What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5379941?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5379941?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379941?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13578802-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5379941?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5379941?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5379941?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5379941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13578802-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Widdison Place, Albany, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5379941 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The property managers from Ihome Property Management Limited attended for the landlord.

The tenancy was from 2 November 2024 until 13 June 2025.

On 6 May 2025, the property managers served a 42-days’ notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that the owner was intending to move back into the property. The last date of the tenancy was to be 17 June 2025.

The tenant was able to find somewhere else to move into by 13 June 2025 and the tenancy ended on that date instead.

On 15 June 2025, when the tenant went back to pick up some of the leftover goods, the tenant found that the landlord had started work to demolish the premises.

The tenant said that the there were three new townhouses that were built since then. The tenant said that they were already erect by October 2025 and internet searches showed that at least one of the three townhouses were sold in April 2026.

The tenant claimed $12,000.00 on the basis that the landlord should have given full 90-days’ notice as the landlord’s intention was to redevelop the property and not to move back into the property. The tenant claimed that 42 days was too short to find alternative accommodation and that resulted in stress and financial loss for the tenant. The tenant was unable to take all the belongings as the subsequent rental premises was too small to fit everything.

The property manager said that they simply acted on what the owner’s instructions were. However, the property manager said that the owner was living in one of the three townhouses still.

At the hearing, the listing agent who sold one of the three townhouses was telephoned for verification. The listing agent confirmed that the owner was still living at one of the three townhouses.

Giving a termination notice under false reasons would be an unlawful act. However, there is nothing wrong with the landlord renovating the premises before occupying it themselves. The tenant acknowledged that the tenant did not know that the landlord was actually living at the premises when this application was made.

As the landlord’s reason given for the termination has proven to be correct, there is nothing wrong with what has occurred.

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The property managers from Ihome Property Management Limited attended for the landlord.

The tenancy was from 2 November 2024 until 13 June 2025.

The tenant was able to find somewhere else to move into by 13 June 2025 and the tenancy ended on that date instead.

On 15 June 2025, when the tenant went back to pick up some of the leftover goods, the tenant found that the landlord had started work to demolish the premises.

The property manager said that they simply acted on what the owner’s instructions were. However, the property manager said that the owner was living in one of the three townhouses still.

At the hearing, the listing agent who sold one of the three townhouses was telephoned for verification. The listing agent confirmed that the owner was still living at one of the three townhouses.

As the landlord’s reason given for the termination has proven to be correct, there is nothing wrong with what has occurred.

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379941 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Widdison Place, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5379941 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Widdison Place, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions