What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4740233 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4740233?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4740233?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4740233?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9786015-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4740233 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4740233?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4740233?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4740233?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9786015-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

50 Vine Avenue, Maungatapu, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4740233 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The applicant’s name has been corrected to that as recorded in the signed tenancy agreement. Mr Kevin Mann appeared for the applicant.
The applicant sought orders from the Tribunal that would extend this tenancy and prevent the landlord from taking rent from the current occupants.
This tenancy formed on 1 August 2020. The agreement permitted the tenant to sublet and this has been done multiple times during this tenancy. These arrangements are deemed residential tenancies.
On 14 August 2023 the landlords gave the tenant a 63-day notice to terminate – ending on 22 October 2023. This notice was received by the tenant. After a request for an extension, the end date of the tenancy was made 3 November 2023 by the landlords. Both parties accepted this was the end date for this tenancy.
Essentially, this tenancy ended via landlord notice and possession has now returned to them.
For reasons that remain uncertain, the tenant failed to provide adequate notice to the subtenants after receiving the same. This has created a confusing situation, resolved in part by the landlords here granting the three occupants a licence to occupy no later than 18 January 2024. One has since left. The other two remain. They pay rent to the Tucks and appear happy with that arrangement.
The orders sought by the tenant here have no legal basis and they are dismissed. This tenancy ended on 3 November 2023 and he should have removed his possessions and a handover taken place then or shortly afterwards. This has not occurred. He can no longer fulfil his contractual obligation to the subtenants and he has no right to continue to seek payment from them. The arrangement with the Tusks is not considered opportunistic but rather a pragmatic approach by them given the vulnerability of the remaining occupants.
A separate (sub)tenant application was lodged, citing, amongst other claims, that the (sub)landlord had not given the required notice in its notice to quit. That matter was adjourned on 6 November and will be heard at a later date.
A separate case conference with the three occupants has concluded after being conducted immediately after this hearing. They confirmed they have no requirement for the possessions of Tidy Services (NZ) Limited that remain at the premises. In fact, they would like them gone. Kevin Mann is to engage with the landlords immediately to arrange the removal of his or any company possessions as soon as possible. An end of tenancy inspection is to be conducted as soon as possible and the bond distribution resolved.
Suppression was requested by the applicant but given the dismissal of this application there are no grounds for such an order and the request is declined.
There will possibly be other matters that arise as this tenancy, and the entwined occupancy, conclude. The parties are encouraged to attempt to resolve these mutually but further recourse to the Tribunal by way of future applications may be sought, if necessary.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The applicant’s name has been corrected to that as recorded in the signed tenancy agreement. Mr Kevin Mann appeared for the applicant.

The applicant sought orders from the Tribunal that would extend this tenancy and prevent the landlord from taking rent from the current occupants.

This tenancy formed on 1 August 2020. The agreement permitted the tenant to sublet and this has been done multiple times during this tenancy. These arrangements are deemed residential tenancies.

On 14 August 2023 the landlords gave the tenant a 63-day notice to terminate – ending on 22 October 2023. This notice was received by the tenant. After a request for an extension, the end date of the tenancy was made 3 November 2023 by the landlords. Both parties accepted this was the end date for this tenancy.

Essentially, this tenancy ended via landlord notice and possession has now returned to them.

For reasons that remain uncertain, the tenant failed to provide adequate notice to the subtenants after receiving the same. This has created a confusing situation, resolved in part by the landlords here granting the three occupants a licence to occupy no later than 18 January 2024. One has since left. The other two remain. They pay rent to the Tucks and appear happy with that arrangement.

The orders sought by the tenant here have no legal basis and they are dismissed. This tenancy ended on 3 November 2023 and he should have removed his possessions and a handover taken place then or shortly afterwards. This has not occurred. He can no longer fulfil his contractual obligation to the subtenants and he has no right to continue to seek payment from them. The arrangement with the Tusks is not considered opportunistic but rather a pragmatic approach by them given the vulnerability of the remaining occupants.

A separate (sub)tenant application was lodged, citing, amongst other claims, that the (sub)landlord had not given the required notice in its notice to quit. That matter was adjourned on 6 November and will be heard at a later date.

A separate case conference with the three occupants has concluded after being conducted immediately after this hearing. They confirmed they have no requirement for the possessions of Tidy Services (NZ) Limited that remain at the premises. In fact, they would like them gone. Kevin Mann is to engage with the landlords immediately to arrange the removal of his or any company possessions as soon as possible. An end of tenancy inspection is to be conducted as soon as possible and the bond distribution resolved.

Suppression was requested by the applicant but given the dismissal of this application there are no grounds for such an order and the request is declined.

There will possibly be other matters that arise as this tenancy, and the entwined occupancy, conclude. The parties are encouraged to attempt to resolve these mutually but further recourse to the Tribunal by way of future applications may be sought, if necessary.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4740233 — Tenancy dispute at 50 Vine Avenue, Maungatapu, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4740233 — Tenancy dispute at 50 Vine Avenue, Maungatapu, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions