What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5048948?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jovahna Samuels at 8B Tourmalin Place, Wiri, Auckland 2104 is

How much money was awarded in case 5048948?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5048948?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5048948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11196047-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5048948?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jovahna Samuels at 8B Tourmalin Place, Wiri, Auckland 2104 is

How much money was awarded in case 5048948?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5048948?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5048948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11196047-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8B Tourmalin Place, Wiri, Auckland 2104 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5048948 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Jovahna Samuels at 8B Tourmalin Place, Wiri, Auckland 2104 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at 11.59pm on 10 December 2024.

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by Ms Eder, attended the hearing, which was conducted via teleconference. Three attempts were made to contact the tenant, and on each occasion, the call went to voicemail. As the tenant has been notified, the hearing proceeded.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord seeks termination on the basis that the tenant no longer lives at the premises and is in breach of her tenancy agreement.
There is no bond, and, according to the landlord, rent continues to be paid by the Ministry of Social Development. The tenancy agreement
Clause 14 of the tenancy agreement requires that the tenant “must live at the home at all times.” It also states that the home must only be used by the tenant and their family “who were part of (the) application.”
Clause 15 requires that the tenant notify the landlord if they are going to be away from the home for more than 30 days.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
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 this case, I am satisfied that the tenant has breached her obligations under the tenancy agreement and has not remedied the breach within the required period.
The landlord’s evidence is that on 1 October 2024 neighbours reported the presence of squatters at the premises. The landlord visited the property, the squatters left, and it was noted the tenant was not present. The landlord observed that there was no furniture inside (except a chair), rubbish was strewn across the front and back yard, lawns were overgrown, and a notice from the electricity provider (dated June 2024) stated power had been disconnected. Photographic evidence was provided.
The landlord issued a 14-day notice on 1 October 2024, reminding the tenant of her obligation to live at the property, and requesting that she return by 18 October 2024, or provide 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy. This was effectively a 14 day notice under section 56(1), which was not remedied within the required period.
At the end of the notice period, there was no further contact from the tenant, despite the landlord’s attempts to contact her via phone calls and text messages. The landlord made multiple visits, and found that no-one was living at the premises. Photographs taken on the day of the hearing (10 December 2024) were produced.
In the circumstances, I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities provides social housing on the basis of housing need, and it is fair and reasonable that tenants are required to live in the home, due to the demand for housing. Where there is evidence that the tenant is no longer residing in the premises, and is therefore in breach if their tenancy agreement, there are sufficient grounds for termination of the tenancy. Accordingly, this tenancy is terminated. Filing fee
While successful in its application, the landlord does not seek the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of Jovahna Samuels at 8B Tourmalin Place, Wiri, Auckland 2104 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at 11.59pm on 10 December 2024.

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by Ms Eder, attended the hearing, which was conducted via teleconference. Three attempts were made to contact the tenant, and on each occasion, the call went to voicemail. As the tenant has been notified, the hearing proceeded.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord seeks termination on the basis that the tenant no longer lives at the premises and is in breach of her tenancy agreement.
There is no bond, and, according to the landlord, rent continues to be paid by the Ministry of Social Development. The tenancy agreement
Clause 14 of the tenancy agreement requires that the tenant “must live at the home at all times.” It also states that the home must only be used by the tenant and their family “who were part of (the) application.”
Clause 15 requires that the tenant notify the landlord if they are going to be away from the home for more than 30 days.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
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 this case, I am satisfied that the tenant has breached her obligations under the tenancy agreement and has not remedied the breach within the required period.
The landlord’s evidence is that on 1 October 2024 neighbours reported the presence of squatters at the premises. The landlord visited the property, the squatters left, and it was noted the tenant was not present. The landlord observed that there was no furniture inside (except a chair), rubbish was strewn across the front and back yard, lawns were overgrown, and a notice from the electricity provider (dated June 2024) stated power had been disconnected. Photographic evidence was provided.
The landlord issued a 14-day notice on 1 October 2024, reminding the tenant of her obligation to live at the property, and requesting that she return by 18 October 2024, or provide 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy. This was effectively a 14 day notice under section 56(1), which was not remedied within the required period.
At the end of the notice period, there was no further contact from the tenant, despite the landlord’s attempts to contact her via phone calls and text messages. The landlord made multiple visits, and found that no-one was living at the premises. Photographs taken on the day of the hearing (10 December 2024) were produced.
In the circumstances, I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities provides social housing on the basis of housing need, and it is fair and reasonable that tenants are required to live in the home, due to the demand for housing. Where there is evidence that the tenant is no longer residing in the premises, and is therefore in breach if their tenancy agreement, there are sufficient grounds for termination of the tenancy. Accordingly, this tenancy is terminated. Filing fee
While successful in its application, the landlord does not seek the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5048948 — 14-day notice at 8B Tourmalin Place, Wiri, Auckland 2104

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5048948 — 14-day notice at 8B Tourmalin Place, Wiri, Auckland 2104

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