What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5250348 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5250348?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5250348?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5250348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11911587-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5250348 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5250348?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5250348?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5250348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11911587-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5250348 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Jody Maureen Helen Julius at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Monday 2 June 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $27.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately to reimburse her the application fee.
The balance of the bond of $1,973.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
The landlord’s application relating to missing cars is dismissed.
The landlord’s application relating to non-payment relating to furniture/white goods sales is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend but has been validly served. The hearing therefore proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and for debt recovery relating to furniture/whitegoods and compensation for missing cars.

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.
I accept that the tenant has breached her obligation by failing to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy (section 40(1)(c) RTA). There is a significant volume of rubbish outside at the premises.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 12 March 2025 in respect of this, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. I am satisfied that the volume of rubbish still remained at the premises in mid- May.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has acknowledged the rubbish and I have no reason to believe that the rubbish is now clear, it is significant in its volume and I have also seen evidence of the landlord offering to clear but the tenant refusing this. Th tenant has also had less formal contact with the landlord about the rubbish. The rubbish has been there for a significant period. I heard that neighbours were angry because of the extent of the rubbish, and I accept that is more likely than not to be the case given the amount of it.
The tenancy is therefore terminated with being possession being granted to the landlord at 11.59pm on Monday 2 June 2025,
In the context of termination, the landlord also referred to being told the tenant was involved with drugs but there was insufficient evidence of this. Payment for washing machine, fridge and furniture
The landlord says that she sold a fridge and a washing machine via Facebook to a third party and the tenant assisted her with the sale of the items by collecting the money from the third party. The landlord says that the money was not paid to her.
The Tenancy Tribunal is restricted to operating within the parameters of the RTA.
The landlord could not identify a breach of the RTA in respect of this action.
I consider that this falls outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The claim to recover the sum the landlord says is owed is dismissed.
The landlord says she sold furniture to the tenant. The landlord says that the sum owed for that sale has not been paid to her. She seeks payment of this debt.
The landlord could not identify a breach of the RTA in respect of this action. I consider that this falls outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The claim to recover the sum the landlord says is owed is dismissed.
The landlord may want to consider pursuing claims through a different jurisdiction. Stolen cars
The landlord alleges that the tenant has stolen two cars that were parked/stored at the premises. They did not form part of the tenancy.
As set out above, the Tenancy Tribunal is restricted to operating within the parameters of the RTA.
The landlord could not identify a breach of the RTA in respect of this action. I consider that this falls outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
The landlord may want to consider pursuing claims through a different jurisdiction.
The claim for compensation is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
Because [The applicant/s]has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. I have ordered that this sum be released from the bond. The remainder of the bond will stay at the Bond Centre until otherwise agreed or ordered.
The landlord seeks name suppression and as she has been substantially successful, I award this (s95A, RTA).

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Jody Maureen Helen Julius at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Monday 2 June 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $27.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately to reimburse her the application fee.
The balance of the bond of $1,973.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
The landlord’s application relating to missing cars is dismissed.
The landlord’s application relating to non-payment relating to furniture/white goods sales is dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend but has been validly served. The hearing therefore proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and for debt recovery relating to furniture/whitegoods and compensation for missing cars.

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.
I accept that the tenant has breached her obligation by failing to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy (section 40(1)(c) RTA). There is a significant volume of rubbish outside at the premises.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 12 March 2025 in respect of this, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. I am satisfied that the volume of rubbish still remained at the premises in mid- May.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has acknowledged the rubbish and I have no reason to believe that the rubbish is now clear, it is significant in its volume and I have also seen evidence of the landlord offering to clear but the tenant refusing this. Th tenant has also had less formal contact with the landlord about the rubbish. The rubbish has been there for a significant period. I heard that neighbours were angry because of the extent of the rubbish, and I accept that is more likely than not to be the case given the amount of it.
The tenancy is therefore terminated with being possession being granted to the landlord at 11.59pm on Monday 2 June 2025,
In the context of termination, the landlord also referred to being told the tenant was involved with drugs but there was insufficient evidence of this. Payment for washing machine, fridge and furniture
The landlord says that she sold a fridge and a washing machine via Facebook to a third party and the tenant assisted her with the sale of the items by collecting the money from the third party. The landlord says that the money was not paid to her.
The Tenancy Tribunal is restricted to operating within the parameters of the RTA.
The landlord could not identify a breach of the RTA in respect of this action.
I consider that this falls outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The claim to recover the sum the landlord says is owed is dismissed.
The landlord says she sold furniture to the tenant. The landlord says that the sum owed for that sale has not been paid to her. She seeks payment of this debt.
The landlord could not identify a breach of the RTA in respect of this action. I consider that this falls outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The claim to recover the sum the landlord says is owed is dismissed.
The landlord may want to consider pursuing claims through a different jurisdiction. Stolen cars
The landlord alleges that the tenant has stolen two cars that were parked/stored at the premises. They did not form part of the tenancy.
As set out above, the Tenancy Tribunal is restricted to operating within the parameters of the RTA.
The landlord could not identify a breach of the RTA in respect of this action. I consider that this falls outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
The landlord may want to consider pursuing claims through a different jurisdiction.
The claim for compensation is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression
Because [The applicant/s]has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. I have ordered that this sum be released from the bond. The remainder of the bond will stay at the Bond Centre until otherwise agreed or ordered.
The landlord seeks name suppression and as she has been substantially successful, I award this (s95A, RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5250348 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5250348 — 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