What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4619670?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4619670?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4619670?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4619670?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9252709-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4619670?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4619670?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4619670?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4619670?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9252709-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20A Raumanga Valley Road, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4619670 — 14-day notice

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted via teleconference.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
Specifically, the landlord says that the tenant has not been living at the property which is a breach of the Tenancy Agreement.

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 Act”).
In this case, the landlord says that the Tenancy Agreement requires the tenant to live at the property at all times and to give written notice to the landlord if they are going to be away for more than 30 days.
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 landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 14 March 2022, more than a year ago. It is unclear what other steps have been taken.
However, the landlord has not been able to provide clear evidence that the tenant has been absent for more than 30 days, so as to justify the breach notice.
More importantly, in this case, it appears that the tenant’s absence (of whatever length) has been due largely to the landlord’s failure to undertake repairs at the premises and other issues related to the suitability of the property.
The tenant reported that there have been numerous break ins to her property. That has resulted in extensive damage which has not yet been fixed. The tenant has reported those incidents to police and to the landlord. The tenant says she has been coming and going to the property for quite some time to check up on it, but the damage is still not repaired.
The tenant has continued to pay rent throughout.
The tenant says that the property is uninhabitable at the moment and is unsafe for her and her two children not only because of the damage from the break ins but because she is concerned about gang involvement in the neighbourhood and has observed people in the neighbourhood smoking methamphetamine; she does not want her children exposed to this.
She further says that she has repeatedly requested a transfer to Auckland where she has whānau support. For a variety of reasons, this has not yet occurred, but it seems that MSD are now involved to try and assist the tenant with this process.
The landlord suggested that the damage had not been fixed due to lack of access because the tenant was absent. This is inconsistent with the fact that the landlord has been able to gain access to the property in the absence of the tenant to conduct an inspection on 9 June 2023. Moreover, a landlord has a right of entry to undertake such repairs provided requisite notice is given.
On balance, I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that the tenant has breached her obligations. Even if they had, in these circumstances I find it would be inequitable to terminate.
The application for termination is therefore dismissed.
I encourage the parties to continue to communicate so that the repair of the property can be undertaken forthwith and the transfer to Auckland can be expedited. J R Smith 03 August 2023

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted via teleconference.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
Specifically, the landlord says that the tenant has not been living at the property which is a breach of the Tenancy Agreement.

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 Act”).
In this case, the landlord says that the Tenancy Agreement requires the tenant to live at the property at all times and to give written notice to the landlord if they are going to be away for more than 30 days.
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 landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 14 March 2022, more than a year ago. It is unclear what other steps have been taken.
However, the landlord has not been able to provide clear evidence that the tenant has been absent for more than 30 days, so as to justify the breach notice.
More importantly, in this case, it appears that the tenant’s absence (of whatever length) has been due largely to the landlord’s failure to undertake repairs at the premises and other issues related to the suitability of the property.
The tenant reported that there have been numerous break ins to her property. That has resulted in extensive damage which has not yet been fixed. The tenant has reported those incidents to police and to the landlord. The tenant says she has been coming and going to the property for quite some time to check up on it, but the damage is still not repaired.
The tenant has continued to pay rent throughout.
The tenant says that the property is uninhabitable at the moment and is unsafe for her and her two children not only because of the damage from the break ins but because she is concerned about gang involvement in the neighbourhood and has observed people in the neighbourhood smoking methamphetamine; she does not want her children exposed to this.
She further says that she has repeatedly requested a transfer to Auckland where she has whānau support. For a variety of reasons, this has not yet occurred, but it seems that MSD are now involved to try and assist the tenant with this process.
The landlord suggested that the damage had not been fixed due to lack of access because the tenant was absent. This is inconsistent with the fact that the landlord has been able to gain access to the property in the absence of the tenant to conduct an inspection on 9 June 2023. Moreover, a landlord has a right of entry to undertake such repairs provided requisite notice is given.
On balance, I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that the tenant has breached her obligations. Even if they had, in these circumstances I find it would be inequitable to terminate.
The application for termination is therefore dismissed.
I encourage the parties to continue to communicate so that the repair of the property can be undertaken forthwith and the transfer to Auckland can be expedited. J R Smith 03 August 2023

Tenancy Tribunal case 4619670 — 14-day notice at 20A Raumanga Valley Road, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4619670 — 14-day notice at 20A Raumanga Valley Road, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110

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