What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5103988?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 5103988?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103988?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11622346-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5103988?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 5103988?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5103988?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5103988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11622346-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

141A Lemon Street, Strandon, New Plymouth 4312 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5103988 — 14-day notice

Order

No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Melissa Dawn Harvey at 141A Lemon Street, Strandon, New Plymouth 4312 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59pm on Thursday 3 April 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities had a witness who was the housing manager. She attended with a colleague who represented the landlord in the case.
The tenant also attended. The hearing started late to accommodate the tenant’s late arrival to the Tribunal.
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 landlord says that the tenant has breached her obligations by failing to live at the property (Clause 14 of the tenancy agreement). It says she is living with family or friends/her partner.
In August 2024 the landlord became concerned that no one was living at the property after neighbours advised the housing manager that no one had been seen at the home for at least 6 weeks.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 2 September 2024. This set out that the tenant needed to return to the home or contact the landlord to talk about it.
The tenant says that due to a family medical issue she was absent from the home for a week in August 2024 and then she says that immediately after that she had to go and stay with her family out of town to assist with grandchildren due to an injury in the family and that she was there for 3 months.
The power is disconnected at the property. The landlord was advised of this by the tenant in November 2024 when she was located at S’s house. The tenant says S is her “on off partner” who lives on the same street. He also has a Kāinga Ora tenancy. I heard how at this time, on 6 November 2024, the tenant was given some support by the landlord concerning her power and she was unable to give a timeframe when she would return to the property and said that she was living elsewhere. She said that she had nowhere to store her furniture. The tenant did not dispute this at the hearing.
The landlord’s recent inspections show a property where the power remains disconnected but that items of the tenant’s furniture remain. The tenant’s plants are said to be dying. Some plants are in the kitchen sink and they appear to be being watered there. The fridge is empty, and the shower cannot be used as it is missing a showerhead. The bath has visible dust/debris in it. The landlord points to a padlock that the tenant has put on the door which it says shows the need for added security as she is not at the property. The landlord says visits have occurred on 15 to 20 occasions in the last 6 months, but the tenant has not been at home, save for on one occasion.
The tenant says she only goes to the property first thing the morning or late at night and then she stays there. She avoids people. She says she goes there some weeks for 3 or 4 nights and then she might not be there for two weeks as she goes out of town to see family. However, the Tenant also expressed at the hearing: “I don’t really live in the place” and that she does not like living at the property. When asked what that meant by “not really” living at the property she said she goes there a few days a week. She says she cannot afford power. She says that given the lack of a shower head and power she showers at S’s house and he “feeds me and everything”. Further, the tenant says that before Christmas she permitted someone else to live in the property when she was not there, and that girl ripped her off - that is why a padlock is on the door.
The landlord has included clause 14 into its tenancy agreement. This is because they are a social housing provider. It is not an obligation placed on tenants that is contained within the RTA. What does “live” at the premises mean?
A similar provision within the RTA is found in Section 40(3) RTA which refers to the maximum number of persons to ordinarily reside at the premises. The word “reside” is used here, rather than “live”, but I find that “live” is similar in meaning as it is the plain English version of “reside”.
The term reside used in s 40(3) RTA is not precise either but Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th ed) at [107] comments: “It seems that the word ‘resides’ refers to a place of permanent and not merely temporary abode, even though one individual may have more than one residence at the same time for the purpose of being sued. A mere place of temporary and compulsory detention such as a prison, or a temporary residence such as lodgings occupied by a person who has a permanent residence elsewhere, is not sufficient. However, a person may ‘reside’ at a lodging which he occupies permanently, and if a person who has no permanent abode at all, he may be taken to ‘reside’ at the place where he is temporarily staying.”
Given the tenant’s own admission of not "really" living at the property, and a prior admission she was not living there to the housing manager, the significant fact that the power is disconnected, her intermittent visits, and the unchallenged evidence that she has no where else to store her furniture, I find that the tenant does not "live" at the property in the sense of it being her primary or permanent residence. The property appears to be being used as a secondary or temporary space. Therefore, I conclude that the tenant does not "live" at the house.
I find that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement by not living at the property and failed to remedy the position within the required period.
I find it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy as the tenant is still not living at the property in the sense of it being her primary or permanent residence. The landlord is a social housing provider who needs to ensure that its housing stock is occupied by those in need.
I have not terminated this tenancy immediately but have given the tenant additional time to enable the tenant to have time to move her items out of the house.
Neither party required name suppression, so I have not considered this.

