How much money was awarded in case 5084013?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5084013?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5084013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11254985-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5084013?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5084013?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5084013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11254985-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

180 Church Street, Riverton, Riverton 9822 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5084013 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5084013?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Emma Batina Salvation at 180 Church Street, Riverton, Riverton

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5084013 — 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

The tenancy of Emma Batina Salvation at 180 Church Street, Riverton, Riverton 9822 is terminated, and possession is granted to Smart Move Residential Limited As Agent For Photo Properties Limited, at 11.59 am on Monday 6 January 2025.

Emma Batina Salvation must pay Smart Move Residential Limited As Agent For Photo Properties Limited $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing.

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

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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 having more people reside at the premises than allowed for in the tenancy agreement.

The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant and her daughter are the only tenants allowed to live at the premises.

The landlord became aware that the tenant’s partner was living at the premises. The landlord informed the tenant that the partner would need to apply to live at the premises. An application was filed by the partner and declined by the landlord.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 5 November 2024 requiring the partner to leave the premises.

At the end of the 14 day period, the tenant said that her partner had left. Subsequent enquiries by the landlord show that the partner has not left the premises and that the premises have been used by the partner as his bail address. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. The tenant accepted that this evidence was correct.

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 s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

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. This has been a very brief tenancy. The breach has existed almost from the very commencement of the tenancy and has been ongoing. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. There has been a persistent failure by the tenant. Having received the breach notice from the landlord, the tenant has lied to the landlord and said that her partner was no longer living at the premises. Court bail records show that the partner is bailed to this address until his next appearance at court on 25 March 2025. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. Given the history of previous breaches, I do not consider that the tenant is likely to comply with her obligations. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. The breach was clearly deliberate. e. The conduct of the landlord. The landlord has acted appropriately throughout the term of the tenancy. f. The gravity of the breach. The breach is relatively serious. The landlord has made their views clear to the tenant that the partner was not a welcome tenant at the premises. Despite this, the tenant has allowed her partner to remain. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. Termination of the tenancy is appropriate in the circumstances. The tenant had been given the opportunity to comply with her obligations under the tenancy agreement. The tenant not only failed to take the opportunity but then lied about the partner’s ongoing presence. The tenancy is terminated.

As Smart Move Residential Limited As Agent For Photo Properties Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5084013 — 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

The tenancy of Emma Batina Salvation at 180 Church Street, Riverton, Riverton 9822 is terminated, and possession is granted to Smart Move Residential Limited As Agent For Photo Properties Limited, at 11.59 am on Monday 6 January 2025.
Emma Batina Salvation must pay Smart Move Residential Limited As Agent For Photo Properties Limited $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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 having more people reside at the premises than allowed for in the tenancy agreement.
The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant and her daughter are the only tenants allowed to live at the premises.
The landlord became aware that the tenant’s partner was living at the premises. The landlord informed the tenant that the partner would need to apply to live at the premises. An application was filed by the partner and declined by the landlord.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 5 November 2024 requiring the partner to leave the premises.
At the end of the 14 day period, the tenant said that her partner had left. Subsequent enquiries by the landlord show that the partner has not left the premises and that the premises have been used by the partner as his bail address. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. The tenant accepted that this evidence was correct.
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 s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
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. This has been a very brief tenancy. The breach has existed almost from the very commencement of the tenancy and has been ongoing. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. There has been a persistent failure by the tenant. Having received the breach notice from the landlord, the tenant has lied to the landlord and said that her partner was no longer living at the premises. Court bail records show that the partner is bailed to this address until his next appearance at court on 25 March 2025. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. Given the history of previous breaches, I do not consider that the tenant is likely to comply with her obligations. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. The breach was clearly deliberate. e. The conduct of the landlord. The landlord has acted appropriately throughout the term of the tenancy. f. The gravity of the breach. The breach is relatively serious. The landlord has made their views clear to the tenant that the partner was not a welcome tenant at the premises. Despite this, the tenant has allowed her partner to remain. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. Termination of the tenancy is appropriate in the circumstances. The tenant had been given the opportunity to comply with her obligations under the tenancy agreement. The tenant not only failed to take the opportunity but then lied about the partner’s ongoing presence. The tenancy is terminated.
As Smart Move Residential Limited As Agent For Photo Properties Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5084013 — Tenancy dispute at 180 Church Street, Riverton, Riverton 9822

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5084013 — Tenancy dispute at 180 Church Street, Riverton, Riverton 9822

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions