What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5279426?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Paula Liliu Moui Williams-Hiha at Unit/Flat Unit 8, 138 Stanmore

How much money was awarded in case 5279426?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279426?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279426?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12411848-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5279426?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Paula Liliu Moui Williams-Hiha at Unit/Flat Unit 8, 138 Stanmore

How much money was awarded in case 5279426?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279426?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279426?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12411848-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 8, 138 Stanmore Road, Linwood, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5279426 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Paula Liliu Moui Williams-Hiha at Unit/Flat Unit 8, 138 Stanmore Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59pm today, Monday 15 September 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing represented by Mr Van Gent. The tenant did not join the video link. The Tribunal called the tenant on the cell phone number provided for him in the application but the calls diverted to voicemail. I am satisfied that the tenant received notice of the hearing and did not attend. Application
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord believes that the tenant is no longer living at the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement, although rent remains paid up to date.
Clause 14 of the tenancy agreement says that the tenant must live at the home at all times and the home must only be used by the tenant and those of his family who were part of the housing application. Clause 15 of the tenancy agreement says that if the tenant is going to be away from the home for more than 30 days, he must let the landlord know.
As a social housing provider, the landlord has an obligation to make sure tenants are living at the premises provided. If they are not living at the premises, it is important that the premises are made available for others in need of social housing. Background facts
There is a lengthy history to the proceedings. At the first hearing on 19 June 2025, the tenant was present. He advised that he was absent from the premises for 2 weeks or so and allowed a family member to stay at the premises. He says that other people he did not know also stayed there, causing a mess, and taking his belongings. However, he said that he had returned to live at the property with his young child.
The landlord wished to verify that the tenant had returned to live at the premises and an adjournment was granted to enable them to arrange a meeting with the tenant at the premises for that purpose. If they were satisfied that he was living at the property, they agreed to withdraw this application.
At the second hearing on 31 July 2025, the landlord advised that a case manager met with the tenant at the premises on 26 June 2025. However, they were still concerned that the appearance of the property and lack of belongings and furniture inside indicated that he was not living there. They also issued him with a 14-day breach notice to tidy the property and a notice to conduct a further inspection on 21 July 2025. They say that he was not present at that inspection and had not removed rubbish as requested. They submit that this supports their claim that he is not living there. However, the case manager did not conduct the inspection on 21 July as specified in their notice, but visited on 22 July. Therefore, they cannot claim that the tenant was not present for the notified inspection date.
At the second hearing, the landlord advised that the case manager spoke to neighbours who reported that they had not seen the tenant at the premises for some time. However, the case manager was not called to give direct evidence to the Tribunal and I was not inclined to terminate this tenancy based on hearsay evidence.
The landlord requested another adjournment so that further evidence could be provided. A final adjournment was granted for that purpose.
At today’s hearing the landlord provided further evidence which satisfies me that the tenant is no longer living at the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement. Further photos taken inside the premises on 5 August 2025, show that the premises are still in the same condition as they were in on 26 June 2025. In particular, there is no fridge, no washing machine; no toiletries in the bathroom; no clothes in the wardrobes, sparse bedding, the same packets of food lying around and the same rubbish lying around.
The case manager has been told by the tenant’s brother living nearby that the tenant is not living there and is residing elsewhere.
On 29 August 2025, the tenant telephone the landlord customer service centre (CSC) and advised that he wished to give notice to end the tenancy. The landlord says that the CSC asked certain questions to verify the tenant’s identity. While the tenant has not given notice in writing, they are confident that the person who rang to give notice was the tenant.

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.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant has breached their obligations by failing to reside at the premises since early April 2025.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 4 April 2025 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant is not living at the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement conditions and in any event has purported to give notice ending the tenancy. When a tenant has not been living at the property the landlord, as a social housing provider, has an obligation to ensure that the premises are made available for others in need of social housing. For those reasons, the tenancy is terminated.

Order

The tenancy of Paula Liliu Moui Williams-Hiha at Unit/Flat Unit 8, 138 Stanmore Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59pm today, Monday 15 September 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing represented by Mr Van Gent. The tenant did not join the video link. The Tribunal called the tenant on the cell phone number provided for him in the application but the calls diverted to voicemail. I am satisfied that the tenant received notice of the hearing and did not attend. Application
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord believes that the tenant is no longer living at the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement, although rent remains paid up to date.
Clause 14 of the tenancy agreement says that the tenant must live at the home at all times and the home must only be used by the tenant and those of his family who were part of the housing application. Clause 15 of the tenancy agreement says that if the tenant is going to be away from the home for more than 30 days, he must let the landlord know.
As a social housing provider, the landlord has an obligation to make sure tenants are living at the premises provided. If they are not living at the premises, it is important that the premises are made available for others in need of social housing. Background facts
There is a lengthy history to the proceedings. At the first hearing on 19 June 2025, the tenant was present. He advised that he was absent from the premises for 2 weeks or so and allowed a family member to stay at the premises. He says that other people he did not know also stayed there, causing a mess, and taking his belongings. However, he said that he had returned to live at the property with his young child.
The landlord wished to verify that the tenant had returned to live at the premises and an adjournment was granted to enable them to arrange a meeting with the tenant at the premises for that purpose. If they were satisfied that he was living at the property, they agreed to withdraw this application.
At the second hearing on 31 July 2025, the landlord advised that a case manager met with the tenant at the premises on 26 June 2025. However, they were still concerned that the appearance of the property and lack of belongings and furniture inside indicated that he was not living there. They also issued him with a 14-day breach notice to tidy the property and a notice to conduct a further inspection on 21 July 2025. They say that he was not present at that inspection and had not removed rubbish as requested. They submit that this supports their claim that he is not living there. However, the case manager did not conduct the inspection on 21 July as specified in their notice, but visited on 22 July. Therefore, they cannot claim that the tenant was not present for the notified inspection date.
At the second hearing, the landlord advised that the case manager spoke to neighbours who reported that they had not seen the tenant at the premises for some time. However, the case manager was not called to give direct evidence to the Tribunal and I was not inclined to terminate this tenancy based on hearsay evidence.
The landlord requested another adjournment so that further evidence could be provided. A final adjournment was granted for that purpose.
At today’s hearing the landlord provided further evidence which satisfies me that the tenant is no longer living at the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement. Further photos taken inside the premises on 5 August 2025, show that the premises are still in the same condition as they were in on 26 June 2025. In particular, there is no fridge, no washing machine; no toiletries in the bathroom; no clothes in the wardrobes, sparse bedding, the same packets of food lying around and the same rubbish lying around.
The case manager has been told by the tenant’s brother living nearby that the tenant is not living there and is residing elsewhere.
On 29 August 2025, the tenant telephone the landlord customer service centre (CSC) and advised that he wished to give notice to end the tenancy. The landlord says that the CSC asked certain questions to verify the tenant’s identity. While the tenant has not given notice in writing, they are confident that the person who rang to give notice was the tenant.

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.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant has breached their obligations by failing to reside at the premises since early April 2025.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 4 April 2025 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant is not living at the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement conditions and in any event has purported to give notice ending the tenancy. When a tenant has not been living at the property the landlord, as a social housing provider, has an obligation to ensure that the premises are made available for others in need of social housing. For those reasons, the tenancy is terminated.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279426 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 8, 138 Stanmore Road, Linwood, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279426 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 8, 138 Stanmore Road, Linwood, Christchurch

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