What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5176611?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Andrew Anaru Rika at Unit/Flat Unit 819, 139B Greys Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 5176611?

Rent Arrears: $2,004.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176611?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176611?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11716979-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5176611?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Andrew Anaru Rika at Unit/Flat Unit 819, 139B Greys Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 5176611?

Rent Arrears: $2,004.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176611?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176611?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11716979-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 819, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5176611 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5176611 — net $2,004.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14/04/2025	$2,004.00	Rent arrears to 14/04/2025
Net award	$2,004.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,004.00

Order

The tenancy of Andrew Anaru Rika at Unit/Flat Unit 819, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.
Andrew Anaru Rika must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $2,004.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 10 April 2025. The Tribunal was unable to contact the tenant on the contact number provided. I was satisfied that adequate service of the hearing notice was completed and deemed it reasonable to proceed with the hearing.
This matter comes before the Tribunal on an application by the landlord seeking termination of the tenancy on the basis that the tenant has abandoned the property and is in breach of key tenancy obligations. The application also seeks possession of the premises.

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 tenancy commenced on 7 February 2024 and relates to a studio apartment fully furnished by the landlord, Kāinga Ora, a social housing provider. The tenancy agreement includes specific clauses, including: a. Clause 14: the tenant must reside at the property at all times and use it principally as their home; b. Clause 15: the tenant must notify the landlord in writing if they will be away from the property for more than 30 days;
These clauses are not unusual or intrusive in the context of social housing, where eligibility and subsidised rent are based on individual housing need and income. It is both reasonable and necessary that the property be used as the principal place of residence by the named tenant.
The landlord has provided a detailed timeline of efforts to contact the tenant, spanning from October 2024 to February 2025, all of which went unanswered. The last known contact regarding the tenant’s whereabouts was on 1 February 2025, when the landlord was notified by Kāhui Tu Kaha (KTK), the tenant’s support provider, that the tenant may have left the country to visit his son in Australia. Prior notifications in November and December 2024 from KTK raised similar concerns that the tenant may not be residing at the property.
The evidence shows that the tenant has not used his swipe access card since 18 October 2024, and no rent payments have been made since 29 October 2024, resulting in accrued arrears of $1,416.00 at the time of the application.
The landlord served a 14-day notice to remedy rent arrears on 1 November 2024, which expired on 15 November 2024, but the breach was not remedied. Additional notices were delivered in December 2024 and January 2025 urging the tenant to return to the property. No response was received.
On 20 February 2025, a final property inspection was carried out by Senior Housing Support Managers. The unit was tidy and clean, but indicators of abandonment were clear: a. No power connected; b. No perishable food in the refrigerator; c. Tenant’s swipe card and keys were left inside the property; d. No response to repeated contact attempts; e. Letters from previous visits remained stuck to the door; f. The tenant’s belongings were minimal and inconsistent with ongoing occupancy.
Under section 56(1) RTA, the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy where there has been a breach of the tenancy agreement and, given the nature and extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse termination. While the Tribunal must consider whether a breach is capable of remedy, the abandonment of a tenancy is a serious and non-remediable breach, especially where the tenant has failed to communicate or make any attempt to explain prolonged absence, continued non-payment of rent, or to respond to the landlord’s repeated outreach.
The tenant has not disputed the application, nor has he made contact with the landlord or the Tribunal to provide an explanation or justification for his absence. The prolonged vacancy, lack of response, and rent arrears all point to a clear abandonment of the tenancy. The landlord has made reasonable efforts to establish contact, comply with procedural requirements, and verify abandonment.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds the breach is serious and ongoing. It would be inequitable to refuse termination, particularly where the property is in high demand for others in need of social housing.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5176611 — net $2,004.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14/04/2025	$2,004.00	Rent arrears to 14/04/2025
Net award	$2,004.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,004.00

Order

The tenancy of Andrew Anaru Rika at Unit/Flat Unit 819, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.
Andrew Anaru Rika must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $2,004.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 10 April 2025. The Tribunal was unable to contact the tenant on the contact number provided. I was satisfied that adequate service of the hearing notice was completed and deemed it reasonable to proceed with the hearing.
This matter comes before the Tribunal on an application by the landlord seeking termination of the tenancy on the basis that the tenant has abandoned the property and is in breach of key tenancy obligations. The application also seeks possession of the premises.

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 tenancy commenced on 7 February 2024 and relates to a studio apartment fully furnished by the landlord, Kāinga Ora, a social housing provider. The tenancy agreement includes specific clauses, including: a. Clause 14: the tenant must reside at the property at all times and use it principally as their home; b. Clause 15: the tenant must notify the landlord in writing if they will be away from the property for more than 30 days;
These clauses are not unusual or intrusive in the context of social housing, where eligibility and subsidised rent are based on individual housing need and income. It is both reasonable and necessary that the property be used as the principal place of residence by the named tenant.
The landlord has provided a detailed timeline of efforts to contact the tenant, spanning from October 2024 to February 2025, all of which went unanswered. The last known contact regarding the tenant’s whereabouts was on 1 February 2025, when the landlord was notified by Kāhui Tu Kaha (KTK), the tenant’s support provider, that the tenant may have left the country to visit his son in Australia. Prior notifications in November and December 2024 from KTK raised similar concerns that the tenant may not be residing at the property.
The evidence shows that the tenant has not used his swipe access card since 18 October 2024, and no rent payments have been made since 29 October 2024, resulting in accrued arrears of $1,416.00 at the time of the application.
The landlord served a 14-day notice to remedy rent arrears on 1 November 2024, which expired on 15 November 2024, but the breach was not remedied. Additional notices were delivered in December 2024 and January 2025 urging the tenant to return to the property. No response was received.
On 20 February 2025, a final property inspection was carried out by Senior Housing Support Managers. The unit was tidy and clean, but indicators of abandonment were clear: a. No power connected; b. No perishable food in the refrigerator; c. Tenant’s swipe card and keys were left inside the property; d. No response to repeated contact attempts; e. Letters from previous visits remained stuck to the door; f. The tenant’s belongings were minimal and inconsistent with ongoing occupancy.
Under section 56(1) RTA, the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy where there has been a breach of the tenancy agreement and, given the nature and extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse termination. While the Tribunal must consider whether a breach is capable of remedy, the abandonment of a tenancy is a serious and non-remediable breach, especially where the tenant has failed to communicate or make any attempt to explain prolonged absence, continued non-payment of rent, or to respond to the landlord’s repeated outreach.
The tenant has not disputed the application, nor has he made contact with the landlord or the Tribunal to provide an explanation or justification for his absence. The prolonged vacancy, lack of response, and rent arrears all point to a clear abandonment of the tenancy. The landlord has made reasonable efforts to establish contact, comply with procedural requirements, and verify abandonment.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds the breach is serious and ongoing. It would be inequitable to refuse termination, particularly where the property is in high demand for others in need of social housing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176611 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 819, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176611 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 819, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions