What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4808217?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4808217?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808217?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808217?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10170654-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4808217?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4808217?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808217?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808217?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10170654-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat D513, 176 Broadway, Newmarket, Auckland 1023, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4808217 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was held on 5 April 2024.
Ms Huang was granted leave to appear as the landlord’s representative.
Mr Lee, the tenant, attended the hearing with his partner, Ms Kim. Ms Anderson was the court-appointed Korean interpreter who assisted Mr Lee and Ms Kim.
Ms Huang filed an application with the Tribunal seeking an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds that: a. Mr Lee has breached the tenancy agreement by having a permanent occupier living in the apartment, and he has not remedied the breach within 14 days of the notice under section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
In the alternative, Ms Huang would like to increase the rent from $570 to $620 weekly from 14 February 2024 to 9 February 2025 to cover the increased number of permanent tenants. The landlord’s case
Ms Huang submitted that the tenant, Mr Lee, breached the tenancy agreement by having more than two permanent occupants living in the apartment.
Ms Huang argued: a. Having more than two permanent occupants living in the apartment would cause more general wear and tear. For instance, she argued that with more people using the facilities, appliances, etc. there will naturally be more damage/depreciation over time. b. A leak was reported coming from the downstairs unit of the apartment building. Upon inspection, it was found to originate from the shower in the 2nd bathroom (not the master bedroom) of Mr. Lee's unit. c. The shower box had been leaking for about a month before it was discovered that the ceiling below had collapsed.
To Ms Huang’s credit, she accepted that she did not have evidence to say the leak was due to a third occupant living in the apartment. The leak could have been fair wear and tear.
I then asked Ms Huang what loss the landlord suffered as a result of the tenant breaching the tenancy agreement.
Ms Huang accepted she could not point to any loss other than emphasising that Mr Lee had breached, and still is, the tenancy agreement by having another permanent occupant living in the apartment. The tenant’s case
Mr. Lee acknowledged that a third person, his cousin, stayed in the apartment intermittently. He argued: a. His cousin's brother stayed in the apartment temporarily after a divorce, so they provided accommodation. b. When renting, he checked with the landlord to see if it would be okay if a third person stayed there temporarily when his son visited. c. He disputed that the third person was a permanent resident. He said there were two permanent occupants (himself and his partner), but the cousin was only there occasionally. d. He further argued that even if the cousin was not there, with just the two permanent tenants, the leak could have still happened and required repair, given the age of the apartment.

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.
In my view, I don't need to determine whether the third person in the apartment is a permanent or temporary resident since Ms Huang cannot prove any loss even if I accept that the third person is a permanent resident of the apartment.
Furthermore, Ms Huang has not satisfied me that the breach, on the basis that a third person has been residing in the apartment permanently, is of such a nature or extent that it would be unjust to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. This is because she cannot prove that the third person residing in the apartment caused any damage to the apartment.
Accordingly, I decline to terminate the tenancy. The application is dismissed. Rent increase
As noted in the 14-day notice to remedy, Ms Huang intends to increase the rent if Mr Lee decides to permanently have a third person live in the apartment.
I told Ms Huang that if she wanted to increase the rent, she must comply with section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was held on 5 April 2024.
Ms Huang was granted leave to appear as the landlord’s representative.
Mr Lee, the tenant, attended the hearing with his partner, Ms Kim. Ms Anderson was the court-appointed Korean interpreter who assisted Mr Lee and Ms Kim.
Ms Huang filed an application with the Tribunal seeking an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds that: a. Mr Lee has breached the tenancy agreement by having a permanent occupier living in the apartment, and he has not remedied the breach within 14 days of the notice under section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
In the alternative, Ms Huang would like to increase the rent from $570 to $620 weekly from 14 February 2024 to 9 February 2025 to cover the increased number of permanent tenants. The landlord’s case
Ms Huang submitted that the tenant, Mr Lee, breached the tenancy agreement by having more than two permanent occupants living in the apartment.
Ms Huang argued: a. Having more than two permanent occupants living in the apartment would cause more general wear and tear. For instance, she argued that with more people using the facilities, appliances, etc. there will naturally be more damage/depreciation over time. b. A leak was reported coming from the downstairs unit of the apartment building. Upon inspection, it was found to originate from the shower in the 2nd bathroom (not the master bedroom) of Mr. Lee's unit. c. The shower box had been leaking for about a month before it was discovered that the ceiling below had collapsed.
To Ms Huang’s credit, she accepted that she did not have evidence to say the leak was due to a third occupant living in the apartment. The leak could have been fair wear and tear.
I then asked Ms Huang what loss the landlord suffered as a result of the tenant breaching the tenancy agreement.
Ms Huang accepted she could not point to any loss other than emphasising that Mr Lee had breached, and still is, the tenancy agreement by having another permanent occupant living in the apartment. The tenant’s case
Mr. Lee acknowledged that a third person, his cousin, stayed in the apartment intermittently. He argued: a. His cousin's brother stayed in the apartment temporarily after a divorce, so they provided accommodation. b. When renting, he checked with the landlord to see if it would be okay if a third person stayed there temporarily when his son visited. c. He disputed that the third person was a permanent resident. He said there were two permanent occupants (himself and his partner), but the cousin was only there occasionally. d. He further argued that even if the cousin was not there, with just the two permanent tenants, the leak could have still happened and required repair, given the age of the apartment.

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.
In my view, I don't need to determine whether the third person in the apartment is a permanent or temporary resident since Ms Huang cannot prove any loss even if I accept that the third person is a permanent resident of the apartment.
Furthermore, Ms Huang has not satisfied me that the breach, on the basis that a third person has been residing in the apartment permanently, is of such a nature or extent that it would be unjust to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. This is because she cannot prove that the third person residing in the apartment caused any damage to the apartment.
Accordingly, I decline to terminate the tenancy. The application is dismissed. Rent increase
As noted in the 14-day notice to remedy, Ms Huang intends to increase the rent if Mr Lee decides to permanently have a third person live in the apartment.
I told Ms Huang that if she wanted to increase the rent, she must comply with section 24 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808217 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat D513, 176 Broadway, Newmarket, Auckland 1023,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808217 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat D513, 176 Broadway, Newmarket, Auckland 1023,

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