How much money was awarded in case 5173251?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5173251?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5173251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11710728-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5173251?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5173251?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5173251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11710728-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5173251 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5173251 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy shall continue on the condition that the landlord’s tenancy manager contacts [The tenant/s] within the next two weeks (by 24 April 2025) to arrange a meeting to discuss her situation and verify that she has returned to reside at the tenancy property.
[The tenant/s] is expected to make herself available for this meeting and cooperate fully with the tenancy manager to confirm her occupancy and address any outstanding issues.
If it is confirmed that [The tenant/s] is not residing at the property or fails to engage in good faith, the landlord may seek further directions from the Tribunal.

Reasons

A hearing was held on 10 April 2025 by teleconference to consider the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy due to breach of tenant obligations. Both parties attended.
The tenancy commenced on 2 February 2017. The landlord is a social housing provider and rents its properties based on assessed housing need, with tenants receiving income-related rent. The tenancy agreement contains specific clauses that require the tenant to personally reside at the premises (Clause 26), notify the landlord in writing if they will be away for more than 30 days (Clause 27), and not sublet any part of the premises (Clause 28).
The landlord’s application for termination is based on the tenant’s alleged breach of these clauses, specifically that the tenant was not living at the premises, failed to notify the landlord of extended absence, and sublet the premises to another individual for $300.00 per week. The Landlord’s Position
The landlord served a 14-day breach notice on 11 December 2024, requiring the tenant to return to living at the premises. The landlord claims the breach was not remedied.
The landlord provided several pieces of evidence in support of their position: • A phone call from police on 3 December 2024 advising the tenant was not residing at the property. • A woman unrelated to the tenancy was found residing at the property on multiple occasions. This individual confirmed she was paying rent to the tenant and had changed the power account to her name. She also provided bank statements and messages supporting this arrangement. • An inspection at the property showed that the furniture at the premises belonged to this woman, not the tenant. • On 10 January 2025, after the expiry of the breach notice period, the same individual remained in residence and confirmed she was renting the house from the tenant for $300.00 per week. • A further statement from Police dated 14 January 2025 confirmed the tenant was not living at the property and was subletting it.
The landlord submitted that the tenant’s failure to reside at the property, to notify of her prolonged absence, and to refrain from subletting amounted to a serious breach of the tenancy agreement. They argued that, given the nature of the social housing context and despite repeated opportunities to remedy the breach, it would be inequitable to allow the tenancy to continue. The Tenant’s Position
The tenant acknowledged that she had not been living at the premises for a period but explained this was due to domestic violence from her ex-partner. She stated that her ex-partner was abusive, had been evading police, and she feared for her life during this time.
She explained that her absence was not abandonment of the tenancy but a necessary safety measure, and she always intended to return once it was safe to do so. Her ex-partner was apprehended on 7 January 2025, and she stated she returned to the premises shortly thereafter.
The tenant further explained that during her absence, she arranged for someone to stay at the property to protect it from ongoing break-ins and vandalism. She claimed the individual was not subletting but temporarily occupying the home to safeguard it. However, she accepted that she had not communicated with the landlord during this time.
The tenant emphasised that she has lived at the property since 2017 and considers it her home. She is currently pregnant and seeking custody of her children, and she fears losing the tenancy would jeopardise her ability to reunite with them. She requested a chance to regularise her tenancy and retain the property. Discussion and Decision
Section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenancy may be terminated if the tenant breaches their obligations and the breach is not remedied within a reasonable time, provided that it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
In this case, the tenant did breach her obligations by failing to reside at the premises, failing to provide notice of her prolonged absence, and permitting another individual to live at and effectively rent the property. The evidence supports that these breaches occurred over a sustained period and were not communicated to the landlord in advance.
However, the Tribunal accepts the tenant’s explanation that her absence was due to significant personal and safety concerns arising from domestic violence. The Tribunal also accepts that her return to the premises followed the apprehension of her ex-partner and that she now wishes to maintain the tenancy and regularise her situation.
While the breaches are serious, the context in which they occurred is equally significant. The Tribunal acknowledges the tenant’s long-standing connection to the property, her desire to maintain stability for herself and her family, and the difficulties she has faced. The tenant has expressed her willingness to engage with the landlord to resolve the situation and confirmed that she is now residing at the property.
After discussion, both parties agreed that the tenancy may continue on a conditional basis. The Tribunal finds this to be an appropriate and proportionate response in the circumstances. Suppression order
The landlord does not seek a suppression order.
Given the sensitive nature of the tenant’s personal circumstances and to avoid prejudicing upcoming legal proceedings, the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details pursuant to section 95A(1) RTA.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

The tenancy shall continue on the condition that the landlord’s tenancy manager contacts [The tenant/s] within the next two weeks (by 24 April 2025) to arrange a meeting to discuss her situation and verify that she has returned to reside at the tenancy property.

[The tenant/s] is expected to make herself available for this meeting and cooperate fully with the tenancy manager to confirm her occupancy and address any outstanding issues.

If it is confirmed that [The tenant/s] is not residing at the property or fails to engage in good faith, the landlord may seek further directions from the Tribunal.

Reasons

A hearing was held on 10 April 2025 by teleconference to consider the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy due to breach of tenant obligations. Both parties attended.

The tenancy commenced on 2 February 2017. The landlord is a social housing provider and rents its properties based on assessed housing need, with tenants receiving income-related rent. The tenancy agreement contains specific clauses that require the tenant to personally reside at the premises (Clause 26), notify the landlord in writing if they will be away for more than 30 days (Clause 27), and not sublet any part of the premises (Clause 28).

The landlord’s application for termination is based on the tenant’s alleged breach of these clauses, specifically that the tenant was not living at the premises, failed to notify the landlord of extended absence, and sublet the premises to another individual for $300.00 per week. The Landlord’s Position

The landlord served a 14-day breach notice on 11 December 2024, requiring the tenant to return to living at the premises. The landlord claims the breach was not remedied.

The landlord provided several pieces of evidence in support of their position: • A phone call from police on 3 December 2024 advising the tenant was not residing at the property. • A woman unrelated to the tenancy was found residing at the property on multiple occasions. This individual confirmed she was paying rent to the tenant and had changed the power account to her name. She also provided bank statements and messages supporting this arrangement. • An inspection at the property showed that the furniture at the premises belonged to this woman, not the tenant. • On 10 January 2025, after the expiry of the breach notice period, the same individual remained in residence and confirmed she was renting the house from the tenant for $300.00 per week. • A further statement from Police dated 14 January 2025 confirmed the tenant was not living at the property and was subletting it.

The landlord submitted that the tenant’s failure to reside at the property, to notify of her prolonged absence, and to refrain from subletting amounted to a serious breach of the tenancy agreement. They argued that, given the nature of the social housing context and despite repeated opportunities to remedy the breach, it would be inequitable to allow the tenancy to continue. The Tenant’s Position

The tenant acknowledged that she had not been living at the premises for a period but explained this was due to domestic violence from her ex-partner. She stated that her ex-partner was abusive, had been evading police, and she feared for her life during this time.

She explained that her absence was not abandonment of the tenancy but a necessary safety measure, and she always intended to return once it was safe to do so. Her ex-partner was apprehended on 7 January 2025, and she stated she returned to the premises shortly thereafter.

The tenant further explained that during her absence, she arranged for someone to stay at the property to protect it from ongoing break-ins and vandalism. She claimed the individual was not subletting but temporarily occupying the home to safeguard it. However, she accepted that she had not communicated with the landlord during this time.

The tenant emphasised that she has lived at the property since 2017 and considers it her home. She is currently pregnant and seeking custody of her children, and she fears losing the tenancy would jeopardise her ability to reunite with them. She requested a chance to regularise her tenancy and retain the property. Discussion and Decision

Section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenancy may be terminated if the tenant breaches their obligations and the breach is not remedied within a reasonable time, provided that it would be inequitable to refuse termination.

In this case, the tenant did breach her obligations by failing to reside at the premises, failing to provide notice of her prolonged absence, and permitting another individual to live at and effectively rent the property. The evidence supports that these breaches occurred over a sustained period and were not communicated to the landlord in advance.

However, the Tribunal accepts the tenant’s explanation that her absence was due to significant personal and safety concerns arising from domestic violence. The Tribunal also accepts that her return to the premises followed the apprehension of her ex-partner and that she now wishes to maintain the tenancy and regularise her situation.

While the breaches are serious, the context in which they occurred is equally significant. The Tribunal acknowledges the tenant’s long-standing connection to the property, her desire to maintain stability for herself and her family, and the difficulties she has faced. The tenant has expressed her willingness to engage with the landlord to resolve the situation and confirmed that she is now residing at the property.

After discussion, both parties agreed that the tenancy may continue on a conditional basis. The Tribunal finds this to be an appropriate and proportionate response in the circumstances. Suppression order

The landlord does not seek a suppression order.

Given the sensitive nature of the tenant’s personal circumstances and to avoid prejudicing upcoming legal proceedings, the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details pursuant to section 95A(1) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5173251 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5173251 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions