How much money was awarded in case 5019049?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $971.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5019049?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5019049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11100984-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5019049?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $971.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5019049?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5019049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11100984-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

11A Dallas Place, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5019049 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5019049 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5019049 — net $342.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$971.71	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$342.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$342.71

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

The tenancy of Jamielee Yorke at 11A Dallas Place, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 6pm on Tuesday 26 November 2024.

Jamielee Yorke must pay [The landlord/s] $342.71 immediately, as set out below.

The bond centre is to refund the bond to the applicant immediately.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord representative attended the hearing. Ms Yorke did not join the video meeting and could not be contacted on her cell phone.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, compensation for unpaid water invoices, reimbursement of the filing fee and a refund of the bond.

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 property reasonably clean and tidy, failing to remove rubbish and causing or permitting extensive damage at the property.

The landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant on 15 July, 31 July, 22 August, 24 September and 17 October and the tenant did not remedy the more serious of the breaches within the required period.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the nature and extent of the breaches. The photographs and invoice show there is substantial damage at the property that requires urgent repair, the property is very dirty and needs deep cleaning as the moisture and grime that has built up is causing damage. The landlord has replaced the oven because of damage to the door caused by children swinging on it. The walls have holes, the kitchen bench and bathroom cabinetry is damaged and needs repair. The list of extensive work required is growing.

The tenant did not attend the hearing to propose any other solution (and even if she had it is doubtful that an option other than vacant possession to reinstate the property would be considered realistic). She has had repeated warnings over the tenancy and particularly over the past few months, so termination is not an excessive or unfair response to the landlord’s request. To refuse the termination order would be unfair.

The landlord has also applied for water arrears and has provided water invoices which prove the amount owing.

The landlord is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee and name suppression. Both orders are made as the application is largely successful.

The landlord had requested compensation for replacement of the oven. As depreciation is relevant to the order that will be made, the landlord will find out the age of the oven at the beginning of the tenancy so an order can be made.

A further request for compensation will likely be made once the landlord has possession.

The landlord agreed to allow one further week for the tenant to move, so the possession order is one week from now.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5019049 — net $342.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$971.71	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$342.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$342.71

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Jamielee Yorke at 11A Dallas Place, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 6pm on Tuesday 26 November 2024.
Jamielee Yorke must pay [The landlord/s] $342.71 immediately, as set out below.
The bond centre is to refund the bond to the applicant immediately.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord representative attended the hearing. Ms Yorke did not join the video meeting and could not be contacted on her cell phone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, compensation for unpaid water invoices, reimbursement of the filing fee and a refund of the bond.

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 property reasonably clean and tidy, failing to remove rubbish and causing or permitting extensive damage at the property.
The landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant on 15 July, 31 July, 22 August, 24 September and 17 October and the tenant did not remedy the more serious of the breaches within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the nature and extent of the breaches. The photographs and invoice show there is substantial damage at the property that requires urgent repair, the property is very dirty and needs deep cleaning as the moisture and grime that has built up is causing damage. The landlord has replaced the oven because of damage to the door caused by children swinging on it. The walls have holes, the kitchen bench and bathroom cabinetry is damaged and needs repair. The list of extensive work required is growing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing to propose any other solution (and even if she had it is doubtful that an option other than vacant possession to reinstate the property would be considered realistic). She has had repeated warnings over the tenancy and particularly over the past few months, so termination is not an excessive or unfair response to the landlord’s request. To refuse the termination order would be unfair.
The landlord has also applied for water arrears and has provided water invoices which prove the amount owing.
The landlord is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee and name suppression. Both orders are made as the application is largely successful.
The landlord had requested compensation for replacement of the oven. As depreciation is relevant to the order that will be made, the landlord will find out the age of the oven at the beginning of the tenancy so an order can be made.
A further request for compensation will likely be made once the landlord has possession.
The landlord agreed to allow one further week for the tenant to move, so the possession order is one week from now.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5019049 — Tenancy dispute at 11A Dallas Place, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5019049 — Tenancy dispute at 11A Dallas Place, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions