What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4985510?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Rawiri Duke Tawhai at 56 Roto Street, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011

How much money was awarded in case 4985510?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4985510?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985510?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11045802-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4985510?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Rawiri Duke Tawhai at 56 Roto Street, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011

How much money was awarded in case 4985510?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4985510?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4985510?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11045802-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

56 Roto Street, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4985510 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Rawiri Duke Tawhai at 56 Roto Street, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at 11.59pm on 7 November 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was held by teleconference. Ms Susan Rea represented the landlord.
This tenancy began on 9 February 2024. The current rent is $84.00 per week. There is no bond.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord seeks termination on the basis that the tenant no longer lives at the premises and is in breach of his tenancy agreement.
Clause 14 of the tenancy agreement requires that the tenant “must live at the home at all times...” and notes that the home must only be used by the tenant and their family who are part of the application.
Clause 15 requires that the tenant notify the landlord “if you are going to be away from the home for more than 30 days.” Legal framework
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.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

In this case, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 19 July 2024 informing him of his responsibility to live at the premises and requiring him to return within 14 days. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. The landlord’s evidence is that the tenant was currently in prison and was unlikely to be released until March 2025.
At the hearing, the tenant expressed his gratitude for the landlord’s support. He thought he may be released in another month. He understood that the landlord could end his tenancy, but he hoped to remain a tenant.
In this case the tenant has breached his obligations under clauses 14 and 15 of the tenancy agreement. Based on the current evidence, the tenant is unlikely to be able to return to the premises and live there. While acknowledging that the tenant hopes to be released next month, there is no evidence to support this earlier release date.
In the circumstances, I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Kainga Ora provides social housing on the basis of housing need, and it is fair and reasonable that tenants are required to live in the home, due to the demand for housing. Where there is evidence that the tenant is no longer residing at the premises, and is therefore in breach if their tenancy agreement, there are sufficient grounds for termination of the tenancy.
Accordingly, this tenancy is terminated.
The landlord has also explained that the tenant can reapply for social housing at a future date, once released from prison. In the meantime, it will be in touch with him regarding arrangements for removal of his belongings. Filing fee
While successful in this application, the landlord does not seek the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of Rawiri Duke Tawhai at 56 Roto Street, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at 11.59pm on 7 November 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was held by teleconference. Ms Susan Rea represented the landlord.
This tenancy began on 9 February 2024. The current rent is $84.00 per week. There is no bond.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord seeks termination on the basis that the tenant no longer lives at the premises and is in breach of his tenancy agreement.
Clause 14 of the tenancy agreement requires that the tenant “must live at the home at all times...” and notes that the home must only be used by the tenant and their family who are part of the application.
Clause 15 requires that the tenant notify the landlord “if you are going to be away from the home for more than 30 days.” Legal framework
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.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

In this case, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 19 July 2024 informing him of his responsibility to live at the premises and requiring him to return within 14 days. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. The landlord’s evidence is that the tenant was currently in prison and was unlikely to be released until March 2025.
At the hearing, the tenant expressed his gratitude for the landlord’s support. He thought he may be released in another month. He understood that the landlord could end his tenancy, but he hoped to remain a tenant.
In this case the tenant has breached his obligations under clauses 14 and 15 of the tenancy agreement. Based on the current evidence, the tenant is unlikely to be able to return to the premises and live there. While acknowledging that the tenant hopes to be released next month, there is no evidence to support this earlier release date.
In the circumstances, I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Kainga Ora provides social housing on the basis of housing need, and it is fair and reasonable that tenants are required to live in the home, due to the demand for housing. Where there is evidence that the tenant is no longer residing at the premises, and is therefore in breach if their tenancy agreement, there are sufficient grounds for termination of the tenancy.
Accordingly, this tenancy is terminated.
The landlord has also explained that the tenant can reapply for social housing at a future date, once released from prison. In the meantime, it will be in touch with him regarding arrangements for removal of his belongings. Filing fee
While successful in this application, the landlord does not seek the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985510 — 14-day notice at 56 Roto Street, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4985510 — 14-day notice at 56 Roto Street, Tahunanui, Nelson 7011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions