How much money was awarded in case 4682352?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4682352?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4682352?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9499565-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4682352?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4682352?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4682352?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9499565-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4682352 — 14-day notice

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4682352 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

The tenancy of Edison Smith at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Thursday, 2 November 2023.

Reasons

[Mr P] attended on behalf of the landlord. The tenant did not attend.

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 under section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

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 tenant has breached their obligations under sections 40(1)(ca) and 48(2) of the Act and paragraph 6 of the tenancy agreement by refusing to allow the landlord access to ensure previous breaches in relation to smoke alarms and other fire risk issues have been remedied.

The landlord served earlier breach notices on the tenant on 1 June 2023 and 5 July 2023. These notices asked the tenant to remedy breaches in relation to the removal of smoke alarm covers; the removal of the supplied fire extinguisher; the placement of furniture in exit ways and stacked outside the front door; nailing windows shut; removing oven elements and cupboard door handles; and, in the second of these notices, failing to allow for inspection to determine if these matters had been addressed.

The landlord served an additional 14-day notice on the tenant on 24 August 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the initial breaches in relation to fire safety create a fire hazard putting the tenant and other occupants of this and neighbouring properties at risk from fire and the landlord must be able to inspect the premises to satisfy themselves that these safety issues have been remedied.

Additionally, the landlord has given the tenant multiple opportunities to remedy the initial breaches and has attempted to inspect the property multiple times but has been unable to gain access. On the last attempt the front door lock had been blocked and the back door was only able to be opened a little due to the furniture stacked up against it. It was clear, from what the landlord’s agent could see, that the initial breaches had not been remedied.

The landlord agreed to a possession date four weeks from the hearing date to enable the tenant to find alternative accommodation.

The tenant must continue to pay rent as and when it falls due, up until the possession date.

Should a suppression order be made?

The landlord applied for a suppression order in their application.

Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

The landlord has been wholly successful in its claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlord’s name and identifying details be suppressed.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Edison Smith at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Thursday, 2 November 2023.

Reasons

[Mr P] attended on behalf of the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
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 under section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
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 tenant has breached their obligations under sections 40(1)(ca) and 48(2) of the Act and paragraph 6 of the tenancy agreement by refusing to allow the landlord access to ensure previous breaches in relation to smoke alarms and other fire risk issues have been remedied.
The landlord served earlier breach notices on the tenant on 1 June 2023 and 5 July 2023. These notices asked the tenant to remedy breaches in relation to the removal of smoke alarm covers; the removal of the supplied fire extinguisher; the placement of furniture in exit ways and stacked outside the front door; nailing windows shut; removing oven elements and cupboard door handles; and, in the second of these notices, failing to allow for inspection to determine if these matters had been addressed.
The landlord served an additional 14-day notice on the tenant on 24 August 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the initial breaches in relation to fire safety create a fire hazard putting the tenant and other occupants of this and neighbouring properties at risk from fire and the landlord must be able to inspect the premises to satisfy themselves that these safety issues have been remedied.
Additionally, the landlord has given the tenant multiple opportunities to remedy the initial breaches and has attempted to inspect the property multiple times but has been unable to gain access. On the last attempt the front door lock had been blocked and the back door was only able to be opened a little due to the furniture stacked up against it. It was clear, from what the landlord’s agent could see, that the initial breaches had not been remedied.
The landlord agreed to a possession date four weeks from the hearing date to enable the tenant to find alternative accommodation.
The tenant must continue to pay rent as and when it falls due, up until the possession date.

Should a suppression order be made?

The landlord applied for a suppression order in their application.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The landlord has been wholly successful in its claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlord’s name and identifying details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4682352 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4682352 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions