Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 4747929 — Tenancy dispute at ORDER
Decided 7 Feb 2024 · Published 7 Feb 2024 · Application 4747929
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
B King
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.
Order
- The application for rehearing is granted.
- at is terminated, and possession is granted to , immediately.
- Enforcement of Order 2 is stayed until 9:00 am on Monday 12 February 2024.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenant was supported by Mr Brown.
- On review it became apparent that the phone number provided for the tenant in the application, was different that that provided by the tenant in her re-hearing application. It is therefore quite possible that the reason the tenant did not participate in the earlier hearing is because she did not receive the call.
- That being so it is appropriate that the rehearing be granted so the tenant has the opportunity to be heard on the substantive application.
- In the Tribunal's rehearing Order dated 16 January 2024 it is noted: "If the application for a rehearing is granted the substantive rehearing will be held at the same time and the parties must prepare accordingly."
- The Order made on 19 December 2023 was for immediate termination of the tenancy with, by consent, a stay of enforcement until 8 January 2024 so the tenant was not evicted over the Christmas period.
- In that Order the Tribunal found that the landlord was entitled to give notice of termination under s.51(2)(f) ie. where: "(f) extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and— (i) it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken; and (ii) the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date".
- The tenant has a large number of grievances about the condition in which the premises she occupied were maintained by the landlord. She is aware that termination of the tenancy does not prevent her from applying to the Tribunal for compensation or punitive remedies if she feels the landlord breached its obligations to her.
- The tenant is also of the view that this complex should not be redeveloped as it is a community resource, particularly for Maori - who she says have not properly been able to benefit from the resource.
- Those are issues outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal whose role is to: "...determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that—(a) exists between a landlord and a tenant ......(b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies............"
- The parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction. My finding remains that the landlord has established grounds for giving notice to terminate the tenancy and that the notice met the requirements of s.51(3). I must therefore make an Order terminating the tenancy.
- There is a house at 22 Northall Rd, New Lynn that is available for the tenant's occupation and the landlord will arrange the tenant's relocation there at its cost. This is a different property than the one previously offered to the tenant.
- In the rehearing Order made on 16 January 2024 the Tribunal noted that: "Enforcement of the termination Order made on 19 December 2023 was delayed by consent. The tenant should be aware that if, following any rehearing, the termination Order is confirmed, a further delay in enforcement is unlikely to be granted and the tenant will need to plan accordingly"
- Nevertheless, I direct that this Order not be enforced until after the weekend to give the tenant an opportunity to view the Northall Rd property and decide whether she will accept the relocation offer.