What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4849321?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Andrew Stuart Tracey at 30 Saffron Street, Bishopdale,

How much money was awarded in case 4849321?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4849321?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4849321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10283556-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4849321?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Andrew Stuart Tracey at 30 Saffron Street, Bishopdale,

How much money was awarded in case 4849321?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4849321?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4849321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10283556-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

30 Saffron Street, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4849321 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The tenancy of Andrew Stuart Tracey at 30 Saffron Street, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8053 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes and Communities, at 12 noon on Thursday 2 May 2024.

Andrew Stuart Tracey must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities $2,019.16 immediately, being rent arrears to 2 May 2024.

Reasons

Ms Rae attended the hearing by telephone for the landlord. The tenant did not attend.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and for rent arrears.

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 it.

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 his obligations by failing to live in the premises at all times as required by the tenancy agreement. He has been in prison since November 2023 and there is evidence that he won’t be released until August 2024 at the earliest.

The landlord provides social housing for which demand far outweighs supply. Therefore, it is in the public interest that it makes the best use of its housing stock. Having houses lying empty is contrary to that imperative and therefore not in the public interest. It follows that as a rule, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy in these circumstances.

The landlord has not served a 14-day notice on the tenant because it takes the view that this breach is not capable of being remedied. I disagree with that.

Case law establishes that there are very few kinds of breach that are not capable of being remedied. This kind of breach is not one of them. If the tenant reoccupied the premises and paid the rent, the breach, in my view, would be remedied.

In my view, the question of whether the breach can be remedied relates to the nature and effect of the breach, not the party’s ability in the circumstances of the case to remedy it.

I have made an order terminating the tenancy for two reasons. One is that to do otherwise would fly in the face of common sense. The evidence establishes that the tenant would not have been able to comply with a breach notice if it had been served. The substantial merits and justice of the case therefore militate in favour of terminating the tenancy.

The other reason is that given the level of rent arrears the landlord could have made an application for termination under s55 of the Act and so s56(2) applies.

The landlord has proved the rent arrears by producing a rent statement.

Order

Andrew Stuart Tracey must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities $2,019.16 immediately, being rent arrears to 2 May 2024.

Reasons

Ms Rae attended the hearing by telephone for the landlord. The tenant did not attend.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and for rent arrears.

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 it.

The landlord has not served a 14-day notice on the tenant because it takes the view that this breach is not capable of being remedied. I disagree with that.

In my view, the question of whether the breach can be remedied relates to the nature and effect of the breach, not the party’s ability in the circumstances of the case to remedy it.

The other reason is that given the level of rent arrears the landlord could have made an application for termination under s55 of the Act and so s56(2) applies.

The landlord has proved the rent arrears by producing a rent statement.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4849321 — Rent arrears at 30 Saffron Street, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4849321 — Rent arrears at 30 Saffron Street, Bishopdale, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions