How much money was awarded in case 4836081?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4836081?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4836081?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10286182-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4836081?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4836081?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4836081?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10286182-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Flat 1A, 16 Airedale Pl, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4836081 — 14-day notice

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4836081 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the evidence outlined in paragraphs 8 and 9.

The tenancy of Maryam Abdi at Flat 1A, 16 Airedale Pl, Christchurch is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 4pm on Thursday, 2 May 2024.

Maryam Abdi must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

Representatives of the landlord attended the hearing. Another tenant of the complex also attended to give evidence.

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.

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 claims that the tenant has breached their obligations by using the premises for an unlawful purpose or allowing the premises to be used for an unlawful. The landlord claims that the tenant has allowed the premises to be used for the sale of synthetic drugs, which is an illegal activity under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013. See s70 Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 and s40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

[Redacted]

The landlord has established that it is more likely than not that the premises are being used for an unlawful purpose.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 19 March 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the landlord has established that it is more likely than not that illegal activity is occurring. This is having an impact on other tenants at the complex and causing them distress. The landlord has offered the tenant support, but that has not been accepted or acted upon.

The tenant did not attend the hearing to explain her position or to refute the allegations.

The tenancy is terminated.

As the landlord was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the filing fee.

I have also ordered suppression of the evidence outlined at paragraphs 8 and 9 because of evidence given by one of the landlord’s witnesses relating to ongoing police investigation and enquiries. I am satisfied that it is in the public interest for details of the evidence to be suppressed. See s95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the evidence outlined in paragraphs 8 and 9.
The tenancy of Maryam Abdi at Flat 1A, 16 Airedale Pl, Christchurch is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 4pm on Thursday, 2 May 2024.
Maryam Abdi must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $20.44 immediately, being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

Representatives of the landlord attended the hearing. Another tenant of the complex also attended to give evidence.
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.
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 claims that the tenant has breached their obligations by using the premises for an unlawful purpose or allowing the premises to be used for an unlawful. The landlord claims that the tenant has allowed the premises to be used for the sale of synthetic drugs, which is an illegal activity under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013. See s70 Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 and s40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
The landlord has established that it is more likely than not that the premises are being used for an unlawful purpose.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 19 March 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the landlord has established that it is more likely than not that illegal activity is occurring. This is having an impact on other tenants at the complex and causing them distress. The landlord has offered the tenant support, but that has not been accepted or acted upon.
The tenant did not attend the hearing to explain her position or to refute the allegations.
The tenancy is terminated.
As the landlord was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the filing fee.
I have also ordered suppression of the evidence outlined at paragraphs 8 and 9 because of evidence given by one of the landlord’s witnesses relating to ongoing police investigation and enquiries. I am satisfied that it is in the public interest for details of the evidence to be suppressed. See s95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4836081 — 14-day notice at Flat 1A, 16 Airedale Pl, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4836081 — 14-day notice at Flat 1A, 16 Airedale Pl, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions