What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4734834?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Alex Frank Couper at Unit/Flat 3, 12 Hazelmere Road,

How much money was awarded in case 4734834?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4734834?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4734834?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9687672-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4734834?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Alex Frank Couper at Unit/Flat 3, 12 Hazelmere Road,

How much money was awarded in case 4734834?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4734834?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4734834?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9687672-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 12 Hazelmere Road, Sandringham, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4734834 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.

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 tenant has breached their obligations by failing to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. The landlord had applied in August 2023 and the Tenancy Tribunal made an order (4660631) on 19 October 2023 requiring the tenant to remove all car parts and belongings of any kind from the premises’ common areas and remove all car parts from the exterior of the building.

The tenant was required to comply with the Tribunal order by the end of Thursday 2 November 2023 but did not do so.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 8 November 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 tenant has had opportunities to comply firstly with the order and then with the 14-day notice but has not done so. When the landlord attended at the premises this morning the tenant had failed to remove a car body from the driveway. The landlord produced an inspection report dated 27 November 2023 which showed the car body in the driveway.

While the tenant has made some effort to comply with the order, he has not complied by removing all car parts. The landlord first applied to the Tribunal in respect of this issue in August 2023. The tenant had plenty of opportunity to comply and has not done so.

The landlord does not claim anything further at this stage and instead anticipates filing another application after the tenant has vacated the premises.

Because Client First Property Management Limited T/As Harcourts Charlton Property Management As Agent For Wan Ching Tam has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing.

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.

The tenant was required to comply with the Tribunal order by the end of Thursday 2 November 2023 but did not do so.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 8 November 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

The landlord does not claim anything further at this stage and instead anticipates filing another application after the tenant has vacated the premises.

Because Client First Property Management Limited T/As Harcourts Charlton Property Management As Agent For Wan Ching Tam has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4734834 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 3, 12 Hazelmere Road, Sandringham, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4734834 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 3, 12 Hazelmere Road, Sandringham, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions