What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5085490?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Mark Louie Maglaqui and Ricanorito Maglaqui at 162 Seabrook

How much money was awarded in case 5085490?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $412.97 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5085490?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5085490?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11614859-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5085490?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Mark Louie Maglaqui and Ricanorito Maglaqui at 162 Seabrook

How much money was awarded in case 5085490?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $412.97 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5085490?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5085490?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11614859-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

162 Seabrook Avenue, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5085490 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5085490 — net $439.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to 14 March 2025	$412.97	Water rates to 14 March 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$439.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$439.97

Order

The tenancy of Mark Louie Maglaqui and Ricanorito Maglaqui at 162 Seabrook Avenue, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 is terminated, and possession is granted to Sunnyville Property Management Nz Limited, at 11.59 pm on Sunday 30 March 2025.
Mark Louie Maglaqui and Ricanorito Maglaqui to pay Sunnyville Property Management Nz Limited $439.97 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend the hearing or request an adjournment.
Because I am satisfied the tenants have been served notice of the hearing in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, the hearing was conducted in the tenants’ absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenants’ obligations, water rates and the filing fee.
The named tenants on the tenancy agreement are Mark Louie Maglaqui, Ricanorito Maglaqui, Helen Maglaqui, Jeremy Maglaqui and Asi Mille Maglaqui. Maria Estefany Mondez has been added in handwriting and dated 3 March 2018.
The landlord today was represented by Chao Wang.

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.
Today the landlord stated that the tenant has breached their obligations under section 44 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) by subletting the premises to tenants without seeking the consent of the landlord. This is also a breach of clause 2 of the tenancy agreement.
“Sublet” is not defined in the RTA. A search in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary returns a definition of “to lease or rent all or part of a leased or rented property”.
The landlord stated that at the most recent routine inspection of the property on 3 March 2025, he gathered all of the occupants together and asked them if Helen or Ric (Maglaqui) lived at the property. They all responded in the negative by shaking their head.
At a previous routine inspection on 2 December 2024 the tenant Helen Maglaqui had been present, and she showed the landlord through the house. One of the four bedrooms was occupied by a man name “HT”, a second was occupied by a couple “M and G”, and the third and fourth bedrooms needed to be unlocked. Neither of these last two bedrooms appeared to be occupied by Helen Maglaqui.
Following this, on 13 December 2024 the landlord served a 14-day notice on all of the tenants named on the tenancy agreement requiring the tenants to terminate the sub-lease. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period: As stated above, on 3 March 2025 the house was fully occupied, but none of the occupants included any of the tenants named on the tenancy agreement.
The landlord stated that in early 2025 he spoke to Helen Maglaqui on the telephone about the overdue water rates. Helen Maglaqui stated that the arrears would be paid. As yet they have not been paid. The landlord told Helen Maglaqui he would prefer they communicated via email so there is a paper-trail of communications. However the tenants have refused to respond to emails. When the landlord asked Helen Maglaqui if she was still living at the premises, she stated she was. The landlord is convinced this was not the case.
The landlord provided a text message that he received from the mediator for the mediation that was set down for 10 January 2025, which the named tenants did not attend. The text reads: “Hi I am Maria who currently lives in 162 Seabrook Avenue New Lynn. Markie sent me a message about the water bill. We currently living here and pay our rent to our landlord, Helen Maglaqui and Ric Maglaqui. Any problem please speak to them. Helen Maglaqui / Ric Maglaqui.” (telephone number provided.)
The landlord states that because none of the named tenants are living at the property (with the possible exception of “Maria” who might be Maria Montez whose name has been added to the tenancy agreement) and all of the tenants who are living at the address are paying rent to Helen Maglaqui (including “Maria”), all of the tenants are subletting the property from the sub-landlord Helen Maglaqui.
The landlord stated that for these reasons, to all intents and purposes they have lost control of the property.
Mr Wang is a credible witness who has a good knowledge of the tenancy for the last year which is the period he has been managing the tenancy. The information he provided is internally consistent.
I find the landlord’s claim proved, that this property is being sublet by the former tenants who are now acting as sub-landlords with sub-tenants.
I also find it proved that the tenants were served a 14-day notice to remedy a breach on 13 December 2024, and this was not remedied by 28 December 2024.
I determine it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy in these circumstances because an unlawful act has been committed by the tenant (see RTA section 44(2A)) and the landlord has now effectively lost significant control of the tenancy and therefore (but to a lesser degree) the property.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices and a schedule of payments which prove that as of 14 March 2025, the amount owing for water rates is $412.97.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with his claims, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5085490 — net $439.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates to 14 March 2025	$412.97	Water rates to 14 March 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$439.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$439.97

Order

The tenancy of Mark Louie Maglaqui and Ricanorito Maglaqui at 162 Seabrook Avenue, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 is terminated, and possession is granted to Sunnyville Property Management Nz Limited, at 11.59 pm on Sunday 30 March 2025.
Mark Louie Maglaqui and Ricanorito Maglaqui to pay Sunnyville Property Management Nz Limited $439.97 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend the hearing or request an adjournment.
Because I am satisfied the tenants have been served notice of the hearing in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, the hearing was conducted in the tenants’ absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenants’ obligations, water rates and the filing fee.
The named tenants on the tenancy agreement are Mark Louie Maglaqui, Ricanorito Maglaqui, Helen Maglaqui, Jeremy Maglaqui and Asi Mille Maglaqui. Maria Estefany Mondez has been added in handwriting and dated 3 March 2018.
The landlord today was represented by Chao Wang.

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.
Today the landlord stated that the tenant has breached their obligations under section 44 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) by subletting the premises to tenants without seeking the consent of the landlord. This is also a breach of clause 2 of the tenancy agreement.
“Sublet” is not defined in the RTA. A search in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary returns a definition of “to lease or rent all or part of a leased or rented property”.
The landlord stated that at the most recent routine inspection of the property on 3 March 2025, he gathered all of the occupants together and asked them if Helen or Ric (Maglaqui) lived at the property. They all responded in the negative by shaking their head.
At a previous routine inspection on 2 December 2024 the tenant Helen Maglaqui had been present, and she showed the landlord through the house. One of the four bedrooms was occupied by a man name “HT”, a second was occupied by a couple “M and G”, and the third and fourth bedrooms needed to be unlocked. Neither of these last two bedrooms appeared to be occupied by Helen Maglaqui.
Following this, on 13 December 2024 the landlord served a 14-day notice on all of the tenants named on the tenancy agreement requiring the tenants to terminate the sub-lease. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period: As stated above, on 3 March 2025 the house was fully occupied, but none of the occupants included any of the tenants named on the tenancy agreement.
The landlord stated that in early 2025 he spoke to Helen Maglaqui on the telephone about the overdue water rates. Helen Maglaqui stated that the arrears would be paid. As yet they have not been paid. The landlord told Helen Maglaqui he would prefer they communicated via email so there is a paper-trail of communications. However the tenants have refused to respond to emails. When the landlord asked Helen Maglaqui if she was still living at the premises, she stated she was. The landlord is convinced this was not the case.
The landlord provided a text message that he received from the mediator for the mediation that was set down for 10 January 2025, which the named tenants did not attend. The text reads: “Hi I am Maria who currently lives in 162 Seabrook Avenue New Lynn. Markie sent me a message about the water bill. We currently living here and pay our rent to our landlord, Helen Maglaqui and Ric Maglaqui. Any problem please speak to them. Helen Maglaqui / Ric Maglaqui.” (telephone number provided.)
The landlord states that because none of the named tenants are living at the property (with the possible exception of “Maria” who might be Maria Montez whose name has been added to the tenancy agreement) and all of the tenants who are living at the address are paying rent to Helen Maglaqui (including “Maria”), all of the tenants are subletting the property from the sub-landlord Helen Maglaqui.
The landlord stated that for these reasons, to all intents and purposes they have lost control of the property.
Mr Wang is a credible witness who has a good knowledge of the tenancy for the last year which is the period he has been managing the tenancy. The information he provided is internally consistent.
I find the landlord’s claim proved, that this property is being sublet by the former tenants who are now acting as sub-landlords with sub-tenants.
I also find it proved that the tenants were served a 14-day notice to remedy a breach on 13 December 2024, and this was not remedied by 28 December 2024.
I determine it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy in these circumstances because an unlawful act has been committed by the tenant (see RTA section 44(2A)) and the landlord has now effectively lost significant control of the tenancy and therefore (but to a lesser degree) the property.

How much is owed for water rates?

The landlord provided water rates invoices and a schedule of payments which prove that as of 14 March 2025, the amount owing for water rates is $412.97.
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with his claims, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5085490 — Tenancy dispute at 162 Seabrook Avenue, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5085490 — Tenancy dispute at 162 Seabrook Avenue, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions