What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4939735 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address

How much money was awarded in case 4939735?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939735?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939735?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10729956-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4939735 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address

How much money was awarded in case 4939735?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939735?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939735?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10729956-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4939735 — Tenancy dispute

Order

[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] immediately.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative] attended the teleconference hearing on behalf of the landlord. The phone numbers for the tenants, the last three digits being 310 and 443 respectively, were each called twice. All calls went to voicemail. As the tenants were served, the hearing proceeded in their absence.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
This is a fixed-term tenancy, which was to end on 10 August 2024. The tenants indicated to the landlord that they were unwilling to leave the property by 10 August 2024, despite a number of emails and letters to them several months before from the landlord, confirming they would have to vacate the property by 10 August 2024. The tenancy agreement also had a clause confirming that the term would end on 10 August 2024. The landlord filed this application on 15 July 2024 in anticipation of the tenants not leaving by 10 August 2024.
The landlord confirmed at the hearing on 20 August 2024 that she had attended the property twice on 20 August 2024 prior to the hearing. On the first visit, the tenants returned the keys to the property to the landlord. On the second visit, where the landlord checked that all the tenants’ possessions had been cleared, the tenant’s campervan, apparently full of items, as well as their fish tank, which was left in the garage, remained at the property. The landlord said they had secured the premises on the second visit. Given earlier difficulties in getting the tenants to leave, and that there were items belonging to the tenants remaining on the outside of the property, the landlord requested a possession order.
The tenancy was due to end on 10 August 2024, and the tenants finally left the property with most of their belongings and returned the keys on 20 August 2024, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) are satisfied.
The landlord requested suppression for them and on behalf of the tenants. The landlord has been successful with the claim so is entitled to suppression. See section 95A(1) RTA.
The landlord said this was a situation where the owner had been a friend of the tenants originally and had let the property to them because of this. However, the situation had deteriorated, resulting in the tenants refusing to leave on the date the tenancy was to end. The landlord said the tenants had recently made some efforts to move out and believed they were ‘befuddled’ by the situation. I note the tenants did not attend the hearing, nor did they make any such suppression requests themselves in writing or otherwise. I find there is not sufficient evidence to indicate that the tenants’ interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their names, pursuant to section 95A(4) RTA. Therefore, I do not grant name suppression to the tenants.
The landlord did not request reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative] attended the teleconference hearing on behalf of the landlord. The phone numbers for the tenants, the last three digits being 310 and 443 respectively, were each called twice. All calls went to voicemail. As the tenants were served, the hearing proceeded in their absence.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.

This is a fixed-term tenancy, which was to end on 10 August 2024. The tenants indicated to the landlord that they were unwilling to leave the property by 10 August 2024, despite a number of emails and letters to them several months before from the landlord, confirming they would have to vacate the property by 10 August 2024. The tenancy agreement also had a clause confirming that the term would end on 10 August 2024. The landlord filed this application on 15 July 2024 in anticipation of the tenants not leaving by 10 August 2024.

The landlord confirmed at the hearing on 20 August 2024 that she had attended the property twice on 20 August 2024 prior to the hearing. On the first visit, the tenants returned the keys to the property to the landlord. On the second visit, where the landlord checked that all the tenants’ possessions had been cleared, the tenant’s campervan, apparently full of items, as well as their fish tank, which was left in the garage, remained at the property. The landlord said they had secured the premises on the second visit. Given earlier difficulties in getting the tenants to leave, and that there were items belonging to the tenants remaining on the outside of the property, the landlord requested a possession order.

The tenancy was due to end on 10 August 2024, and the tenants finally left the property with most of their belongings and returned the keys on 20 August 2024, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) are satisfied.

The landlord requested suppression for them and on behalf of the tenants. The landlord has been successful with the claim so is entitled to suppression. See section 95A(1) RTA.

The landlord said this was a situation where the owner had been a friend of the tenants originally and had let the property to them because of this. However, the situation had deteriorated, resulting in the tenants refusing to leave on the date the tenancy was to end. The landlord said the tenants had recently made some efforts to move out and believed they were ‘befuddled’ by the situation. I note the tenants did not attend the hearing, nor did they make any such suppression requests themselves in writing or otherwise. I find there is not sufficient evidence to indicate that the tenants’ interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their names, pursuant to section 95A(4) RTA. Therefore, I do not grant name suppression to the tenants.

The landlord did not request reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939735 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939735 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions