What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4742230?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Ronald Vincent Paul Flight at 62 Pah Road, Papatoetoe,

How much money was awarded in case 4742230?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4742230?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4742230?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9772423-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4742230?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Ronald Vincent Paul Flight at 62 Pah Road, Papatoetoe,

How much money was awarded in case 4742230?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4742230?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4742230?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9772423-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

62 Pah Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4742230 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

This matter was heard by telephone hearing. Ms Gray represented the landlord. Mr Fight also attended, however he was of the opinion that this was not a hearing and I was not an adjudicator and this was a fraudulent proceeding. He sought and obtained my details so he could check my credentials however was not satisfied.

Mr Flight was given a number of opportunities to engage in the hearing however he continually talked over me and would not listen. Unfortunately, I had to mute him several times in order to explain to him what was happening. He chose to leave the hearing and so I called him back. He engaged again in the same manner and I advised him that if he hung up again I would not be calling him back. He hung up again some minutes later.

Accordingly, Mr Flight was provided with a number of opportunities to engage in the hearing but did not do so. It therefore went ahead in his absence.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of Mr Flight’s obligations.

Mr Flight has not been living at the property for over five months. The property now appears abandoned however MSD are still paying the rent. There are no belongings left in the property other than rubbish. Ms Gray advises that Mr Flight has told them that he will not relinquish the tenancy until he is re-homed. It has been explained to him that as they are separate processes, one is not contingent upon the other.

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 not living in the home as is required by his tenancy agreement becuase this is social housing.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 20 October and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because Mr Flight has not lived in the home for some months and clearly has no intention of doing so. This is social housing and as such required for families in need. The house should not be sitting vacant as social housing is scarce. Mr Flight can obtain alternative housing through the usual channels. Accordingly, the tenancy is terminated.

Reasons

Accordingly, Mr Flight was provided with a number of opportunities to engage in the hearing but did not do so. It therefore went ahead in his absence.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of Mr Flight’s obligations.

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 has breached their obligations by not living in the home as is required by his tenancy agreement becuase this is social housing.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 20 October and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4742230 — 14-day notice at 62 Pah Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4742230 — 14-day notice at 62 Pah Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions