What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4940856 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 1, 15 Kokopu lane, Waterview,

How much money was awarded in case 4940856?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940856?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940856?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10731170-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4940856 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 1, 15 Kokopu lane, Waterview,

How much money was awarded in case 4940856?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940856?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940856?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10731170-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 15 Kokopu lane, Waterview, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4940856 — Rent arrears

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 1, 15 Kokopu lane, Waterview, Auckland 1026 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm on Tuesday 10 September 2024.

Reasons

Ms Gray attended the teleconference hearing on behalf of the landlord. [The tenant/s], along with her support person, [The tenant’s support person], also both attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination and possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy and for rent arrears. During the hearing, the landlord withdrew the claim for rent arrears.
[The tenant/s] gave notice to terminate the tenancy to the landlord in a written notice dated 26 April 2024.
Ms Gray said that, after the tenant provided this notice to terminate the tenancy, she tried to revoke it, but the landlord did not consent to the tenant revoking her notice to terminate the tenancy. Ms Gray said they have arranged for other organisations to work alongside the tenant to provide her with alternative accommodation, one offer of which the tenant has refused.
Ms Gray said the tenant was involved in a violent incident with another neighbour tenant in April 2024, and said she has also been involved in other violent incidents at the tenancy complex in the past. Ms Gray said the landlord does not want her living at the complex anymore because of this.
[The tenant/s] acknowledged she was involved in a violent incident with a neighbour tenant in April 2024 but said it was “not a big deal” as the other tenant had contact with her after the incident. [The tenant/s] said she has three children in her care, that her daughter is brain-damaged and special needs, and she has a partner living with her. She wanted to remain living at the property, and said she has been making efforts to address her issues. [The tenant/s] said she felt pressured to sign the notice of termination of the tenancy, as she alleged that the landlord told her that if she did not, they would apply to the Tribunal anyway, for a termination order. There was no further evidence of any alleged duress though, in terms of witness or other statements or evidence. I find there to be insufficient evidence of any duress in the tenant signing her notice to terminate the tenancy.
Ms Gray indicated that the tenant’s partner is not on the tenancy agreement, and it is only the tenant and her children who are supposed to be living at the property.
Section 51(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that every notice to terminate a tenancy shall be in writing, identify the premises to which it relates, specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises, and be signed by the party giving the notice.
Section 51(4) RTA provides that in a notice to terminate a tenancy, no special form of words shall be required; and no such notice shall be held invalid for any failure to comply strictly with the requirements of subsection (3) so long as the notice is in writing, the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period is stated clearly in the notice, and that any non-compliance is not such as to mislead or affect unjustly the interests of the recipient.
Section 51(6) RTA provides that a party who has given an effective notice to terminate a tenancy may, at any time before the expiry of the period of notice, revoke the notice with the consent of the other party.
As regards the tenant’s written notice to terminate, it is in writing, identifies the premises to which it relates and is signed by the tenant. Whilst the date the tenant is to vacate the premises is not specified in the notice, the notice says, “In accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act (1986) I/we give at least 28 days’ notice to move out of the above tenancy”. A 28-day period from the date of the notice, which was 26 April 2024, would be 24 May 2024, which is the date the landlord believed the tenant would vacate the tenancy. The tenant has remained at the property for almost three months past that 28-day expiry period.
The landlord has not consented to the tenant revoking her notice to terminate the tenancy and so the requirements of section 51(6) RTA have not been complied with.
Section 85(2) RTA provides that the Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
Here, whilst the tenant did not specify a precise date that she would vacate the tenancy, the written notice to terminate the tenancy provided she was giving the landlord “at least 28 days’ notice”, which the landlord then accepted in good faith meant that she would vacate the tenancy by 24 May 2024. I find this is sufficiently certain. To find otherwise would be adopting an overly technical approach and would be out of balance with the substantial merits and justice of the case, pursuant to section 85(2) RTA.
Therefore, I find the written notice of termination of the tenancy dated 26 April 2024 given by the tenant to the landlord is valid. The tenancy is terminated, and the landlord is granted possession of the property.
The landlord indicated they are willing for the tenant to have 3 weeks to move out, which would be Tuesday 10 September 2024. Given the tenant has already remained at the property for almost three months past the expiry of the 28-day period for termination of the tenancy, I find this is reasonable in the circumstances.
Therefore, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 1, 15 Kokopu lane, Waterview, Auckland 1026 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm on Tuesday 10 September 2024. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression. The tenant requested name suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that 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 tenant’s evidence was that she has a brain-damaged special needs daughter and two sons living with her, for whom she cares. She said there will be challenges involved in having to move and set up new arrangements for her daughter in particular. Given her situation and her young children, and that she has attempted to address her issues in the interim, I find the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing her name. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details are not to be published.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 1, 15 Kokopu lane, Waterview, Auckland 1026 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm on Tuesday 10 September 2024.

Reasons

Ms Gray attended the teleconference hearing on behalf of the landlord. [The tenant/s], along with her support person, [The tenant’s support person], also both attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination and possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy and for rent arrears. During the hearing, the landlord withdrew the claim for rent arrears.
[The tenant/s] gave notice to terminate the tenancy to the landlord in a written notice dated 26 April 2024.
Ms Gray said that, after the tenant provided this notice to terminate the tenancy, she tried to revoke it, but the landlord did not consent to the tenant revoking her notice to terminate the tenancy. Ms Gray said they have arranged for other organisations to work alongside the tenant to provide her with alternative accommodation, one offer of which the tenant has refused.
Ms Gray said the tenant was involved in a violent incident with another neighbour tenant in April 2024, and said she has also been involved in other violent incidents at the tenancy complex in the past. Ms Gray said the landlord does not want her living at the complex anymore because of this.
[The tenant/s] acknowledged she was involved in a violent incident with a neighbour tenant in April 2024 but said it was “not a big deal” as the other tenant had contact with her after the incident. [The tenant/s] said she has three children in her care, that her daughter is brain-damaged and special needs, and she has a partner living with her. She wanted to remain living at the property, and said she has been making efforts to address her issues. [The tenant/s] said she felt pressured to sign the notice of termination of the tenancy, as she alleged that the landlord told her that if she did not, they would apply to the Tribunal anyway, for a termination order. There was no further evidence of any alleged duress though, in terms of witness or other statements or evidence. I find there to be insufficient evidence of any duress in the tenant signing her notice to terminate the tenancy.
Ms Gray indicated that the tenant’s partner is not on the tenancy agreement, and it is only the tenant and her children who are supposed to be living at the property.
Section 51(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that every notice to terminate a tenancy shall be in writing, identify the premises to which it relates, specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises, and be signed by the party giving the notice.
Section 51(4) RTA provides that in a notice to terminate a tenancy, no special form of words shall be required; and no such notice shall be held invalid for any failure to comply strictly with the requirements of subsection (3) so long as the notice is in writing, the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period is stated clearly in the notice, and that any non-compliance is not such as to mislead or affect unjustly the interests of the recipient.
Section 51(6) RTA provides that a party who has given an effective notice to terminate a tenancy may, at any time before the expiry of the period of notice, revoke the notice with the consent of the other party.
As regards the tenant’s written notice to terminate, it is in writing, identifies the premises to which it relates and is signed by the tenant. Whilst the date the tenant is to vacate the premises is not specified in the notice, the notice says, “In accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act (1986) I/we give at least 28 days’ notice to move out of the above tenancy”. A 28-day period from the date of the notice, which was 26 April 2024, would be 24 May 2024, which is the date the landlord believed the tenant would vacate the tenancy. The tenant has remained at the property for almost three months past that 28-day expiry period.
The landlord has not consented to the tenant revoking her notice to terminate the tenancy and so the requirements of section 51(6) RTA have not been complied with.
Section 85(2) RTA provides that the Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
Here, whilst the tenant did not specify a precise date that she would vacate the tenancy, the written notice to terminate the tenancy provided she was giving the landlord “at least 28 days’ notice”, which the landlord then accepted in good faith meant that she would vacate the tenancy by 24 May 2024. I find this is sufficiently certain. To find otherwise would be adopting an overly technical approach and would be out of balance with the substantial merits and justice of the case, pursuant to section 85(2) RTA.
Therefore, I find the written notice of termination of the tenancy dated 26 April 2024 given by the tenant to the landlord is valid. The tenancy is terminated, and the landlord is granted possession of the property.
The landlord indicated they are willing for the tenant to have 3 weeks to move out, which would be Tuesday 10 September 2024. Given the tenant has already remained at the property for almost three months past the expiry of the 28-day period for termination of the tenancy, I find this is reasonable in the circumstances.
Therefore, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 1, 15 Kokopu lane, Waterview, Auckland 1026 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm on Tuesday 10 September 2024. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression. The tenant requested name suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that 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 tenant’s evidence was that she has a brain-damaged special needs daughter and two sons living with her, for whom she cares. She said there will be challenges involved in having to move and set up new arrangements for her daughter in particular. Given her situation and her young children, and that she has attempted to address her issues in the interim, I find the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing her name. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940856 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 15 Kokopu lane, Waterview, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940856 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 15 Kokopu lane, Waterview, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions