What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5006296?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Pravesh Anand Kumar and Vaishali Vandana Lal Harakh at

How much money was awarded in case 5006296?

Rent Arrears: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5006296?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5006296?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10961161-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5006296?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Pravesh Anand Kumar and Vaishali Vandana Lal Harakh at

How much money was awarded in case 5006296?

Rent Arrears: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5006296?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5006296?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10961161-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 9 Vine Street, Mangere East, Auckland 2024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5006296 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5006296 — net $1,600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears from 31/05/24 – 17/10/24	$1,600.00	Rent arrears from 31/05/24 – 17/10/24
Net award	$1,600.00
Bond	$1,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,600.00

Order

The tenancy of Pravesh Anand Kumar and Vaishali Vandana Lal Harakh at Unit/Flat 7, 9 Vine Street, Mangere East, Auckland 2024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Riasat Ali and Farhana Bibi, at 11:59pm, Thursday 17 October 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay $1,600.00 from the bond of $2,080.00 (3141025- 014) to Riasat Ali and Farhana Bibi immediately.
The balance of the bond of $480.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

The landlords attended the video hearing. Ms Harakh attended the hearing via phone. Mr Kumar did not attend. A call to Mr Kumar’s last known mobile number went to voicemail.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The tenancy
On 5 November 2020, Mr Kumar and Ms Harakh entered into a two-year fixed- term tenancy agreement at the address. After 5 November 2022, the tenancy became a periodic tenancy.
Ms Harakh gave evidence that she moved out of the property in March 2023 when she separated from Mr Kumar. Ms Harakh stated she did not tell the landlords she was leaving, nor did she ask to be removed as a tenant on the tenancy agreement. Throughout the tenancy, Ms Harakh says Mr Kumar paid the rent, and she paid the monthly bills. After moving out in March 2023, Ms Harakh says Mr Kumar took over paying all rent and bills.
The landlords gave evidence that Mr Kumar runs a furniture-moving business. Over time, he has collected and/or purchased furniture which his clients no longer want and has stored them on the property’s driveway. The landlords confirmed there was no issue with the excessive furniture being stored at the property prior to March 2023.
Rent fell into arrears from 31 May 2024. The landlords say they only became aware Ms Harakh had moved out when Ms Bibi called Ms Harakh in early August 2024. The landlord’s say both Mr Kumar and Ms Harakh should be liable for the unpaid rent.

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 keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. See section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant has accumulated a large amount of furniture and other items (spa pools, pallets of bricks, fridges and other items) which are stored on the premises. Given the size and number of the items, as photographed by the landlord on 13 September 2024, I accept that they may be causing damage to the driveway area.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenants on 5 August 2024, advising them they were in breach for not keeping the property in a clean and safe condition. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. When the landlords returned to inspect the property on 13 September 2024 the same items (spa pools, pallets of bricks, fridges and other items) had not been removed from the property’s exterior as requested.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because Mr Kumar has failed to remove the items which are blocking the driveway and which may be causing damage.

Is Ms Harakh liable for rent arrears?

Every variation of a tenancy agreement shall be in writing and signed by both the landlord and the tenant(s). See section 13B Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Ms Harakh asked to be removed as a party on the basis she has not lived at the property since March 2023. Ms Harakh accepts that she did not notify the tenants that she had left the premises, nor ask to be removed as a tenant. It is common ground between the parties present at the hearing that Ms Harakh did not tell the landlords she had left the premises until a phone call with Ms Bibi in August 2024.
While I accept it is more probable than not that Ms Harakh was not living at the premises from approximately March 2023, she had not sought agreement from the landlords that she be removed as a tenant. Accordingly, she is bound by the terms of the written agreement and there are no grounds to remove her as a tenant.
I note that the bond (or part of) will be paid to the landlords which will cover the full amount of rent arrears awarded and no further payment is required by either party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5006296 — net $1,600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears from 31/05/24 – 17/10/24	$1,600.00	Rent arrears from 31/05/24 – 17/10/24
Net award	$1,600.00
Bond	$1,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,600.00

Order

The tenancy of Pravesh Anand Kumar and Vaishali Vandana Lal Harakh at Unit/Flat 7, 9 Vine Street, Mangere East, Auckland 2024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Riasat Ali and Farhana Bibi, at 11:59pm, Thursday 17 October 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay $1,600.00 from the bond of $2,080.00 (3141025- 014) to Riasat Ali and Farhana Bibi immediately.
The balance of the bond of $480.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

The landlords attended the video hearing. Ms Harakh attended the hearing via phone. Mr Kumar did not attend. A call to Mr Kumar’s last known mobile number went to voicemail.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The tenancy
On 5 November 2020, Mr Kumar and Ms Harakh entered into a two-year fixed- term tenancy agreement at the address. After 5 November 2022, the tenancy became a periodic tenancy.
Ms Harakh gave evidence that she moved out of the property in March 2023 when she separated from Mr Kumar. Ms Harakh stated she did not tell the landlords she was leaving, nor did she ask to be removed as a tenant on the tenancy agreement. Throughout the tenancy, Ms Harakh says Mr Kumar paid the rent, and she paid the monthly bills. After moving out in March 2023, Ms Harakh says Mr Kumar took over paying all rent and bills.
The landlords gave evidence that Mr Kumar runs a furniture-moving business. Over time, he has collected and/or purchased furniture which his clients no longer want and has stored them on the property’s driveway. The landlords confirmed there was no issue with the excessive furniture being stored at the property prior to March 2023.
Rent fell into arrears from 31 May 2024. The landlords say they only became aware Ms Harakh had moved out when Ms Bibi called Ms Harakh in early August 2024. The landlord’s say both Mr Kumar and Ms Harakh should be liable for the unpaid rent.

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 keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. See section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant has accumulated a large amount of furniture and other items (spa pools, pallets of bricks, fridges and other items) which are stored on the premises. Given the size and number of the items, as photographed by the landlord on 13 September 2024, I accept that they may be causing damage to the driveway area.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenants on 5 August 2024, advising them they were in breach for not keeping the property in a clean and safe condition. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. When the landlords returned to inspect the property on 13 September 2024 the same items (spa pools, pallets of bricks, fridges and other items) had not been removed from the property’s exterior as requested.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because Mr Kumar has failed to remove the items which are blocking the driveway and which may be causing damage.

Is Ms Harakh liable for rent arrears?

Every variation of a tenancy agreement shall be in writing and signed by both the landlord and the tenant(s). See section 13B Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Ms Harakh asked to be removed as a party on the basis she has not lived at the property since March 2023. Ms Harakh accepts that she did not notify the tenants that she had left the premises, nor ask to be removed as a tenant. It is common ground between the parties present at the hearing that Ms Harakh did not tell the landlords she had left the premises until a phone call with Ms Bibi in August 2024.
While I accept it is more probable than not that Ms Harakh was not living at the premises from approximately March 2023, she had not sought agreement from the landlords that she be removed as a tenant. Accordingly, she is bound by the terms of the written agreement and there are no grounds to remove her as a tenant.
I note that the bond (or part of) will be paid to the landlords which will cover the full amount of rent arrears awarded and no further payment is required by either party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5006296 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 7, 9 Vine Street, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5006296 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 7, 9 Vine Street, Mangere East, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is Ms Harakh liable for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is Ms Harakh liable for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions