Tenantcheck Insights

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 4683009 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 2 Nov 2023 · Published 2 Nov 2023 · Application 4683009

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Zealand

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Pollak

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 4683009 — Tenancy dispute

Decided 2 Nov 2023 · Published 2 Nov 2023 · Application 4683009

Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

New Zealand

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Pollak

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely.
The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The tenant’s mobile phone number, which is the address for service he provided in the tenancy agreement, was called but the number is no longer allocated to him. The tenant has never provided an email address to the landlord.
The application was made more than 2 months after the tenancy ended in December 2018. Notice has been served by text message to the tenant’s old mobile phone number, which is the only addresses for service on the tenancy agreement.

Should the requirement for service be dispensed with?

The tenancy ended on 14 December 2018 after the tenant gave notice and moved. The tenant did not leave the premises clean and tidy and caused some damage to the premises prior to moving. The bond does not fully cover the costs the landlord has incurred because of the tenant’s breach of its obligations under the tenancy agreement and s40(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”).
The landlord has been unable to contact the tenant or to locate where the tenant currently resides or works.
The landlord’s evidence has satisfied me that they have made all reasonable efforts to serve the notice and other documents on the tenant in accordance with this Act. As such, I dispense with the requirement for service and proceed as if the notice or other document had been served on the tenant in accordance with s91B the Act. Orders sought
The landlord is seeking refund of the bond and has waived its right to seek further compensation to cover the costs it incurred because of the tenant’s s40 breaches of his responsibilities to the landlord.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

NO ADDRESS

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s40, s40(1), s91B

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4683009 about?

The published order could not be summarised from available data.

How much money was awarded in case 4683009?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4683009?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4683009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9596441-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.