Order

No suppression orders apply to the publication of this decision.
The tenancy of Melissa Dawn Harvey at 141A Lemon Street, Strandon, New Plymouth 4312 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59pm on Thursday 3 April 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities had a witness who was the housing manager. She attended with a colleague who represented the landlord in the case.
The tenant also attended. The hearing started late to accommodate the tenant’s late arrival to the Tribunal.
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 landlord says that the tenant has breached her obligations by failing to live at the property (Clause 14 of the tenancy agreement). It says she is living with family or friends/her partner.
In August 2024 the landlord became concerned that no one was living at the property after neighbours advised the housing manager that no one had been seen at the home for at least 6 weeks.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 2 September 2024. This set out that the tenant needed to return to the home or contact the landlord to talk about it.
The tenant says that due to a family medical issue she was absent from the home for a week in August 2024 and then she says that immediately after that she had to go and stay with her family out of town to assist with grandchildren due to an injury in the family and that she was there for 3 months.
The power is disconnected at the property. The landlord was advised of this by the tenant in November 2024 when she was located at S’s house. The tenant says S is her “on off partner” who lives on the same street. He also has a Kāinga Ora tenancy. I heard how at this time, on 6 November 2024, the tenant was given some support by the landlord concerning her power and she was unable to give a timeframe when she would return to the property and said that she was living elsewhere. She said that she had nowhere to store her furniture. The tenant did not dispute this at the hearing.
The landlord’s recent inspections show a property where the power remains disconnected but that items of the tenant’s furniture remain. The tenant’s plants are said to be dying. Some plants are in the kitchen sink and they appear to be being watered there. The fridge is empty, and the shower cannot be used as it is missing a showerhead. The bath has visible dust/debris in it. The landlord points to a padlock that the tenant has put on the door which it says shows the need for added security as she is not at the property. The landlord says visits have occurred on 15 to 20 occasions in the last 6 months, but the tenant has not been at home, save for on one occasion.
The tenant says she only goes to the property first thing the morning or late at night and then she stays there. She avoids people. She says she goes there some weeks for 3 or 4 nights and then she might not be there for two weeks as she goes out of town to see family. However, the Tenant also expressed at the hearing: “I don’t really live in the place” and that she does not like living at the property. When asked what that meant by “not really” living at the property she said she goes there a few days a week. She says she cannot afford power. She says that given the lack of a shower head and power she showers at S’s house and he “feeds me and everything”. Further, the tenant says that before Christmas she permitted someone else to live in the property when she was not there, and that girl ripped her off - that is why a padlock is on the door.
The landlord has included clause 14 into its tenancy agreement. This is because they are a social housing provider. It is not an obligation placed on tenants that is contained within the RTA. What does “live” at the premises mean?
A similar provision within the RTA is found in Section 40(3) RTA which refers to the maximum number of persons to ordinarily reside at the premises. The word “reside” is used here, rather than “live”, but I find that “live” is similar in meaning as it is the plain English version of “reside”.
The term reside used in s 40(3) RTA is not precise either but Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th ed) at [107] comments: “It seems that the word ‘resides’ refers to a place of permanent and not merely temporary abode, even though one individual may have more than one residence at the same time for the purpose of being sued. A mere place of temporary and compulsory detention such as a prison, or a temporary residence such as lodgings occupied by a person who has a permanent residence elsewhere, is not sufficient. However, a person may ‘reside’ at a lodging which he occupies permanently, and if a person who has no permanent abode at all, he may be taken to ‘reside’ at the place where he is temporarily staying.”
Given the tenant’s own admission of not "really" living at the property, and a prior admission she was not living there to the housing manager, the significant fact that the power is disconnected, her intermittent visits, and the unchallenged evidence that she has no where else to store her furniture, I find that the tenant does not "live" at the property in the sense of it being her primary or permanent residence. The property appears to be being used as a secondary or temporary space. Therefore, I conclude that the tenant does not "live" at the house.
I find that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement by not living at the property and failed to remedy the position within the required period.
I find it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy as the tenant is still not living at the property in the sense of it being her primary or permanent residence. The landlord is a social housing provider who needs to ensure that its housing stock is occupied by those in need.
I have not terminated this tenancy immediately but have given the tenant additional time to enable the tenant to have time to move her items out of the house.
Neither party required name suppression, so I have not considered this.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103988 — 14-day notice at 141A Lemon Street, Strandon, New Plymouth 4312

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5103988 — 14-day notice at 141A Lemon Street, Strandon, New Plymouth 4312

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