What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4815664?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Maria Hga Manga Takuira at 2A Mason Street, Moera, Lower

How much money was awarded in case 4815664?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4815664?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4815664?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10143325-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4815664?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Maria Hga Manga Takuira at 2A Mason Street, Moera, Lower

How much money was awarded in case 4815664?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4815664?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4815664?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10143325-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2A Mason Street, Moera, Lower Hutt 5010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4815664 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Maria Hga Manga Takuira at 2A Mason Street, Moera, Lower Hutt 5010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59pm today, Thursday 28 March 2024.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Smith. There was no appearance by the tenant.
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 landlord claims that the tenant has breached her obligations because she is not living at the property, and it appears that she has not been living at the property since August 2023. This is a breach of sections 21, 24 and 25 of the tenancy agreement.
Section 21 of the tenancy agreement records that the premises have been allocated to the tenant based on need and because she meets the landlord’s application criteria. However, if the tenant no longer needs the premises, they must be returned to the landlord so that they can be rented to another eligible person in need of housing.
Section 24 of the tenancy agreement provides that the tenant must live at the premises at all times, and they must be used principally as the tenant’s home.
Section 25 of the tenancy agreement provides that the tenant must let the landlord know in writing if she is going to be away from the premises for more than 30 days.
The landlord provided evidence of notices sent to the tenant to complete an annual inspection of the premises. The tenant was not home for the first scheduled inspection and was also not home for the rescheduled inspection. The landlord then gave a further 48-hour notice to inspect the premises on 31 August 2023. Again, the tenant was not home but the inspection was completed, and photos were taken. The inspection report records that the property was untidy; it appeared no-one was living there but all the lights were on, and the heat pump was working; there was still furniture in the bedrooms although one bedroom was cluttered, and rent was still being paid. The landlord tried to call the tenant to discuss the situation, but she did not answer calls.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 3 November 2023 advising that it appeared she may not be living at the property and giving her 14 days to return to the property or confirm that she was living there. The tenant did not respond to the notice. Therefore, the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
The landlord served notice of, and completed, another inspection on 24 November 2023. The tenant was not home, and it again appeared that she was not living there. The inspection report and photos taken support the landlord’s claim that the tenant was no longer living at the property. The house is untidy; much of the large furniture and belongings have gone. The landlord has completed two further home visits on 26 January and 13 February 2024, and the property is still empty. The power has also been disconnected.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant is not living at the property which is a breach of the tenancy agreement.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant is no longer living at the property and the home should be returned to the landlord so that it can be rented to another eligible person in need of housing.

Order

The tenancy of Maria Hga Manga Takuira at 2A Mason Street, Moera, Lower Hutt 5010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59pm today, Thursday 28 March 2024.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Smith. There was no appearance by the tenant.
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 landlord claims that the tenant has breached her obligations because she is not living at the property, and it appears that she has not been living at the property since August 2023. This is a breach of sections 21, 24 and 25 of the tenancy agreement.
Section 21 of the tenancy agreement records that the premises have been allocated to the tenant based on need and because she meets the landlord’s application criteria. However, if the tenant no longer needs the premises, they must be returned to the landlord so that they can be rented to another eligible person in need of housing.
Section 24 of the tenancy agreement provides that the tenant must live at the premises at all times, and they must be used principally as the tenant’s home.
Section 25 of the tenancy agreement provides that the tenant must let the landlord know in writing if she is going to be away from the premises for more than 30 days.
The landlord provided evidence of notices sent to the tenant to complete an annual inspection of the premises. The tenant was not home for the first scheduled inspection and was also not home for the rescheduled inspection. The landlord then gave a further 48-hour notice to inspect the premises on 31 August 2023. Again, the tenant was not home but the inspection was completed, and photos were taken. The inspection report records that the property was untidy; it appeared no-one was living there but all the lights were on, and the heat pump was working; there was still furniture in the bedrooms although one bedroom was cluttered, and rent was still being paid. The landlord tried to call the tenant to discuss the situation, but she did not answer calls.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 3 November 2023 advising that it appeared she may not be living at the property and giving her 14 days to return to the property or confirm that she was living there. The tenant did not respond to the notice. Therefore, the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
The landlord served notice of, and completed, another inspection on 24 November 2023. The tenant was not home, and it again appeared that she was not living there. The inspection report and photos taken support the landlord’s claim that the tenant was no longer living at the property. The house is untidy; much of the large furniture and belongings have gone. The landlord has completed two further home visits on 26 January and 13 February 2024, and the property is still empty. The power has also been disconnected.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenant is not living at the property which is a breach of the tenancy agreement.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant is no longer living at the property and the home should be returned to the landlord so that it can be rented to another eligible person in need of housing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4815664 — 14-day notice at 2A Mason Street, Moera, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4815664 — 14-day notice at 2A Mason Street, Moera, Lower Hutt 5010

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