What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5095568 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both

How much money was awarded in case 5095568?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5095568?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5095568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11445778-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5095568 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both

How much money was awarded in case 5095568?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5095568?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5095568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11445778-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5095568 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by phone.

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

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 live at the premises. Clauses 26 and 27 of the tenancy agreement require the tenant to live at the premises personally and to advise the landlord if absent for more than 30 days.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 5 November 2024 with compliance required by 22 November 2024. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has not lived at the premises since 22 March 2022 when her daughter’s body was removed from the house.

The tenant referred to police and coronial investigations. She said the coroner had recently decided to look at the circumstances of her daughter’s death further. She suggested that the premises needed to be forensically examined.

It was clear to the Tribunal that the tenant was understandably distressed by the death of her daughter and by other more recent losses.

The landlord is a provider of social housing for which there is great demand. The tenant cannot reasonably expect that these premises remain empty when there is acute demand for social housing.

I have delayed the possession order by 2 weeks to allow the tenant to provide evidence from the police or the coroner that the premises must be preserved for forensic examination. If she can provide such evidence the Tribunal will consider the possession date again. But in the absence of evidence from the relevant authorities, the landlord will be entitled to possession on 3 March 2025.

I have suppressed the details of both parties and the address of the tenancy in this case due to the sensitive nature of the circumstances leading to this application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by phone.

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

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.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 5 November 2024 with compliance required by 22 November 2024. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has not lived at the premises since 22 March 2022 when her daughter’s body was removed from the house.

It was clear to the Tribunal that the tenant was understandably distressed by the death of her daughter and by other more recent losses.

The landlord is a provider of social housing for which there is great demand. The tenant cannot reasonably expect that these premises remain empty when there is acute demand for social housing.

I have suppressed the details of both parties and the address of the tenancy in this case due to the sensitive nature of the circumstances leading to this application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5095568 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5095568 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions