What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5207005?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Tina Michelle Lock at 27 Tudor Road, Henderson, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5207005?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5207005?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5207005?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12001286-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5207005?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Tina Michelle Lock at 27 Tudor Road, Henderson, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5207005?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5207005?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5207005?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12001286-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27 Tudor Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5207005 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Tina Michelle Lock at 27 Tudor Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm on Wednesday 18 June 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

On 5 February 2025, the Tribunal made an Order relating to this tenancy: for the following a. Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must provide Tina Michelle Lock with a 3-cub-metre skip bin; b. Tina Michelle Lock must dispose of her rubbish so that the premises become reasonably clean and tidy; c. Tina Michelle Lock must mow the lawn by 10th February 2025; d. Tina Michelle Lock must allow the landlord to have access according to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to carrying out repairs and maintenance and for routine property inspections.
During the 5 February 2025 hearing the tenant confirmed: a. She understood she has specific obligations in relation to the tenancy premises as set out in section 40(1)(a)-(e), of the RTA; b. She had not kept the premises reasonably clean and tidy because she had personal and family issues that stopped her doing so; c. She had continually refused the landlord access to the premise when they were legally entitled to enter. She sated this was also linked with her personal issues and the fact that the premises was not clean and tidy enough for the inspection; d. She had tried but was unable to complete the rubbish removal due to issues outside of her control at the time; e. She would pay the landlord $390.43 for a 3 cubic metre skip bin if the landlord could provide it so she could remove the rubbish with members of her family. f. She would mow the lawn by 10th February 2025.
On 12 February 2025 the landlord made an unsuccessful phone call attempt made to the tenant and sent her a text message requesting access and confirmed date and time for skip bin delivery.
On 17 February 2025 the tenant confirmed she had been discharged from the hospital and expressed no concerns regarding her welfare. She requested the skip bin be delivered before the annual inspection. This request was approved.
On 18 February 2025 the tenant confirmed her son, Joshua (a household member), would assist with rubbish removal when the skip bin was delivered. The skip bin request was processed with MTCE later that morning.
On 24 February 2025 the tenant confirmed the skip bin had been delivered and would be picked up on 3 March 2025. She also confirmed that she would provide access to the property on 4 March 2025.
On 4 March 2025, the landlord attended the property. The tenant was present but refused the landlord entry. She agreed to provide access on 7 March 2025. She was informed that she would get a 48-hour notice of entry for 7 March 2025 so that the landlord could access the premise, with a locksmith in attendance to assist the landlord to gain access. The tenant assured the landlord that a locksmith would not be necessary, and that access would be granted.
On 7 March 2025, the landlord engaged a locksmith to allow it to access the front and back doors of the premise for the purposes of carrying out a property inspection as assessing what appeared to be broken windows. The locksmith could not get access as the tenant had blocked access from inside by piling items up against the doors.
The tenant then agreed to a property inspection being carried out on 14 May 2025.
On 14 May 2025, the tenant contacted the landlord and asked for a delay in the property inspection to 15 May 2025. The landlord agreed.
On 15 May 2025, the landlord arrived to carry out the inspection as agreed to by the tenant and she was not home and did not provide access. The landlord took photographs that show the lawns are still not mown and have attracted stray cats and rodents, the rubbish has not been removed and is unsightly and a health and safety issue. Further, the landlord has received a number of complaints from neighbours about the state of the property and that they are getting rodent issues at their properties from the tenant’s property. One such complaint was sent to the local member of Parliament and forwarded to the landlord.
The landlord has tried to work with the tenant for a significant amount of time and has issued two 14-day notices ( 22 October 2024 and 6 December 2024) requiring the tenant to comply with her s40 of the RTA obligations, specifically to mow the lawns, tidy the yard, remove the rubbish and grant access to the landlord and its contractors for the purposes of carrying out routine property inspections and repairs/maintenance. The landlord has also obtained a Tribunal Order requiring the tenant to comply with her s40 of the RTA obligations. The tenant initially agrees to comply, and then fails to do so.
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 tenant has breached their obligations by continually failing to allow landlord to enter the premises in circumstances where landlord is entitled to enter and has given no indication that she intends to remedy this breach.
The landlord served two 14-day notice on the tenant and has obtained a Tribunal Order requiring the tenant to remedy the breaches of her s40 of the RTA and contractual obligations and she has not remedied the breaches within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the premise and the yard are a health and safety risk, the landlord is receiving complaints from neighbours about the risk the unkempt property is causing them, the landlord needs to carry out repairs and maintenance on the property to comply with its obligations to the tenant and it cannot because she is obstructing it from entering the premise and it needs to carry out property inspections on no less than and annual basis and the tenant refuses to allow it to do so.
I am satisfied that the landlord has provided evidence that proves on the balance of probabilities it has made every effort to work with the tenant to find a mutually acceptable solution to the access issue they have both aced for some months now and order that the tenancy terminate from 11:59pm tonight and possession be returned to the landlord. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details as it is concerned that the tenant will not be able to obtain alternative accommodation if her name is published.
I have given this application consideration and can see that the Tribunal granted the tenant name suppression in its 5 February 2025 Order. However, I consider that publication of the tenant’s name is in the public interest and is justified because of the party’s ongoing pattern of concerning conduct and that the public interest outweighs any disadvantage the tenant may face because her name has been published.
The application for non-publication is dismissed.

