What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5138328?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Hine Sharan Claira Ann Nga Pati Whatuira- Hawe at Unit/Flat

How much money was awarded in case 5138328?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5138328?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5138328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11371437-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5138328?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Hine Sharan Claira Ann Nga Pati Whatuira- Hawe at Unit/Flat

How much money was awarded in case 5138328?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5138328?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5138328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11371437-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 5, 57 Marne Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5138328 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5138328 — 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 Hine Sharan Claira Ann Nga Pati Whatuira- Hawe at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 57 Marne Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.
Hine Sharan Claira Ann Nga Pati Whatuira- Hawe must pay Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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 (RTA).
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.
Clause 14 of the tenancy agreement requires the tenant to live in the property at all times. The landlord claims the tenant is not living in the property. The tenant is not in rent arrears and therefore, the landlord is unable to seek termination on the basis of abandonment. See section 61(1) RTA.
In support of their claim that the tenant is not living at the property, the landlord submitted the following evidence: a. On 26 November 2024 the landlord issued the tenant a 14-day notice to remedy requiring the tenant to resume living at the property by 13 December 2024. b. On 5 December 2024 the landlord visited the property and knocked on the door. There was no answer. c. On 13 December 2024, the landlord visited the property and knocked on the door. There was no answer. The lawns were overgrown and there was a significant amount of rubbish outside the property. d. On 14 January 2024 the landlord visited the property to complete an inspection under section 48(2)(b) RTA. Noone was at the property. All of the doors and windows were locked. The lawns were overgrown and many of the bedrooms were empty indicating that they were unoccupied. There was a significant amount of rubbish inside and outside the property. There were minimal items of furniture and belongings inside the property. The property was messy and there was damage such as, holes in the walls, missing cabinetry and a broken window. Photographs of the inspection were provided to the Tribunal.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the tenant is not living at the property and has been absent for some time. This is a breach of clause 14 of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 26 November 2024, and the tenant did not remedy the breach withing the required period.
I consider it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the following reasons: a. There is a high demand for public housing. If the tenant is not living at the property, then it should be made available to people in need. b. The landlord gave evidence that the failure of the tenant to live at the property is not the only issue they have experienced during this tenancy. The landlord gave evidence that on 18 September 2024 a 14-day notice to remedy was sent to the tenant regarding excessive rubbish inside and outside the property. The landlord gave evidence that the rubbish has not been removed to date. c. The landlord gave evidence that they have attempted to contact the tenant numerous times via various forms of communication to request that they resume living at the property. These attempts have not been met with any reply from the tenant. I consider there has been a persistent failure on behalf of the tenant to remedy the breach after repeated warnings. d. I consider the tenant’s decision to not live at the property to be deliberate, rather than inadvertent.
For the above reasons, I consider termination to be a proportionate response to the breach. Name suppression
The landlord sought name suppression on behalf of the tenant.
I have the ability to order suppression of the tenant’s name under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and the public interest.
The landlord claims that name suppression is required so as to not prejudice the tenant’s ability to secure a private rental in the future. If suppression were not granted, the landlord claims that prospective landlords may be able to see this order, which discusses a breach of the tenancy agreement committed by the tenant and decline to enter into a tenancy with the tenant as a result.
On the other hand, there is a public interest in open justice and prospective landlords being able to find information relevant to the suitability of a prospective tenant.
In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal held that: ...the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
I consider the consequence the tenant would suffer as a result of publication to be an ordinary and natural result of their actions. I do not consider that there is anything exceptional or special about this case that requires the tenant’s name to be suppressed. The public interest in open justice outweighs the interests of the tenant.
I decline the landlord’s request to suppress the tenant’s name. Filing fee
Because Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. See section 102(4)(a) RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5138328 — 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 Hine Sharan Claira Ann Nga Pati Whatuira- Hawe at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 57 Marne Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.
Hine Sharan Claira Ann Nga Pati Whatuira- Hawe must pay Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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 (RTA).
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.
Clause 14 of the tenancy agreement requires the tenant to live in the property at all times. The landlord claims the tenant is not living in the property. The tenant is not in rent arrears and therefore, the landlord is unable to seek termination on the basis of abandonment. See section 61(1) RTA.
In support of their claim that the tenant is not living at the property, the landlord submitted the following evidence: a. On 26 November 2024 the landlord issued the tenant a 14-day notice to remedy requiring the tenant to resume living at the property by 13 December 2024. b. On 5 December 2024 the landlord visited the property and knocked on the door. There was no answer. c. On 13 December 2024, the landlord visited the property and knocked on the door. There was no answer. The lawns were overgrown and there was a significant amount of rubbish outside the property. d. On 14 January 2024 the landlord visited the property to complete an inspection under section 48(2)(b) RTA. Noone was at the property. All of the doors and windows were locked. The lawns were overgrown and many of the bedrooms were empty indicating that they were unoccupied. There was a significant amount of rubbish inside and outside the property. There were minimal items of furniture and belongings inside the property. The property was messy and there was damage such as, holes in the walls, missing cabinetry and a broken window. Photographs of the inspection were provided to the Tribunal.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the tenant is not living at the property and has been absent for some time. This is a breach of clause 14 of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 26 November 2024, and the tenant did not remedy the breach withing the required period.
I consider it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the following reasons: a. There is a high demand for public housing. If the tenant is not living at the property, then it should be made available to people in need. b. The landlord gave evidence that the failure of the tenant to live at the property is not the only issue they have experienced during this tenancy. The landlord gave evidence that on 18 September 2024 a 14-day notice to remedy was sent to the tenant regarding excessive rubbish inside and outside the property. The landlord gave evidence that the rubbish has not been removed to date. c. The landlord gave evidence that they have attempted to contact the tenant numerous times via various forms of communication to request that they resume living at the property. These attempts have not been met with any reply from the tenant. I consider there has been a persistent failure on behalf of the tenant to remedy the breach after repeated warnings. d. I consider the tenant’s decision to not live at the property to be deliberate, rather than inadvertent.
For the above reasons, I consider termination to be a proportionate response to the breach. Name suppression
The landlord sought name suppression on behalf of the tenant.
I have the ability to order suppression of the tenant’s name under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and the public interest.
The landlord claims that name suppression is required so as to not prejudice the tenant’s ability to secure a private rental in the future. If suppression were not granted, the landlord claims that prospective landlords may be able to see this order, which discusses a breach of the tenancy agreement committed by the tenant and decline to enter into a tenancy with the tenant as a result.
On the other hand, there is a public interest in open justice and prospective landlords being able to find information relevant to the suitability of a prospective tenant.
In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal held that: ...the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
I consider the consequence the tenant would suffer as a result of publication to be an ordinary and natural result of their actions. I do not consider that there is anything exceptional or special about this case that requires the tenant’s name to be suppressed. The public interest in open justice outweighs the interests of the tenant.
I decline the landlord’s request to suppress the tenant’s name. Filing fee
Because Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. See section 102(4)(a) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5138328 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 57 Marne Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5138328 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 57 Marne Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

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