What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4767377 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Shannon Marina Wairakau Devlyn at [Tenancy address

How much money was awarded in case 4767377?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4767377?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4767377?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9911538-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4767377 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Shannon Marina Wairakau Devlyn at [Tenancy address

How much money was awarded in case 4767377?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4767377?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4767377?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9911538-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4767377 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Shannon Marina Wairakau Devlyn at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm, Friday 9 February 2024.
Shannon Marina Wairakau Devlyn must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, being the application filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via video. The tenant did not join and two calls out was made. The call went unanswered. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the second call went unanswered.
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 at least one, more than likely two, notices to remedy. A prior notice to remedy (16 October 2023) after denied access for an inspection was remedied and an inspection was conducted 10 November 2023 but that identified the need for two further breach notices. The landlord was denied access yesterday for a routine inspection. This access denial was from an adult other than the tenant, as she appeared to be away at that time. That may be due to family circumstances.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 8 November 2023 to remove any pets. A second notice, dated 13 November 2023, noted “walls had been damaged with holes and drawings in the hallway, bedrooms and dining area”. This damage was required to be repaired.
While the landlord was denied access yesterday, they did have the opportunity to observe the overall condition from the outside. A cat was seen in the garden area and the prior damage to the hallway was still visible from the doorway. In the absence of any evidence or compelling submission from the tenant it appears more than likely that the tenant has failed to remedy the notice of 13 November 2023 within the required period. The same failure may apply to the notice regarding pets but I am mindful a cat respects no boundaries so seeing one outside is not considered definitive.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because there have been multiple notices served on the tenant and not remedied. The availability of premises such as this for subletting relies on private property owners entering into their own tenancy agreement with this landlord. Such provision relies on an element of faith in this landlord to manage and return the properties in reasonable condition. The concerns of the landlord here are valid. The owner is aware of the damage and has indicated their intention to file their own application with the Tribunal.
Given the mission of the landlord, it indicated it would be supporting the tenant in the transition to new accommodation. Application filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Order

The tenancy of Shannon Marina Wairakau Devlyn at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm, Friday 9 February 2024.
Shannon Marina Wairakau Devlyn must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, being the application filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via video. The tenant did not join and two calls out was made. The call went unanswered. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the second call went unanswered.
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 at least one, more than likely two, notices to remedy. A prior notice to remedy (16 October 2023) after denied access for an inspection was remedied and an inspection was conducted 10 November 2023 but that identified the need for two further breach notices. The landlord was denied access yesterday for a routine inspection. This access denial was from an adult other than the tenant, as she appeared to be away at that time. That may be due to family circumstances.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 8 November 2023 to remove any pets. A second notice, dated 13 November 2023, noted “walls had been damaged with holes and drawings in the hallway, bedrooms and dining area”. This damage was required to be repaired.
While the landlord was denied access yesterday, they did have the opportunity to observe the overall condition from the outside. A cat was seen in the garden area and the prior damage to the hallway was still visible from the doorway. In the absence of any evidence or compelling submission from the tenant it appears more than likely that the tenant has failed to remedy the notice of 13 November 2023 within the required period. The same failure may apply to the notice regarding pets but I am mindful a cat respects no boundaries so seeing one outside is not considered definitive.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because there have been multiple notices served on the tenant and not remedied. The availability of premises such as this for subletting relies on private property owners entering into their own tenancy agreement with this landlord. Such provision relies on an element of faith in this landlord to manage and return the properties in reasonable condition. The concerns of the landlord here are valid. The owner is aware of the damage and has indicated their intention to file their own application with the Tribunal.
Given the mission of the landlord, it indicated it would be supporting the tenant in the transition to new accommodation. Application filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4767377 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4767377 — 14-day notice

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