What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5278382?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Samantha Amelia Andr Gray at Unit/Flat Unit 104, 2 Sel

How much money was awarded in case 5278382?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5278382?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5278382?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12040398-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5278382?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Samantha Amelia Andr Gray at Unit/Flat Unit 104, 2 Sel

How much money was awarded in case 5278382?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5278382?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5278382?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12040398-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 104, 2 Sel Peacock Drive, Henderson, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5278382 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing which was held by phone. The landlord was represented by Daniel Campbell. The Tribunal made two calls to the tenant but both calls went to voicemail.

I am satisfied that the tenant has been served with the landlord’s application in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The hearing therefore proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

This social housing tenancy began on 29 November 2021. The rent is currently $84.00 per week.

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 says that the tenant is no longer living at the property. As this is a social housing tenancy the tenancy agreement includes a clause requiring the tenant to live in the tenancy as follows:

The landlord has been unable to make contact with the tenant following complaints of noise, partying and a dog at the premises in January 2025.

The landlord has served the tenant with two 14 day notices requiring the tenant to return to the tenancy. The first notice was served on 4 March 2025 and the second notice was served on 26 March 2025.

The tenant did not respond to either notice and was not home on visits that took place on 20 March 2025, 27 March 2025, 14 April 2025 and 1 May 2025. At each visit there were unauthorised occupants present. On the final visit an occupant confirmed that the tenant had not been at the tenancy for four months and said that they were subletting the tenancy from the tenant and were paying rent to her.

The landlord has had no communication from the tenant. The tenant does not appear to be living in the property.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant is in breach of her obligations by not living at the tenancy. There is a high demand for public housing and the tenancy is required for another tenant.

At the hearing Mr Campbell advised that the tenant has stopped paying rent and that there are arrears of approximately $111.00 owing. The landlord may file a new application seeking these arrears if they are not paid.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing which was held by phone. The landlord was represented by Daniel Campbell. The Tribunal made two calls to the tenant but both calls went to voicemail.

This social housing tenancy began on 29 November 2021. The rent is currently $84.00 per week.

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.

The landlord has been unable to make contact with the tenant following complaints of noise, partying and a dog at the premises in January 2025.

The landlord has had no communication from the tenant. The tenant does not appear to be living in the property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5278382 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 104, 2 Sel Peacock Drive, Henderson,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5278382 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 104, 2 Sel Peacock Drive, Henderson,

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