What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5347121 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 54J Druces Road, Wiri, Auckland 2104 is

How much money was awarded in case 5347121?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347121?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347121?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12629458-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5347121 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 54J Druces Road, Wiri, Auckland 2104 is

How much money was awarded in case 5347121?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347121?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347121?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12629458-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

54J Druces Road, Wiri, Auckland 2104 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5347121 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.

The tenant did not attend the hearing. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing had been given to the tenant.

The tenancy commenced on 26 July 2013.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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.

The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to live at the premises. The landlord is a social housing provider. The landlord wishes to ensure that houses available, are used for those in need.

In July 2025, the landlord made several attempts to conduct an inspection of the premises. There was no response from the tenant. During an annual inspection of the premises carried out on 28 July 2025, the property was found to be in very poor condition with signs of a forced entry, including a smashed back door.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 31 July 2025, requiring the tenant to return to live at the premises. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period by returning to the property.

Attempts were made by the landlord in August 2025 to contact the tenant’s mother. Her mother indicated that she had not heard from the tenant. On 4 September 2025, the tenants mother confirmed that she had received contact from the tenant, who said that she was staying with friends out of fear due to gang related threats and vandalism to the property. The landlord suggested to the tenant’s mother that the tenant should contact MSD with a view to obtaining alternative accommodation.

The landlord checked the property again on 17 October and 24 October 2025. There was no sign that the tenant had been living at the property or that the tenant had returned at any point.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the notice has not been complied with. An extended period has passed and the tenant has not returned to the premises.

The tenancy is terminated.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.

The tenancy commenced on 26 July 2013.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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.

The landlord checked the property again on 17 October and 24 October 2025. There was no sign that the tenant had been living at the property or that the tenant had returned at any point.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the notice has not been complied with. An extended period has passed and the tenant has not returned to the premises.

The tenancy is terminated.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347121 — 14-day notice at 54J Druces Road, Wiri, Auckland 2104

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347121 — 14-day notice at 54J Druces Road, Wiri, Auckland 2104

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions