How much money was awarded in case 4962033?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4962033?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4962033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10776635-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4962033?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4962033?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4962033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10776635-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4962033 — Healthy homes

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4962033 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

[The landlord/s] are granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] effective 12 noon 6 September 2024.

The tenant must pay the filing fee of $27 to the landlord.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises.

The background to this matter is set out in an earlier decision of the Tribunal dated 30 July 2024. 1 In essence: a. The landlord issued a 90 day notice on 10 March 2024 which expired on 10 June 2024 b. The tenant applied to the Tribunal for orders for, amongst other things, that the notice was retaliatory. 1 [2024] NZTT 487594. c. The Tribunal did not uphold that part of the tenant’s claim but found in favour of the tenant on other aspects of her application, namely, that the premises did not comply with Healthy Homes Standards.

The Tribunal noted in her decision that the landlord would now be entitled to possession but made no order for possession.

The tenant lodged an appeal against the decision of the Tribunal, however she advised the Tribunal today that she only did that because the landlord then moved to seek a futher order from the Tribunal for possession.

The tenant lodged an application for a stay of the Tribunal decision. She did not immediately disclose the fact that this had been unsuccessful during the hearing today; this information was provided by the landlord. The landlord advised the Tribunal the District Court dealt with that application on 16 August. One of the Judge’s reasons for dismissing the application was that given the Tribunal’s decision regarding Healthy Homes, to allow the tenant to continue to stay at the premises would be effectively endorsing an ongoing breach of the law. I did not have the decision before me but the landlord paraphrased it.

The situation now is that the tenant has suffered an accident and “came close to dying”. She claims to have hospital equipment at her home which needs to be carefully moved. She has been looking for other premises.

The landlord is however entitled to possession, as is ordered above.

The tenancy ended on 10 June 2024, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.

To give the tenant further time to move out, the possession order is to take effect as of Friday 6 September at 12 noon.

Because [The landlord/s] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. I consider it appropriate to award name suppression in favour of the landlord as they have been successful.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

[The landlord/s] are granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] effective 12 noon 6 September 2024.

The tenant must pay the filing fee of $27 to the landlord.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises.

The Tribunal noted in her decision that the landlord would now be entitled to possession but made no order for possession.

The landlord is however entitled to possession, as is ordered above.

The tenancy ended on 10 June 2024, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.

To give the tenant further time to move out, the possession order is to take effect as of Friday 6 September at 12 noon.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4962033 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4962033 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions