What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4682250?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s name suppression application is declined.

How much money was awarded in case 4682250?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4682250?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4682250?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9495834-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4682250?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s name suppression application is declined.

How much money was awarded in case 4682250?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4682250?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4682250?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9495834-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 902, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4682250 — 14-day notice

Order

The landlord’s name suppression application is declined.

By consent, the application for termination of the tenancy under section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is withdrawn.

The landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy under section 56(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Ali appeared as the agent for the landlord.

The tenant, Ms Hiku-Vahua, did not appear.

During the hearing, Mr Ali told me that Ms Hiku-Vahua informed him via email that she would not attend today's meeting.

Mr Ali also told me that Ms Hiku-Vahua would vacate the premises by tomorrow, 6 October 2023.

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.

Mr Ali alleged that Ms Hiku-Vahua breached her obligations by: a. Smoking drugs in the apartment; and b. Blocking the fire evacuation.

The landlord served a 14-day notice to remedy on Ms Hiku-Vahua in August 2023 but did not mention the exact date on the notice. It is unclear when the notice was served.

During the hearing, Mr Ali argued that the tenant did not remedy the breaches within the required period. However, I could not verify on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did not remedy the breaches.

Mr Ali also wanted to submit additional evidence of likely anti-social behaviour, which the building manager had communicated to him. Ms Hiku-Vahua did not appear aware of this additional evidence.

I told Mr Ali in the hearing that he could seek a Tribunal Order to terminate the tenancy if he served three section 55A anti-social behaviour notices to Ms Hiku- Vahua. I suggested that he seek guidance from Tenancy Services and legal advice from the Community Law Centre.

After reviewing the evidence submitted before the hearing, I acknowledge that Ms Hiku-Vahua may have failed to comply with her obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, such as not using the premises for any unlawful purpose under section 40(2)(b).

Mr Ali submitted a notice to remedy a breach to Ms Hiku-Vahua, but the notice only provided a 14-day period without specifying a specific date. Ms Hiku-Vahua did not attend the hearing since the notice did not explain what actions she should take to rectify the breach and by when. After examining additional evidence, I informed Mr Ali that it would be fair to deny the termination of the tenancy..

Mr Ali however indicated that he would like to withdraw the application.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The weekly rent now is $400. As of today, Mr Ali told me in evidence that Ms Hiku-Vahua is $808.58 behind her rent which is less than 3 weeks or 21 days.

Accordingly, rent is not at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date (5 October 2023). I do not have the jurisdiction to terminate the tenancy.

Accordingly, the application under this heading is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression

Mr Ali had not substantially succeeded in his application. I decline to award the filing fee.

I decline Mr Ali’s suppression application for the same reason above.

Order

The landlord’s name suppression application is declined.
By consent, the application for termination of the tenancy under section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is withdrawn.
The landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy under section 56(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Ali appeared as the agent for the landlord.
The tenant, Ms Hiku-Vahua, did not appear.
During the hearing, Mr Ali told me that Ms Hiku-Vahua informed him via email that she would not attend today's meeting.
Mr Ali also told me that Ms Hiku-Vahua would vacate the premises by tomorrow, 6 October 2023.
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.
Mr Ali alleged that Ms Hiku-Vahua breached her obligations by: a. Smoking drugs in the apartment; and b. Blocking the fire evacuation.
The landlord served a 14-day notice to remedy on Ms Hiku-Vahua in August 2023 but did not mention the exact date on the notice. It is unclear when the notice was served.
During the hearing, Mr Ali argued that the tenant did not remedy the breaches within the required period. However, I could not verify on the balance of probabilities that the tenant did not remedy the breaches.
Mr Ali also wanted to submit additional evidence of likely anti-social behaviour, which the building manager had communicated to him. Ms Hiku-Vahua did not appear aware of this additional evidence.
I told Mr Ali in the hearing that he could seek a Tribunal Order to terminate the tenancy if he served three section 55A anti-social behaviour notices to Ms Hiku- Vahua. I suggested that he seek guidance from Tenancy Services and legal advice from the Community Law Centre.
After reviewing the evidence submitted before the hearing, I acknowledge that Ms Hiku-Vahua may have failed to comply with her obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, such as not using the premises for any unlawful purpose under section 40(2)(b).
Mr Ali submitted a notice to remedy a breach to Ms Hiku-Vahua, but the notice only provided a 14-day period without specifying a specific date. Ms Hiku-Vahua did not attend the hearing since the notice did not explain what actions she should take to rectify the breach and by when. After examining additional evidence, I informed Mr Ali that it would be fair to deny the termination of the tenancy..
Mr Ali however indicated that he would like to withdraw the application.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The weekly rent now is $400. As of today, Mr Ali told me in evidence that Ms Hiku-Vahua is $808.58 behind her rent which is less than 3 weeks or 21 days.
Accordingly, rent is not at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date (5 October 2023). I do not have the jurisdiction to terminate the tenancy.
Accordingly, the application under this heading is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
Mr Ali had not substantially succeeded in his application. I decline to award the filing fee.
I decline Mr Ali’s suppression application for the same reason above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4682250 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 902, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4682250 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 902, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions