What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5339062?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5339062?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339062?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339062?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13355427-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5339062?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5339062?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339062?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339062?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13355427-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 82A Kimpton Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5339062 — Unit Titles

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing held on 26 March 2025. The tenant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time or request an adjournment 1 .

A friend of the tenant, Phil Thompson, attended the hearing and he had expected the tenant to attend. Background

The Tribunal made an order on 6 October 2025 where the tenancy was terminated pursuant to section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The breaches concerned the tenant parking her car in an unauthorised area in breach of the Body Corporate rules.

The tenant applied for a rehearing on 13 October 2025 and that was granted on the papers. 1 Sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986

A remote hearing was allocated for 20 November 2025, but the tenant did not join the hearing or answer the phone calls from the Adjudicator. The application for rehearing was dismissed due to non-attendance.

The tenant filed a further application for rehearing on 12 January 2026 on the basis that she was having phone issues and could not hear. The tenant asked for an in person hearing rather than a remote hearing.

The rehearing application was granted on the papers and a hearing was allocated for 11 March 2026.

The landlord requested an adjournment of the 11 March 2026 hearing due to issues with staff availability. That was granted on 9 March 2026. A further in person hearing was allocated for 26 March 2026. Sale of vehicle

At the hearing Mr Thompson submitted on behalf of the tenant that she had sold the car to him on 6 September 2025 and therefore had complied with the third breach notice.

While the tenant has provided evidence of the sale of the car to Mr Thompson the landlord has produced evidence that the car continued to be parked in the unauthorised area after the date of the third notice.

The landlord produced two date stamped photographs showing that the car was parked there on 11 September 2025.

In this situation it is my view that the tenant is liable for this breach because Mr Thompson and his car were at the premises as the tenant’s visitor. It is within the tenant’s control to instruct her guests not to park there.

Section 41(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.

As the tenant did not attend the hearing there is no further evidence that is before me to consider. The rehearing application is dismissed.

The Tribunal order dated 6 October 2025 stands and the stay is lifted.

Reasons