How much money was awarded in case 5030649?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5030649?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5030649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11186003-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5030649?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5030649?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5030649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11186003-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5030649 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5030649 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 5030649 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

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 Cassidy Kemp and Steven Te Ahiwaka at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at

59 am on Friday 13 December 2024.

Cassidy Kemp and Steven Te Ahiwaka must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote video hearing on 9 December 2024.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

The tenancy commenced on 29 October 2021.

The tenancy agreement provided that pets could not be kept without the landlord’s prior written consent. Consent could be withheld at the entire discretion of the landlord.

The tenant has kept a dog on the premises. The landlord has tried to work with the tenant to have a dog permitted at the premises . The landlord has invited the tenants to seek consent from the owner and set out conditions on which that consent might be granted. The tenant did not comply with those conditions and no consent has been given.

Mediation took place between the parties. The tenant advised the mediator that the dog had been rehoused. The mediator ordered that the landlord could carry out a number of inspections to confirm that the dog had been removed from the premises. In the event that a dog was discovered during the course of the inspections the landlord was requested to refer to matter to the Tribunal for adjudication. The landlord carried out further inspections and the dog was still present at the premises.

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 keeping a dog at the premises.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 7 March 2024, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

Where a breach has been established the Tribunal must consider whether it would be inequitable to refuse to make the order terminating the tenancy.

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. The history is set out above. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. The history shows persistent and ongoing failure by the tenant to comply. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. The history shows that it is unlikely that the tenant would comply with any order to remove the dog. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. The breach can only have been deliberate. e. The conduct of the landlord. The landlord has tried to arrange for the owner to give consent. The landlord has pursued mediation alternatives. f. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. At the hearing, the tenant accepted in full the landlord’s evidence and said that she had nothing that she could say to justify what had occurred.

Taking all of those factors into account, the Tribunal orders the termination of the tenancy.

The landlord has been wholly successful in this matter and the tenant is ordered to reimburse the filing fee.

Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful and their application for suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5030649 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

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 Cassidy Kemp and Steven Te Ahiwaka at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at
59 am on Friday 13 December 2024.
Cassidy Kemp and Steven Te Ahiwaka must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote video hearing on 9 December 2024.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The tenancy commenced on 29 October 2021.
The tenancy agreement provided that pets could not be kept without the landlord’s prior written consent. Consent could be withheld at the entire discretion of the landlord.
The tenant has kept a dog on the premises. The landlord has tried to work with the tenant to have a dog permitted at the premises . The landlord has invited the tenants to seek consent from the owner and set out conditions on which that consent might be granted. The tenant did not comply with those conditions and no consent has been given.
Mediation took place between the parties. The tenant advised the mediator that the dog had been rehoused. The mediator ordered that the landlord could carry out a number of inspections to confirm that the dog had been removed from the premises. In the event that a dog was discovered during the course of the inspections the landlord was requested to refer to matter to the Tribunal for adjudication. The landlord carried out further inspections and the dog was still present at the premises.

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 keeping a dog at the premises.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 7 March 2024, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
Where a breach has been established the Tribunal must consider whether it would be inequitable to refuse to make the order terminating the tenancy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. The history is set out above. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. The history shows persistent and ongoing failure by the tenant to comply. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. The history shows that it is unlikely that the tenant would comply with any order to remove the dog. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. The breach can only have been deliberate. e. The conduct of the landlord. The landlord has tried to arrange for the owner to give consent. The landlord has pursued mediation alternatives. f. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. At the hearing, the tenant accepted in full the landlord’s evidence and said that she had nothing that she could say to justify what had occurred.
Taking all of those factors into account, the Tribunal orders the termination of the tenancy.
The landlord has been wholly successful in this matter and the tenant is ordered to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered. The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful and their application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5030649 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5030649 — Tenancy dispute

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