What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4972054?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of John Hikuau Ikamote at Unit/Flat 102, 7 Malone Road, Mount

How much money was awarded in case 4972054?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4972054?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4972054?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10889221-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4972054?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of John Hikuau Ikamote at Unit/Flat 102, 7 Malone Road, Mount

How much money was awarded in case 4972054?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4972054?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4972054?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10889221-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 102, 7 Malone Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4972054 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Two calls to the tenant went unanswered and to voicemail. After the first call went to voicemail, a brief message was left introducing myself and explaining the purpose of the call. The message concluded with the advice I would try a second time after waiting some minutes. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the second call also went unanswered.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations that has not been remedied.

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 his obligations by failing to reside at the premises as required in the tenancy agreement (sections 14-15).

On 19 June 2024 the landlord attended the property to conduct an annual inspection, no one was at the property to give access.

A second annual appointment was booked for 1 July 2024. The result was the same as before - no one was present for the second annual inspection and no contact had been made by the tenant.

A third appointment was booked (with a locksmith in attendance) on 15 July 2024. Upon arrival, the prior notice letter was still wedged in the main door. Access was gained into the premises. Once inside the property the landlord reported almost all furniture were removed. There were piles of clothing on the floor, power had been disconnected and property looked abandoned.

The next day, on 16 July 2024, a section 56 breach notice was issued. This required the tenant return to property no later than 7 August 2024. This notice was wedged between the main door and a copy left in letterbox.

Subsequently, several visits to the property, as well as calls and emails to the tenant, have occurred. No response from the tenant has been received.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because it is apparent the tenant has left the premises. Rent is still being paid so the tenancy cannot be deemed abandoned.

Reasons

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations that has not been remedied.

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 his obligations by failing to reside at the premises as required in the tenancy agreement (sections 14-15).

On 19 June 2024 the landlord attended the property to conduct an annual inspection, no one was at the property to give access.

A second annual appointment was booked for 1 July 2024. The result was the same as before - no one was present for the second annual inspection and no contact had been made by the tenant.

Subsequently, several visits to the property, as well as calls and emails to the tenant, have occurred. No response from the tenant has been received.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because it is apparent the tenant has left the premises. Rent is still being paid so the tenancy cannot be deemed abandoned.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4972054 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 102, 7 Malone Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4972054 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 102, 7 Malone Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland

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