held by teleconference.

The tenants did not attend. Notice of the hearing was duly served on the tenants. Two calls were made to each of the tenants on the numbers given in the Notice of Hearing, one of which is a number from which Ms Williams contacted the landlord recently. I am satisfied the hearing should proceed.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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.

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 undertook an inspection of the premises on 29 January 2025. Photographs provided from that inspection show that the tenants were in breach of their obligation under s.40(1)(c), to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. A large quantity of rubbish is shown on the property with some damage in need of repair.

The landlord issued the tenants a 14 day notice to remedy on 2 February 2025 requiring that by 17 February 2025, the tenants: “Clean all surfaces and floor inside the house. Replace broken back door window (with same style glass). Remove all rubbish, car and motorbike parts including stored tyres. Remove all of same from the rear rection. Mow lawns and trim edges.”

A further inspection was carried out on 19 February 2025. Photographs taken at that inspection and some more recently, show that the tenants have not complied with that notice. The tenants remain in breach of s.40(1)(c).

I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the condition of the premises is not acceptable and no significant attempt appears to have been made to address the breaches identified in the landlord’s notice to remedy. If anything, the condition of the premises has got worse. Most importantly, damage is shown to have occurred which has not been addressed and a refusal to terminate the tenancy would expose the landlord to the risk of further damage occurring. The accumulation of rubbish gives rise to a risk of vermin.

The rent continues to be paid. For that reason and because there may be children impacted by termination of the tenancy, I find that allowing 2 weeks before the termination comes into effect would be a fair balance of the parties’ interests in these circumstances.

Because Wayne J Toohill has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Jesse Alexander Sundman and Shayna Michelle Lee Williams must pay Wayne J Toohill $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, which was held by teleconference.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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.

Because Wayne J Toohill has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5169774 — 14-day notice at 78 Polson Street, Castlecliff, Whanganui 4501

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5169774 — 14-day notice at 78 Polson Street, Castlecliff, Whanganui 4501

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions