What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4994348?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Akakoromaki Ngatamai Kumu at 8A Lappington Road, Otara,

How much money was awarded in case 4994348?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4994348?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4994348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10856067-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4994348?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Akakoromaki Ngatamai Kumu at 8A Lappington Road, Otara,

How much money was awarded in case 4994348?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4994348?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4994348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10856067-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8A Lappington Road, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4994348 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.

The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in her absence.

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.

The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to reside at the premises. That is a breach of section 26 of the tenancy agreement.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 25 July 2024, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

Is it inequitable to terminate the tenancy?

In exercising the discretion under section 56 I need to consider whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the Court set out a range of factors relevant to the assessment of whether it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating a tenancy. These factors are: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

Having regard to these factors, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because: a. The tenant has not resided in the premises for approximately three months. b. The landlord has made many attempts to discuss the breach with the tenant, but the tenant has not engaged with the landlord. c. There is a high demand for social housing tenancies. d. The landlord is concerned the current occupants are causing damage.

SUPPRESSION

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision. See section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.

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.

The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to reside at the premises. That is a breach of section 26 of the tenancy agreement.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 25 July 2024, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

Is it inequitable to terminate the tenancy?

In exercising the discretion under section 56 I need to consider whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

SUPPRESSION

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision. See section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986

Tenancy Tribunal case 4994348 — 14-day notice at 8A Lappington Road, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4994348 — 14-day notice at 8A Lappington Road, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is it inequitable to terminate the tenancy?

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is it inequitable to terminate the tenancy?

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions