What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4812760?

The tribunal order states: By consent, the tenancy of Judith Mary Harrison at 3 Bridal Place, Millwater,

How much money was awarded in case 4812760?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4812760?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4812760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10132571-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4812760?

The tribunal order states: By consent, the tenancy of Judith Mary Harrison at 3 Bridal Place, Millwater,

How much money was awarded in case 4812760?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4812760?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4812760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10132571-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Bridal Place, Millwater, Auckland 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4812760 — 14-day notice

Order

By consent, the tenancy of Judith Mary Harrison at 3 Bridal Place, Millwater, Auckland 0932 is terminated, and possession is granted to Peter Charles Bone And Lynne Tunna As The Trustees For The Peter And Christine Bone Family Trust & The Tunna Family Trust, at 11.59 pm, Tuesday, 9 April 2024.
Peter Charles Bone And Lynne Tunna As The Trustees For The Peter And Christine Bone Family Trust & The Tunna Family Trust’s application against Judith Mary Harrison for misrepresentation and Judith Mary Harrison’s claim against Peter Charles Bone And Lynne Tunna As The Trustees For The Peter And Christine Bone Family Trust & The Tunna Family Trust for imposing unreasonable conditions are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The hearing was held on 26 March 2024 in North Shore District Court.
Mr. Bone and Ms. Tuuna attended the hearing as the trustees representing the landlord.
Ms Harrison attended the hearing via teleconference. On 19 March 2024, I granted Ms Harrison’s application to attend the hearing via teleconference on medical grounds.
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 not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The landlord alleged the tenancy agreement had been induced by the tenant’s misrepresentation. The landlord said that if the tenant had provided the information truthfully, they would not have offered her tenancy fixed for a year.
The landlord submitted that the misrepresentation included the tenant not declaring the reference was from her brother, and no bond was deducted from the previous tenancy.
The tenant adamantly and strongly denied the allegations of misrepresentation. Instead, the tenant alleged the landlord had put unreasonable conditions on her as their tenant by including a condition in the tenancy agreement that only one occupant was permitted to reside at the premises and no visitors may be permitted to stay at the premises longer than 14 days. The tenant submitted that the landlord did not provide her with the tenancy agreement and pointed out the special conditions before she moved into the premises.
Whether or not the tenant misrepresented and thereby induced the landlord to offer her the tenancy was no longer relevant because, after the tenant stated “there was absolutely no lie whatsoever”, “I don’t disagree with wanting to terminate the tenancy. I want out of here, possibly is next week”, the landlord said, “I do want it to terminate as early as possible”.
Accordingly, both parties agreed to terminate the tenancy.
Because the parties agreed to terminate the tenancy by consent, I make no further comment on whether the breach is not capable of remedy and whether I should set the tenancy agreement aside under section 78(1)(g) of the Residential Tenancies Act.
Likewise, the tenant’s claims were not pursued because the tenancy was terminated by consent.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application against the tenant for misrepresentation and the tenant’s claim against the landlord for imposing unreasonable conditions are dismissed. Filing fee
The tenancy has been terminated by consent. The costs lie where they fall.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4812760 — 14-day notice at 3 Bridal Place, Millwater, Auckland 0932

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4812760 — 14-day notice at 3 Bridal Place, Millwater, Auckland 0932

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions