What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5015928 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Gao Construction Limited and Mr Hui Gao As Director at 89

How much money was awarded in case 5015928?

Thompson Property Limited - As Agent…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5015928?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5015928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13345985-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5015928 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Gao Construction Limited and Mr Hui Gao As Director at 89

How much money was awarded in case 5015928?

Thompson Property Limited - As Agent…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5015928?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5015928?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13345985-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

89 Mcquoids Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5015928 — 14-day notice

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5015928. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Thompson Property Limited - As Agent For Peng Family Trust	$27.00		Thompson Property Limited - As Agent For Peng Family Trust

The tenancy of Gao Construction Limited and Mr Hui Gao As Director at 89 Mcquoids Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2016 is terminated, and possession is granted to Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited - As Agent For Peng Family Trust, at midnight on Wednesday 25 March 2026.

Gao Construction Limited and Mr Hui Gao As Director must pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited - As Agent For Peng Family Trust $27.00 immediately, for the filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the videoconference hearing today.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

The residential tenancy agreement provided that the tenant would not dump construction materials at the premises. There was provision for some “levelling of the land” for the parking of trucks onsite so long as this did not cause subsidence risk or disturb neighbours. The tenant was also responsible for maintaining the surrounding paddocks.

The residential dwelling and other outbuildings are surrounded by about 1.8 hectares of land.

The landlord says that the tenant has continually dumped and buried materials on the land from demolished houses such as foundations, driveways, metal, and other construction debris. The landlord also says that the changes made by the tenant to the contour of the land goes beyond anything that was agreed.

On 1 March 2024 the landlord served a notice to remedy requiring the removal of construction materials and other remedial steps. On 24 September 2024 the landlord served a notice to remedy requiring reinstatement of the property.

The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy on 25 September 2024. The Tribunal made a work order on 10 January 2025. The tenant had not attended the hearing but appealed to the District Court. I understand this was later withdrawn.

The Tribunal made a further work order on 25 September 2025 after a hearing attended by both parties. This was not complied with. The Tribunal granted leave to the landlord to enforce an alternative money order on 17 December 2025 (for a topographical survey).

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.

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 has served the necessary notices.

The tenant has breached their obligations by not removing building and construction materials and has failed to comply with the Tribunal’s orders. The latest photographs from the landlord, taken on 20 February 2026, show further concrete and soil brought onto the property. Photographs taken on 17 December 2025 are said to show that the tenant has buried construction waste and scraped off the grass above the in-fill.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has been given several opportunities over a long period to remedy the breach. Termination Notice

I note that the landlord has served a 42-day termination notice on 23 February 2026 which expires on 6 April 2026. The owner intends to live at the premises. Filing Fee

Although several orders have been made, the filing fee has not been addressed. The landlord’s application has succeeded. It is appropriate to award the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5015928. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Thompson Property Limited - As Agent For Peng Family Trust	$27.00		Thompson Property Limited - As Agent For Peng Family Trust

Order

The tenancy of Gao Construction Limited and Mr Hui Gao As Director at 89 Mcquoids Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2016 is terminated, and possession is granted to Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited - As Agent For Peng Family Trust, at midnight on Wednesday 25 March 2026.
Gao Construction Limited and Mr Hui Gao As Director must pay Barfoot & Thompson Property Limited - As Agent For Peng Family Trust $27.00 immediately, for the filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the videoconference hearing today.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The residential tenancy agreement provided that the tenant would not dump construction materials at the premises. There was provision for some “levelling of the land” for the parking of trucks onsite so long as this did not cause subsidence risk or disturb neighbours. The tenant was also responsible for maintaining the surrounding paddocks.
The residential dwelling and other outbuildings are surrounded by about 1.8 hectares of land.
The landlord says that the tenant has continually dumped and buried materials on the land from demolished houses such as foundations, driveways, metal, and other construction debris. The landlord also says that the changes made by the tenant to the contour of the land goes beyond anything that was agreed.
On 1 March 2024 the landlord served a notice to remedy requiring the removal of construction materials and other remedial steps. On 24 September 2024 the landlord served a notice to remedy requiring reinstatement of the property.
The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy on 25 September 2024. The Tribunal made a work order on 10 January 2025. The tenant had not attended the hearing but appealed to the District Court. I understand this was later withdrawn.
The Tribunal made a further work order on 25 September 2025 after a hearing attended by both parties. This was not complied with. The Tribunal granted leave to the landlord to enforce an alternative money order on 17 December 2025 (for a topographical survey).

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.
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 has served the necessary notices.
The tenant has breached their obligations by not removing building and construction materials and has failed to comply with the Tribunal’s orders. The latest photographs from the landlord, taken on 20 February 2026, show further concrete and soil brought onto the property. Photographs taken on 17 December 2025 are said to show that the tenant has buried construction waste and scraped off the grass above the in-fill.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has been given several opportunities over a long period to remedy the breach. Termination Notice
I note that the landlord has served a 42-day termination notice on 23 February 2026 which expires on 6 April 2026. The owner intends to live at the premises. Filing Fee
Although several orders have been made, the filing fee has not been addressed. The landlord’s application has succeeded. It is appropriate to award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5015928 — 14-day notice at 89 Mcquoids Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5015928 — 14-day notice at 89 Mcquoids Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions