What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5120049?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Abraham Kaweirangi Waihirere at Unit/Flat 8, 15 Croft Grove,

How much money was awarded in case 5120049?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120049?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11451766-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5120049?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Abraham Kaweirangi Waihirere at Unit/Flat 8, 15 Croft Grove,

How much money was awarded in case 5120049?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5120049?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5120049?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11451766-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 8, 15 Croft Grove, Moera, Lower Hutt 5010, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5120049 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Abraham Kaweirangi Waihirere at Unit/Flat 8, 15 Croft Grove, Moera, Lower Hutt 5010, Riverside Apartments is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

Ms Rea, representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 893, was called twice. Both calls went to voicemail. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
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 said the tenant has breached their obligations by not living at the property and sub-letting the property, both of which breach terms of the Tenancy Agreement. The landlord indicated they conducted a routine inspection report at the property on 20 September 2024 and the tenant was not there. The last time the tenant had been present at an inspection by the landlord was on 13 June 2024. The landlord became aware that the tenant was living with his partner, who lived in another property owned by the landlord.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 2 October 2024, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
The landlord inspected the property on 22 October 2024, as indicated in the 14- day notice of 2 October 2024 sent to the tenant, and found the property in poor condition, with the power turned off. The landlord believed the property had been taken over by squatters, given its dirty condition.
The landlord met with the tenant at his partner’s property on 14 November 2024 to let him know he had to return to live at his property or they would apply to the Tribunal to terminate his tenancy.
The landlord’s housing manager was in the property’s environment in early February 2025 and met an unknown male, who told him he was the new tenant at the property, and asked him for the ICP number to get the power turned on. The housing manager then noticed that there had been a request made for new keys for the property. The housing manager said the unknown male now living at the property told him the tenant had told him he owned this property and another one and could rent it to him. The housing manager told the unknown male at the property that the tenant was renting the property and did not own it and he must sort out the situation with the tenant directly. The landlord visited the property again on 13 February 2025 when the unknown male living at the property let them in and allowed them to take photographs of the property. The property still did not have any power turned on.
The landlord provided inspection reports dated 22 October 2024 and 13 February 2025, with photographs, which showed the condition of the property. The inspection report dated 22 October 2024 showed the property’s poor condition with rubbish and clothing strewn throughout the property and rotting food on the kitchen bench. The inspection report date 13 February 2025 showed a somewhat tidier property, with clear photographs of a bed and bedding at the property.
The landlord said they had made many attempts to contact the tenant to discuss the situation and give him an opportunity to return to live in the property and retain the tenancy, without response.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that they had made multiple attempts to contact the tenant to discuss why he is not living at the property, without response, and more recently, why he has sub-let the property without their consent. I find that the inspection reports and photographs of the property likely support the landlord’s contention that squatters initially took over the property and then the tenant sub-let to another male, and thus the tenant has failed to comply with the 14-day notice sent to him by the landlord to return to live in the property.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has been given many opportunities to rectify the situation and return to live at the property, but has not responded to the landlord, nor has he complied with this request. For the tenant to go on to sub-let the property to somebody else recently, further breaching that term of the Tenancy Agreement not to do so, makes it clear the tenant has no intention of returning to live at the property. There is a high demand and a waiting list for social housing and this property could be made available to somebody in need of this housing.

Order

The tenancy of Abraham Kaweirangi Waihirere at Unit/Flat 8, 15 Croft Grove, Moera, Lower Hutt 5010, Riverside Apartments is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

Ms Rea, representing the landlord, attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 893, was called twice. Both calls went to voicemail. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
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 said the tenant has breached their obligations by not living at the property and sub-letting the property, both of which breach terms of the Tenancy Agreement. The landlord indicated they conducted a routine inspection report at the property on 20 September 2024 and the tenant was not there. The last time the tenant had been present at an inspection by the landlord was on 13 June 2024. The landlord became aware that the tenant was living with his partner, who lived in another property owned by the landlord.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 2 October 2024, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
The landlord inspected the property on 22 October 2024, as indicated in the 14- day notice of 2 October 2024 sent to the tenant, and found the property in poor condition, with the power turned off. The landlord believed the property had been taken over by squatters, given its dirty condition.
The landlord met with the tenant at his partner’s property on 14 November 2024 to let him know he had to return to live at his property or they would apply to the Tribunal to terminate his tenancy.
The landlord’s housing manager was in the property’s environment in early February 2025 and met an unknown male, who told him he was the new tenant at the property, and asked him for the ICP number to get the power turned on. The housing manager then noticed that there had been a request made for new keys for the property. The housing manager said the unknown male now living at the property told him the tenant had told him he owned this property and another one and could rent it to him. The housing manager told the unknown male at the property that the tenant was renting the property and did not own it and he must sort out the situation with the tenant directly. The landlord visited the property again on 13 February 2025 when the unknown male living at the property let them in and allowed them to take photographs of the property. The property still did not have any power turned on.
The landlord provided inspection reports dated 22 October 2024 and 13 February 2025, with photographs, which showed the condition of the property. The inspection report dated 22 October 2024 showed the property’s poor condition with rubbish and clothing strewn throughout the property and rotting food on the kitchen bench. The inspection report date 13 February 2025 showed a somewhat tidier property, with clear photographs of a bed and bedding at the property.
The landlord said they had made many attempts to contact the tenant to discuss the situation and give him an opportunity to return to live in the property and retain the tenancy, without response.
I accept the landlord’s evidence that they had made multiple attempts to contact the tenant to discuss why he is not living at the property, without response, and more recently, why he has sub-let the property without their consent. I find that the inspection reports and photographs of the property likely support the landlord’s contention that squatters initially took over the property and then the tenant sub-let to another male, and thus the tenant has failed to comply with the 14-day notice sent to him by the landlord to return to live in the property.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has been given many opportunities to rectify the situation and return to live at the property, but has not responded to the landlord, nor has he complied with this request. For the tenant to go on to sub-let the property to somebody else recently, further breaching that term of the Tenancy Agreement not to do so, makes it clear the tenant has no intention of returning to live at the property. There is a high demand and a waiting list for social housing and this property could be made available to somebody in need of this housing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120049 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 8, 15 Croft Grove, Moera, Lower Hutt 5010,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5120049 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 8, 15 Croft Grove, 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