What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4519417 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4519417?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4519417?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4519417?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9384229-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4519417 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4519417?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4519417?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4519417?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9384229-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4519417 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the tenancy address must not be published.
This application is dismissed.
The tenant is at liberty to bring a different claim after taking legal advice.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing in person. 1
Ashley Young, a property manager from the landlord’s agent, Darroch Ltd, attended for the landlord.
The tenant’s claim was originally for an order declaring the landlord’s termination notice to be invalid.
During the Cyclone Gabrielle downpours on about 27 January 2023, the premises were irreparably damaged. A large section of the clifftop land on which the house stood fell towards the shore of the Waitemata harbour below. The house and a neighbouring house were left with their foundations exposed.
The tenant left at once, thankfully unharmed. The house was “red-stickered”. The red sticker means that no one is allowed to enter the house, which is now due for demolition.
As a result of the disaster, the tenant’s life has been utterly disrupted. She was left with nowhere to live. She has not been able to access to her belongings since, and it has not been over seven months.
The tenant is keen to finalise an outcome on her lost belongings for which she is insured. Unfortunately, she is in an awful Catch-22 situation. Her insurance company is refusing to fully reimburse her for her belongings because many of them are probably still intact inside the house. That issue is further complicated by the fact that despite the red sticker a squatter moved into the premises for a time and has probably taken or disposed of some the tenant’s belongings.
On 6 March 2023, the landlord terminated the premises under s 59 of Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That section provides: Destruction of premises (1) Where, otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy), the premises are destroyed, or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable,— (a) the rent shall abate accordingly; and (b) either party may give notice to the other terminating the tenancy.
During the hearing, the tenant withdrew her challenge to the termination notice. Prior to hearing, the tenant had refocussed her grievances towards whether the landlord had properly secured the premises to ensure her belongings were safe.
If there is to be such a claim, there must be formal notice given of it, so that the landlord knows about it and the Tribunal can consider process it. 1 I heard this matter at the North Shore District Court on 5 September 2023.
The tenant is in discussion with her insurer and has engaged counsel.
The claim before me is not being actively pursued, which looks astute to me given the premises were uninhabitable and the landlord’s notice under s 59 appears correctly issued.
This claim is dismissed. The tenant can bring another claim if she decides that is appropriate after taking advice from her lawyer. Non-publication
The tenant seeks non-publication of her identifying details.
Under s 95A(4) of the RTA, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published.
I have regard to the parties’ interests and the public interest. The tenant is in a bad situation. She is facing a stalemate in respect to replacing or recovering her belongings. It is unenviable position to be in. The public interest favours suppression of her personal details. There is no genuine public interest in the public knowing her name. She has done nothing wrong. She is only seeking some finality. The decision itself can be published so there is no improper harm to the principle of open justice if suppression is ordered.
Non-publication is ordered.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing in person. 1

Ashley Young, a property manager from the landlord’s agent, Darroch Ltd, attended for the landlord.

The tenant’s claim was originally for an order declaring the landlord’s termination notice to be invalid.

During the Cyclone Gabrielle downpours on about 27 January 2023, the premises were irreparably damaged. A large section of the clifftop land on which the house stood fell towards the shore of the Waitemata harbour below. The house and a neighbouring house were left with their foundations exposed.

The tenant left at once, thankfully unharmed. The house was “red-stickered”. The red sticker means that no one is allowed to enter the house, which is now due for demolition.

As a result of the disaster, the tenant’s life has been utterly disrupted. She was left with nowhere to live. She has not been able to access to her belongings since, and it has not been over seven months.

The tenant is keen to finalise an outcome on her lost belongings for which she is insured. Unfortunately, she is in an awful Catch-22 situation. Her insurance company is refusing to fully reimburse her for her belongings because many of them are probably still intact inside the house. That issue is further complicated by the fact that despite the red sticker a squatter moved into the premises for a time and has probably taken or disposed of some the tenant’s belongings.

On 6 March 2023, the landlord terminated the premises under s 59 of Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That section provides: Destruction of premises (1) Where, otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement (whether for a fixed-term tenancy or a periodic tenancy), the premises are destroyed, or are so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable,— (a) the rent shall abate accordingly; and (b) either party may give notice to the other terminating the tenancy.

During the hearing, the tenant withdrew her challenge to the termination notice. Prior to hearing, the tenant had refocussed her grievances towards whether the landlord had properly secured the premises to ensure her belongings were safe.

If there is to be such a claim, there must be formal notice given of it, so that the landlord knows about it and the Tribunal can consider process it. 1 I heard this matter at the North Shore District Court on 5 September 2023.

The tenant is in discussion with her insurer and has engaged counsel.

The claim before me is not being actively pursued, which looks astute to me given the premises were uninhabitable and the landlord’s notice under s 59 appears correctly issued.

This claim is dismissed. The tenant can bring another claim if she decides that is appropriate after taking advice from her lawyer. Non-publication

The tenant seeks non-publication of her identifying details.

Under s 95A(4) of the RTA, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published.

I have regard to the parties’ interests and the public interest. The tenant is in a bad situation. She is facing a stalemate in respect to replacing or recovering her belongings. It is unenviable position to be in. The public interest favours suppression of her personal details. There is no genuine public interest in the public knowing her name. She has done nothing wrong. She is only seeking some finality. The decision itself can be published so there is no improper harm to the principle of open justice if suppression is ordered.

Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4519417 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4519417 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions