What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5176612?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Renata Caspa Kaha Araipu at 68 Hamilton Avenue, Ilam,

How much money was awarded in case 5176612?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176612?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176612?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11509886-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5176612?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Renata Caspa Kaha Araipu at 68 Hamilton Avenue, Ilam,

How much money was awarded in case 5176612?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176612?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176612?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11509886-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

68 Hamilton Avenue, Ilam, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5176612 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Background

The application seeks termination of the tenancy on the grounds of breach.

The hearing took place by phone on 3 March 2025. Ms Rea represented Kāinga Ora at the hearing. I was unable to contact Mr Araipu on the phone number provided. The hearing proceeded in Mr Araipu’s absence. 1 Findings

The Tenancy Tribunal may make an order terminating a tenancy if: 2 1 Section 92 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 56 RTA a. The tenant breached a term of the tenancy agreement or of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986; and b. In the case of a breach that is capable of being remedied, the landlord gave the tenant a notice describing the breach and giving the tenant a reasonable period of time (not less than 14 days) to remedy the breach; and c. The tenant failed to remedy the breach within the notice period; and d. The nature and extent of the breach is such that it would be unreasonable to refuse the landlord’s request for termination.

Mr Araipu’s tenancy agreement includes terms that require him to “live at the home at all times” and to notify Kāinga Ora if he is going to be away from the home for more than 30 days.

These clauses are common social housing tenancy agreements. The Tenancy Tribunal has upheld these clauses on the grounds that social housing providers have a legitimate interest in ensuring that the limited pool of housing is fully utilised and occupied.

In November 2024, Kāinga Ora became aware that the lawns were very overgrown at the property. They attempted to contact Mr Araipu but it was apparent that he was not living there. They were eventually able to contact Mr Araipu via his mother.

On 13 December 2024, Kāinga Ora delivered a breach notice to the letterbox of the property, requiring Mr Araipu to return and occupy the house.

Kāinga Ora met with Mr Araipu on 19 December. At that time Mr Araipu indicated that he intended to return to the property.

Kāinga Ora carried out a property inspection on 14 January 2025. Mr Araipu was no there. The house was untidy.

Kāinga Ora have been unable to contact Mr Araipu recently.

I am satisfied that: a. Mr Araipu breached the tenancy agreement. It appears that he has not lived at the home since at least November 2024. b. Kāinga Ora issued a breach notice. c. Mr Araipu failed to remedy the breach within the notice period. d. It would be inequitable to refuse the request for termination. Mr Araipu has had ample opportunity to return to the home or to communicate with Kāinga Ora about whether he still needs the house. Kāinga Ora has clients in urgent need of housing.

The tenancy is terminated immediately, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora.

Reasons

Background

The application seeks termination of the tenancy on the grounds of breach.

Mr Araipu’s tenancy agreement includes terms that require him to “live at the home at all times” and to notify Kāinga Ora if he is going to be away from the home for more than 30 days.

On 13 December 2024, Kāinga Ora delivered a breach notice to the letterbox of the property, requiring Mr Araipu to return and occupy the house.

Kāinga Ora met with Mr Araipu on 19 December. At that time Mr Araipu indicated that he intended to return to the property.

Kāinga Ora carried out a property inspection on 14 January 2025. Mr Araipu was no there. The house was untidy.

Kāinga Ora have been unable to contact Mr Araipu recently.

The tenancy is terminated immediately, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176612 — 14-day notice at 68 Hamilton Avenue, Ilam, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176612 — 14-day notice at 68 Hamilton Avenue, Ilam, Christchurch 8041

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