What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4768657 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Marina Te Atawhai Pickering at 61 Karen Crescent, Dinsdale,

How much money was awarded in case 4768657?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4768657?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4768657?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10010672-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4768657 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Marina Te Atawhai Pickering at 61 Karen Crescent, Dinsdale,

How much money was awarded in case 4768657?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4768657?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4768657?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10010672-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

61 Karen Crescent, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4768657 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4768657 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

The tenancy of Marina Te Atawhai Pickering at 61 Karen Crescent, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm, Thursday 29 February 2024.

The Bond Centre is to pay $20.44 from the bond of $488.00 to [The landlord/s] immediately.

The balance of the bond of $467.56 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

The landlords’ attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.

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 keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, damaging the premises and exceeding the number of tenants at the premises.

The landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant for failing to keep the premises reasonably tidy, smoking, damaging the premises and over occupancy, on the following dates- 1) 9 October 2023, after a failed property inspection on 22 September 2023. 2) 3 November 2023, after a follow up inspection on 30 October established that the tenant had not complied with the 14-day notices. 3) 28 November, after a follow up inspection on 21 November 2023 established that the tenant had not complied with the 14-day notices.

The landlord provided copies of all the inspections which show stained, burned and damaged carpet in the living area, with the damages progressively getting worse. The lino floors in the bathroom and laundry areas were unclean and walls mouldy and dirty. The towel rail holder, toilet roll holder and a door handle were missing.

The curtains in the common areas of the lounge and dining had been removed and various materials had been nailed up. These changed over time causing more nail holes in the walls. Other walls were damaged and marked.

There was rubbish left outside and a washing machine that was being used and draining under the house.

One door had been blocked off and there was graffiti next to it on the house.

One 14-day notice was for smoking inside the premises but other than the landlord smelling smoke there was no other evidence provided supporting this claim.

There was evidence from two inspections that someone had been living in the garage which exceeded the number of people allowed at the premises.

The garage was locked on the inspection on 21 November, so the landlord was unable to establish if there was still someone living there.

A further inspection was held on 14 December 2023 again confirming that the tenant had failed to comply with the 14-day notices and did not remedy the breaches within the required period. Following this inspection, the landlords filed an application with Tribunal.

[The landlord/s] are social housing providers who rely on landlords to provide premises for them to house families. The tenant has been given the opportunity, with support, to remedy the cleaning and damages but has not taken any steps to do this.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the damage has continued, and condition of the premises is deteriorating. [The landlord/s] are concerned that the owner may not continue to offer this premises for them to rent to the people who need housing. They seek to have the tenancy terminated so they can make the repairs and rent it to another family.

The tenancy is terminated, and possession granted to [The landlord/s]. Name 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. Name suppression for the landlord is granted.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The landlord requested that both theirs and the tenants’ details be suppressed. The tenant did not attend the hearing and I have found the landlords successful in their claim for termination for breaches of the tenants’ responsibilities. The tenants are not successful and therefore not entitled to it by right.

Having weighted up the interest of the parties versus the public interest I do not consider it justified to order suppression and decline to make a suppression order for the tenant.

Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4768657 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44