Order

The tenancy of Tina Michelle Lock at 27 Tudor Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm on Wednesday 18 June 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

On 5 February 2025, the Tribunal made an Order relating to this tenancy: for the following a. Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities must provide Tina Michelle Lock with a 3-cub-metre skip bin; b. Tina Michelle Lock must dispose of her rubbish so that the premises become reasonably clean and tidy; c. Tina Michelle Lock must mow the lawn by 10th February 2025; d. Tina Michelle Lock must allow the landlord to have access according to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) to carrying out repairs and maintenance and for routine property inspections.
During the 5 February 2025 hearing the tenant confirmed: a. She understood she has specific obligations in relation to the tenancy premises as set out in section 40(1)(a)-(e), of the RTA; b. She had not kept the premises reasonably clean and tidy because she had personal and family issues that stopped her doing so; c. She had continually refused the landlord access to the premise when they were legally entitled to enter. She sated this was also linked with her personal issues and the fact that the premises was not clean and tidy enough for the inspection; d. She had tried but was unable to complete the rubbish removal due to issues outside of her control at the time; e. She would pay the landlord $390.43 for a 3 cubic metre skip bin if the landlord could provide it so she could remove the rubbish with members of her family. f. She would mow the lawn by 10th February 2025.
On 12 February 2025 the landlord made an unsuccessful phone call attempt made to the tenant and sent her a text message requesting access and confirmed date and time for skip bin delivery.
On 17 February 2025 the tenant confirmed she had been discharged from the hospital and expressed no concerns regarding her welfare. She requested the skip bin be delivered before the annual inspection. This request was approved.
On 18 February 2025 the tenant confirmed her son, Joshua (a household member), would assist with rubbish removal when the skip bin was delivered. The skip bin request was processed with MTCE later that morning.
On 24 February 2025 the tenant confirmed the skip bin had been delivered and would be picked up on 3 March 2025. She also confirmed that she would provide access to the property on 4 March 2025.
On 4 March 2025, the landlord attended the property. The tenant was present but refused the landlord entry. She agreed to provide access on 7 March 2025. She was informed that she would get a 48-hour notice of entry for 7 March 2025 so that the landlord could access the premise, with a locksmith in attendance to assist the landlord to gain access. The tenant assured the landlord that a locksmith would not be necessary, and that access would be granted.
On 7 March 2025, the landlord engaged a locksmith to allow it to access the front and back doors of the premise for the purposes of carrying out a property inspection as assessing what appeared to be broken windows. The locksmith could not get access as the tenant had blocked access from inside by piling items up against the doors.
The tenant then agreed to a property inspection being carried out on 14 May 2025.
On 14 May 2025, the tenant contacted the landlord and asked for a delay in the property inspection to 15 May 2025. The landlord agreed.
On 15 May 2025, the landlord arrived to carry out the inspection as agreed to by the tenant and she was not home and did not provide access. The landlord took photographs that show the lawns are still not mown and have attracted stray cats and rodents, the rubbish has not been removed and is unsightly and a health and safety issue. Further, the landlord has received a number of complaints from neighbours about the state of the property and that they are getting rodent issues at their properties from the tenant’s property. One such complaint was sent to the local member of Parliament and forwarded to the landlord.
The landlord has tried to work with the tenant for a significant amount of time and has issued two 14-day notices ( 22 October 2024 and 6 December 2024) requiring the tenant to comply with her s40 of the RTA obligations, specifically to mow the lawns, tidy the yard, remove the rubbish and grant access to the landlord and its contractors for the purposes of carrying out routine property inspections and repairs/maintenance. The landlord has also obtained a Tribunal Order requiring the tenant to comply with her s40 of the RTA obligations. The tenant initially agrees to comply, and then fails to do so.
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 tenant has breached their obligations by continually failing to allow landlord to enter the premises in circumstances where landlord is entitled to enter and has given no indication that she intends to remedy this breach.
The landlord served two 14-day notice on the tenant and has obtained a Tribunal Order requiring the tenant to remedy the breaches of her s40 of the RTA and contractual obligations and she has not remedied the breaches within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the premise and the yard are a health and safety risk, the landlord is receiving complaints from neighbours about the risk the unkempt property is causing them, the landlord needs to carry out repairs and maintenance on the property to comply with its obligations to the tenant and it cannot because she is obstructing it from entering the premise and it needs to carry out property inspections on no less than and annual basis and the tenant refuses to allow it to do so.
I am satisfied that the landlord has provided evidence that proves on the balance of probabilities it has made every effort to work with the tenant to find a mutually acceptable solution to the access issue they have both aced for some months now and order that the tenancy terminate from 11:59pm tonight and possession be returned to the landlord. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details as it is concerned that the tenant will not be able to obtain alternative accommodation if her name is published.
I have given this application consideration and can see that the Tribunal granted the tenant name suppression in its 5 February 2025 Order. However, I consider that publication of the tenant’s name is in the public interest and is justified because of the party’s ongoing pattern of concerning conduct and that the public interest outweighs any disadvantage the tenant may face because her name has been published.
The application for non-publication is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5207005 — 14-day notice at 27 Tudor Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5207005 — 14-day notice at 27 Tudor Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

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