How much money was awarded in case 4614533?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614533?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614533?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9416910-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4614533?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614533?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614533?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9416910-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Elvira Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4614533 — 14-day notice

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4614533?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

The tenancy of Kasteal Matthews at 17 Elvira Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612 is terminated, and possession is granted to Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Ahsan and Rehena Habib, at 11.59pm on Thursday 5 October 2023.

Reasons

Ms Fea and Ms Stone represented the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing.

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 causing significant damage to the premises or permitting others at the premises with her consent to cause significant damage.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant in May 2023 and then again on 11 August 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the damage caused to the premises is significant and widespread. It comprises damage to many of the interior walls, some of the exterior cladding, decking timber, multiple door handles, the dining room vinyl, and electrical fittings.

The tenant has also removed the pantry to accommodate a fridge.

The landlord produced photos in evidence following 2 inspections after the 14- day notices were issued. The photos show that the tenant has taken no actions to repair the damage.

The landlord’s representatives gave evidence that the extent of the damage is now such that it is probably beyond the tenant’s ability to address.

A previous application for termination on the same grounds was withdrawn as the matter was referred to mediation. The landlord’s representatives said the tenant made some progress after that, but the damage now is worse than it was then and is continuing.

With the landlord’s agreement I have made the possession order 3 weeks away, so the tenant has time to find a new tenancy.

The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord did not seek a name suppression order.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Reasons

Ms Fea and Ms Stone represented the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing.

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 tenant has breached their obligations by causing significant damage to the premises or permitting others at the premises with her consent to cause significant damage.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant in May 2023 and then again on 11 August 2023, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.

The tenant has also removed the pantry to accommodate a fridge.

The landlord produced photos in evidence following 2 inspections after the 14- day notices were issued. The photos show that the tenant has taken no actions to repair the damage.

The landlord’s representatives gave evidence that the extent of the damage is now such that it is probably beyond the tenant’s ability to address.

With the landlord’s agreement I have made the possession order 3 weeks away, so the tenant has time to find a new tenancy.

The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.

The landlord did not seek a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4614533 — 14-day notice at 17 Elvira Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4614533 — 14-day notice at 17 Elvira Place, Ranui, Auckland 0612

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions