What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5031728?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities is granted possession of the premises at

How much money was awarded in case 5031728?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5031728?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5031728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11136173-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5031728?

The tribunal order states: Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities is granted possession of the premises at

How much money was awarded in case 5031728?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5031728?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5031728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11136173-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 13, 52 Wellpark Avenue, Grey Lynn, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5031728 — 14-day notice

Order

Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities is granted possession of the premises at Unit/Flat 13, 52 Wellpark Avenue, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises.
The background is that the landlord issued a 14 day notice on 25 July 2024 regarding the alleged clutter at the premises. The tenant was given 14 days to remedy the clutter.
The tenant decided he would move to Malaysia and gave the landlord a 28 day notice to terminate the tenancy on 12 August 2024. The tenant then asked if he could extend that date to 13 September 2024 and that was agreed to by the landlord.
The tenant has not moved out but agrees he now needs to vacate the premises.
The landlord has done a recent inspection and produced photographs showing a number of items stored on a balcony.
The balcony runs along the front of the tenant’s unit, between two staircases.
The landlord says the clutter and number of items stored on the balcony is a health and safety risk.
The tenant said he would give his word all those items would be gone by this Friday. This seemed an ambitious task. Relevant law
Under section 65 of the RTA, the Tribunal must make an order granting possession of the premises to the person entitled to possession of any residential premises, where the Tribunal: is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises is a squatter, trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person.
For the Tribunal to make an order under s 65 there are three questions to be considered: a)Are the premises residential premises? b)Is the party making the application for possession entitled to receive possession? c)Is the person in possession of the premises in occupation as a squatter, trespasser or pursuant to some right of occupation? 1
If these three elements are established then the Tribunal must make a possession order.
I am satisfied all of these elements are satisfied. I consider the tenancy ended on 13 September 2024.
The landlord is entitled to possession. A 28 day notice cannot be revoked without the consent of the other party.
The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.
The tenant has no lawful right to occupy the premises.
It follows that the landlord is entitled to an immediate order for possession.
I record the landlord’s expressed intention to work with the tenant and assure him he is not stressed about having to vacate the premises immediately.
The tenant has assured the landlord that he will remove all items from the balcony by this Friday but other than recording this undertaking by the tenant I make no orders about that because it relates to something to be done after the tenancy 1 See the District Court and High Court’s decisions of Sergeant v Nigro [2019] NZDC 1060 at [25] and [26]; and Sergeant v Nigro [2019] NZHC 328 at [83]-[94]. has come to an end. At that point, he has a number of obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Non-Publication and suppression
The landlord has sought an order for suppression of the tenant’s name.
The grounds advanced by the landlord were that this is a private matter and that it is not in the wider public interest for the tenant’s name to be published.
There was no objective or independent corroborative evidence supporting that assertion. The tenant himself has made no request for non-publication.
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of any party that has wholly or substantially succeeded make an order that the decision not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name of any party not be published.
The tenant has not made any application for suppression of his name but the terms of Section 95A(4) allow an application to be made by another party to the proceeding.
The landlord has, as noted above, provided no objective or corroborative evidence supporting any likely prejudice to the tenant, or developed any submission as to why it is not in the public interest for the tenant’s name to be published.
I therefore decline to make any order for suppression of the tenant’s name.

Order

Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities is granted possession of the premises at Unit/Flat 13, 52 Wellpark Avenue, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises.
The background is that the landlord issued a 14 day notice on 25 July 2024 regarding the alleged clutter at the premises. The tenant was given 14 days to remedy the clutter.
The tenant decided he would move to Malaysia and gave the landlord a 28 day notice to terminate the tenancy on 12 August 2024. The tenant then asked if he could extend that date to 13 September 2024 and that was agreed to by the landlord.
The tenant has not moved out but agrees he now needs to vacate the premises.
The landlord has done a recent inspection and produced photographs showing a number of items stored on a balcony.
The balcony runs along the front of the tenant’s unit, between two staircases.
The landlord says the clutter and number of items stored on the balcony is a health and safety risk.
The tenant said he would give his word all those items would be gone by this Friday. This seemed an ambitious task. Relevant law
Under section 65 of the RTA, the Tribunal must make an order granting possession of the premises to the person entitled to possession of any residential premises, where the Tribunal: is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises is a squatter, trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person.
For the Tribunal to make an order under s 65 there are three questions to be considered: a)Are the premises residential premises? b)Is the party making the application for possession entitled to receive possession? c)Is the person in possession of the premises in occupation as a squatter, trespasser or pursuant to some right of occupation? 1
If these three elements are established then the Tribunal must make a possession order.
I am satisfied all of these elements are satisfied. I consider the tenancy ended on 13 September 2024.
The landlord is entitled to possession. A 28 day notice cannot be revoked without the consent of the other party.
The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.
The tenant has no lawful right to occupy the premises.
It follows that the landlord is entitled to an immediate order for possession.
I record the landlord’s expressed intention to work with the tenant and assure him he is not stressed about having to vacate the premises immediately.
The tenant has assured the landlord that he will remove all items from the balcony by this Friday but other than recording this undertaking by the tenant I make no orders about that because it relates to something to be done after the tenancy 1 See the District Court and High Court’s decisions of Sergeant v Nigro [2019] NZDC 1060 at [25] and [26]; and Sergeant v Nigro [2019] NZHC 328 at [83]-[94]. has come to an end. At that point, he has a number of obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Non-Publication and suppression
The landlord has sought an order for suppression of the tenant’s name.
The grounds advanced by the landlord were that this is a private matter and that it is not in the wider public interest for the tenant’s name to be published.
There was no objective or independent corroborative evidence supporting that assertion. The tenant himself has made no request for non-publication.
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of any party that has wholly or substantially succeeded make an order that the decision not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name of any party not be published.
The tenant has not made any application for suppression of his name but the terms of Section 95A(4) allow an application to be made by another party to the proceeding.
The landlord has, as noted above, provided no objective or corroborative evidence supporting any likely prejudice to the tenant, or developed any submission as to why it is not in the public interest for the tenant’s name to be published.
I therefore decline to make any order for suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5031728 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 13, 52 Wellpark Avenue, Grey Lynn, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5031728 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 13, 52 Wellpark Avenue, Grey Lynn, Auckland

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