What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5190851?

The tribunal order states: If PUASINA ROBETI has not returned to occupy the premises at Unit/Flat 2J,

How much money was awarded in case 5190851?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5190851?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5190851?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11596138-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5190851?

The tribunal order states: If PUASINA ROBETI has not returned to occupy the premises at Unit/Flat 2J,

How much money was awarded in case 5190851?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5190851?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5190851?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11596138-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2J, 10 Princes Street, Otahuhu, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5190851 — Rent arrears

Order

If PUASINA ROBETI has not returned to occupy the premises at Unit/Flat 2J, 10 Princes Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 by noon on Friday 28 March 2025 then her tenancy shall terminate immediately, and possession revert to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

PUASINA ROBETI must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $216.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 18 March 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, by telephone.

Unfortunately, the Tribunal was unable to contact the tenant.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligation to live at the premises.

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, as is the case here, 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 evidence supports that the tenant has breached her obligations by failing to occupy the premises as per the tenancy agreement.

After finding the premises vacant the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 14/1/2025, asking the tenant to return to occupy the premises by 4/2/2025.

As at the last inspection on 14/2/2025 the tenant had not remedied the breach.

In exercising the discretion under section 56 I need to consider whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the Court at paragraph 61 set out the factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with her obligations in the future d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed e. The conduct of the landlord f. The gravity of the breach g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

The tenancy began on 9/10/2023 so is not a very long standing tenancy.

The evidence of the landlord after contacting the tenant on 29/1/2025 was that she was in Australia, and no one was residing at the premises.

The inspection by the landlord on 14/2/2025 found rotting food, mail and that the power had been disconnected.

On 3/2/2025 the landlord received a screen shot of a flight boking from the tenant which suggested she was returning to New Zealand on 23/3/2025.

Rent records support that rent payments have been sporadic and the tenant is currently in arrears.

The landlord has been unable to contact the tenant since 3/2/2025.

The question for the Tribunal is having established that the tenant breached her obligation under the tenancy agreement, is whether as a matter of proportionality termination is an inequitable response having regard to the tenant’s conduct throughout the tenancy and the likelihood of her complying in the future with her obligation.

Termination of a tenancy has serious consequences for a tenant.

Continued occupation is an important element of the tenancy agreement as per clause 14.

I consider having regard to the facts of this case, in particular that the tenant is overseas and no longer living in the premises, that it would not be inequitable to terminate the tenancy.

However, considering the screen shot of a flight booking for 23/3/2025 I have made the termination conditional on the tenant not occupying the premises by 28/3/2025.

The landlord did not ask for either the filing fee suppression.

Order

If PUASINA ROBETI has not returned to occupy the premises at Unit/Flat 2J, 10 Princes Street, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 by noon on Friday 28 March 2025 then her tenancy shall terminate immediately, and possession revert to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities
PUASINA ROBETI must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $216.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 18 March 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, by telephone.
Unfortunately, the Tribunal was unable to contact the tenant.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligation to live at the premises.

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, as is the case here, 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 evidence supports that the tenant has breached her obligations by failing to occupy the premises as per the tenancy agreement.
After finding the premises vacant the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 14/1/2025, asking the tenant to return to occupy the premises by 4/2/2025.
As at the last inspection on 14/2/2025 the tenant had not remedied the breach.
In exercising the discretion under section 56 I need to consider whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the Court at paragraph 61 set out the factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with her obligations in the future d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed e. The conduct of the landlord f. The gravity of the breach g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The tenancy began on 9/10/2023 so is not a very long standing tenancy.
The evidence of the landlord after contacting the tenant on 29/1/2025 was that she was in Australia, and no one was residing at the premises.
The inspection by the landlord on 14/2/2025 found rotting food, mail and that the power had been disconnected.
On 3/2/2025 the landlord received a screen shot of a flight boking from the tenant which suggested she was returning to New Zealand on 23/3/2025.
Rent records support that rent payments have been sporadic and the tenant is currently in arrears.
The landlord has been unable to contact the tenant since 3/2/2025.
The question for the Tribunal is having established that the tenant breached her obligation under the tenancy agreement, is whether as a matter of proportionality termination is an inequitable response having regard to the tenant’s conduct throughout the tenancy and the likelihood of her complying in the future with her obligation.
Termination of a tenancy has serious consequences for a tenant.
Continued occupation is an important element of the tenancy agreement as per clause 14.
I consider having regard to the facts of this case, in particular that the tenant is overseas and no longer living in the premises, that it would not be inequitable to terminate the tenancy.
However, considering the screen shot of a flight booking for 23/3/2025 I have made the termination conditional on the tenant not occupying the premises by 28/3/2025.
The landlord did not ask for either the filing fee suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5190851 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 2J, 10 Princes Street, Otahuhu, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5190851 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 2J, 10 Princes Street, Otahuhu, Auckland

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