What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5274140?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jennifer Mary Anne Magrath at 33 Pipi Place, Levin, Levin 5510

How much money was awarded in case 5274140?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5274140?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5274140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12298854-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5274140?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jennifer Mary Anne Magrath at 33 Pipi Place, Levin, Levin 5510

How much money was awarded in case 5274140?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5274140?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5274140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12298854-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Pipi Place, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5274140 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Jennifer Mary Anne Magrath at 33 Pipi Place, Levin, Levin 5510 is terminated.
Possession of the tenancy address at 33 Pipi Place, Levin, Levin 5510 by the landlord is suspended on the following conditions: a. Jennifer Mary Anne Magrath resumes personal occupation of the premises no later than 5pm on 26 August 2025 and, b. Jennifer Mary Anne Magrath gives access to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities on or before 5pm on 26 August 2025 to verify personal occupation.
If the above conditions are not met, the landlord may enforce possession of the premises without further order of the Tribunal, provided enforcement occurs within 90 days of the date of this order.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Background
The tenancy commenced on 13 February 2025. The tenancy agreement states that: a. You must live in the home at all times. The home must only be used by you and your family who were part of your application. b. If you are going to be away from the homes for more than 30 days (for example, if you are on holiday or sick), you need to let us know.
The landlord submits that by early March 2025 the tenant had advised the landlord that she was living in a different city, due to not being able to get power connected or furniture for the house. Despite several attempts to contact the tenant to verify occupation, they believe the tenant has never actually lived at the property.
The landlord has provided a full chronology from 18 February 2025 to August 2025 detailing evidence that shows the tenant is not living at the property. In summary, this includes: a. Photographs of calling cards being left at the property, and still being in place on the front door or letterbox weeks later. b. Despite several attempts, an inability to meet the tenant at the tenancy address. c. Photographs showing the property is empty with no furniture in the kitchen or lounge. d. The tenant only visiting the landlord’s branch in a different city.
On 1 April 2025, the landlord issued a section 56 breach notice. The notice requested that the tenant return to the property and/or contact the landlord by 1 May 2025.
The landlord submits that this has not occurred and has provided evidence in support.
The tenant submits that she has been living at the property, however, she says she has no furniture and has been sleeping on the floor.
At the previous hearing for this matter, the hearing was adjourned to enable the tenant to be fully served with the application, to enable the landlord time to return to the property and to allow the tenant further time to provide any evidence in response to the application.

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 (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.
On review of the evidence, I am satisfied that the evidence provided by the landlord shows that it is more likely than not, that the tenant has and/or is not residing at the property.
Although the tenant submitted that she is living in the property, I have not received any actual evidence that proves this.
I am satisfied that the tenant has breached her obligations by failing to reside in the property.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 1 April 2025, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the landlord is a social housing organisation, and homes need to be made available for those with a genuine need for housing. Occupation has been an issue since the commencement of the tenancy and despite several attempts by the landlord there has been a persistent failure by the tenant to verify her occupation. 1
As a result, I conclude that termination of the tenancy is required following consideration of section 56 of the RTA. Possession
Despite my finding that there is sufficient evidence to terminate the tenancy for non-occupation in accordance with s56 of the RTA, the tenant maintained that she was living in the property and intended to continue to do so.
At the hearing, the parties agreed that the landlord would arrange to visit the tenancy address and meet the tenant before 5pm on 26 August 2025 for one last opportunity to verify occupation of the premises.
Accordingly, although the tenancy is terminated, possession is suspended and is conditional on whether or not the tenant resumes occupation, and the 1 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe). landlord is able to verify that occupation by 5pm on 26 August 2025. See section 78(3) of the RTA.
If these conditions are not met, then the landlord is able to enforce possession of the premises without further order of the Tribunal, provided that this occurs within 90 days of the date of this order. See section 64 of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 22 August 2025

Order

The tenancy of Jennifer Mary Anne Magrath at 33 Pipi Place, Levin, Levin 5510 is terminated.
Possession of the tenancy address at 33 Pipi Place, Levin, Levin 5510 by the landlord is suspended on the following conditions: a. Jennifer Mary Anne Magrath resumes personal occupation of the premises no later than 5pm on 26 August 2025 and, b. Jennifer Mary Anne Magrath gives access to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities on or before 5pm on 26 August 2025 to verify personal occupation.
If the above conditions are not met, the landlord may enforce possession of the premises without further order of the Tribunal, provided enforcement occurs within 90 days of the date of this order.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Background
The tenancy commenced on 13 February 2025. The tenancy agreement states that: a. You must live in the home at all times. The home must only be used by you and your family who were part of your application. b. If you are going to be away from the homes for more than 30 days (for example, if you are on holiday or sick), you need to let us know.
The landlord submits that by early March 2025 the tenant had advised the landlord that she was living in a different city, due to not being able to get power connected or furniture for the house. Despite several attempts to contact the tenant to verify occupation, they believe the tenant has never actually lived at the property.
The landlord has provided a full chronology from 18 February 2025 to August 2025 detailing evidence that shows the tenant is not living at the property. In summary, this includes: a. Photographs of calling cards being left at the property, and still being in place on the front door or letterbox weeks later. b. Despite several attempts, an inability to meet the tenant at the tenancy address. c. Photographs showing the property is empty with no furniture in the kitchen or lounge. d. The tenant only visiting the landlord’s branch in a different city.
On 1 April 2025, the landlord issued a section 56 breach notice. The notice requested that the tenant return to the property and/or contact the landlord by 1 May 2025.
The landlord submits that this has not occurred and has provided evidence in support.
The tenant submits that she has been living at the property, however, she says she has no furniture and has been sleeping on the floor.
At the previous hearing for this matter, the hearing was adjourned to enable the tenant to be fully served with the application, to enable the landlord time to return to the property and to allow the tenant further time to provide any evidence in response to the application.

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 (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.
On review of the evidence, I am satisfied that the evidence provided by the landlord shows that it is more likely than not, that the tenant has and/or is not residing at the property.
Although the tenant submitted that she is living in the property, I have not received any actual evidence that proves this.
I am satisfied that the tenant has breached her obligations by failing to reside in the property.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 1 April 2025, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the landlord is a social housing organisation, and homes need to be made available for those with a genuine need for housing. Occupation has been an issue since the commencement of the tenancy and despite several attempts by the landlord there has been a persistent failure by the tenant to verify her occupation. 1
As a result, I conclude that termination of the tenancy is required following consideration of section 56 of the RTA. Possession
Despite my finding that there is sufficient evidence to terminate the tenancy for non-occupation in accordance with s56 of the RTA, the tenant maintained that she was living in the property and intended to continue to do so.
At the hearing, the parties agreed that the landlord would arrange to visit the tenancy address and meet the tenant before 5pm on 26 August 2025 for one last opportunity to verify occupation of the premises.
Accordingly, although the tenancy is terminated, possession is suspended and is conditional on whether or not the tenant resumes occupation, and the 1 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe). landlord is able to verify that occupation by 5pm on 26 August 2025. See section 78(3) of the RTA.
If these conditions are not met, then the landlord is able to enforce possession of the premises without further order of the Tribunal, provided that this occurs within 90 days of the date of this order. See section 64 of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 22 August 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5274140 — 14-day notice at 33 Pipi Place, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5274140 — 14-day notice at 33 Pipi Place, Levin, Levin 5510

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