What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4758077?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Fawn Marsh at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 14 Wood Street, Papakura,

How much money was awarded in case 4758077?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758077?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9980044-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4758077?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Fawn Marsh at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 14 Wood Street, Papakura,

How much money was awarded in case 4758077?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758077?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758077?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9980044-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 14 Wood Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4758077 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The tenancy of Fawn Marsh at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 14 Wood Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110 is terminated, and possession is granted to Barfoot & Thompson Limited - As Agent For June Ee, at 8pm Sunday 3 March 2024.

Fawn Marsh must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited - As Agent For June Ee $20.44 immediately, being the application filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The call to the tenant went unanswered. No advice to the Tribunal of the tenant being unable to attend has been received. It was appropriate to continue with 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 remedy a number of cleaning related tasks.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 2 November 2023 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. Extensions to the date were made as the tenant had promised to get commercial cleaners in.

The notice also raised a number of damages requiring repair.

After the first hearing, the adjourning order (dated 24 January 2024) noted (in part):

The repairs have been completed by contractors. The other tasks, left with the tenant to manage, have not.

The landlord conducted a further inspection yesterday and the premises are still in a poor state of cleanliness. Photos were provided. There is no apparent sign of any cleaning effort since the 23 January 2024 hearing.

Prior assurances by the tenant of cleaning date back to November 2023.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because while the damage has been repaired via agency funding, the continued failure to keep the premises in reasonable condition, and possibly seeing it deteriorate even more, is of real concern to the landlord. Multiple opportunities to remedy have been provided to the tenant. Unfortunately, the ongoing failure to remedy means this tenancy must end.

The landlord requested an extended date to assist the tenant with her exit. Application filing fee

Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited - As Agent For June Ee has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.