What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5235855 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 96 Albionvale Road, Glen

How much money was awarded in case 5235855?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5235855?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5235855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12548677-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5235855 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 96 Albionvale Road, Glen

How much money was awarded in case 5235855?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5235855?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5235855?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12548677-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

96 Albionvale Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5235855 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 96 Albionvale Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities, at 11.59 pm on Sunday 26 October 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Tana attended as a support person for Mr Paniora, and she addressed the Tribunal. Mr Temu and Ms Sheik attended for the landlord, and Ms McKee attended in support of the landlord.
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 claims the tenant has breached their obligations by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. This is a requirement under section 40(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
This tenancy began on 13 January 2023.
This claim relates principally to the tenant’s propensity for collecting and storing metal waste and other waste material at his property. The tenant explained that he has done this for many years, and he does it to supplement his income. It appears that neighbours “donate” metal and other waste for him to dispose of. Both parties referred to the tenant’s behaviour having been a feature of the tenant’s previous housing situations.
The landlord’s application refers to five 14-day notices served on the tenant in the course of this tenancy. The tenant referred to a total of eight 14-day notices. The landlord produced photographs, some of which show a huge amount of metal and other waste in front of the tenant’s house. Some photographs show the waste overflowing across the footpath and onto the street. Both parties agreed that the seriousness of the situation ebbs and flows. There are times when some of the waste is removed. However the landlord’s position is that the breach is ongoing.
On 20 February 2025, the landlord served a 14-day notice by post on the tenant to remove the rubbish from inside and outside the premises, to remove the two temporary structures that had been erected on the premises and to return the bathroom paint to white. The notice required the tenant to comply with the notice by 7 March 2025.
On 10 March 2025 the landlord attended the property and found that the rubbish had not been removed from the premises. The tenant stated that he had not received the most recent 14-day notice and that was the reason there was no compliance.
The tenant outlined his long-term pattern of collecting metal and other waste, his intention to comply with the notices, and his valued place in the local community. In support Ms Tana reinforced that Mr Paniora’s is a generous person in the community and has good intentions.
Despite Mr Paniora’s assertion that he did not receive the 14-day notice, I am satisfied on the balance of probability that the breach notice was validly served on him by posting it to his address. I also note that Mr Paniora was aware through other notices served on him that his failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition was a breach of his tenant responsibilities.
I am satisfied the notice is in the correct format, and I determine that Mr Paniora was in breach of his tenant responsibilities.
I find the claim proved.
Having determined that the claim is proved, I must consider whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
Failing to maintain a premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is a breach that may be very minor or may be very serious depending on the circumstances of the breach.
In this case I consider the breach to be very serious. Some of the photographs show a large, some would say an enormous amount of waste out the front of Mr Paniora’s house. At times this would clearly be an imposition to other residents in the street and to and passers-by, who could reasonably consider this to be an eye sore. It is likely pedestrians would have to walk on the road to get around Mr Paniora’s property. If Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities were not seeking termination of the tenancy, reasonable members of the community would be right to seek and explanation why not.
In this case I determine that the breach is serious, it has been continuing for a long time, and I consider it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord sought termination within seven days. I consider this is too short a time to allow Mr Paniora to find somewhere new to live and to move. I have allowed almost two weeks.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 96 Albionvale Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities, at 11.59 pm on Sunday 26 October 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Tana attended as a support person for Mr Paniora, and she addressed the Tribunal. Mr Temu and Ms Sheik attended for the landlord, and Ms McKee attended in support of the landlord.
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 claims the tenant has breached their obligations by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. This is a requirement under section 40(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
This tenancy began on 13 January 2023.
This claim relates principally to the tenant’s propensity for collecting and storing metal waste and other waste material at his property. The tenant explained that he has done this for many years, and he does it to supplement his income. It appears that neighbours “donate” metal and other waste for him to dispose of. Both parties referred to the tenant’s behaviour having been a feature of the tenant’s previous housing situations.
The landlord’s application refers to five 14-day notices served on the tenant in the course of this tenancy. The tenant referred to a total of eight 14-day notices. The landlord produced photographs, some of which show a huge amount of metal and other waste in front of the tenant’s house. Some photographs show the waste overflowing across the footpath and onto the street. Both parties agreed that the seriousness of the situation ebbs and flows. There are times when some of the waste is removed. However the landlord’s position is that the breach is ongoing.
On 20 February 2025, the landlord served a 14-day notice by post on the tenant to remove the rubbish from inside and outside the premises, to remove the two temporary structures that had been erected on the premises and to return the bathroom paint to white. The notice required the tenant to comply with the notice by 7 March 2025.
On 10 March 2025 the landlord attended the property and found that the rubbish had not been removed from the premises. The tenant stated that he had not received the most recent 14-day notice and that was the reason there was no compliance.
The tenant outlined his long-term pattern of collecting metal and other waste, his intention to comply with the notices, and his valued place in the local community. In support Ms Tana reinforced that Mr Paniora’s is a generous person in the community and has good intentions.
Despite Mr Paniora’s assertion that he did not receive the 14-day notice, I am satisfied on the balance of probability that the breach notice was validly served on him by posting it to his address. I also note that Mr Paniora was aware through other notices served on him that his failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition was a breach of his tenant responsibilities.
I am satisfied the notice is in the correct format, and I determine that Mr Paniora was in breach of his tenant responsibilities.
I find the claim proved.
Having determined that the claim is proved, I must consider whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
Failing to maintain a premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is a breach that may be very minor or may be very serious depending on the circumstances of the breach.
In this case I consider the breach to be very serious. Some of the photographs show a large, some would say an enormous amount of waste out the front of Mr Paniora’s house. At times this would clearly be an imposition to other residents in the street and to and passers-by, who could reasonably consider this to be an eye sore. It is likely pedestrians would have to walk on the road to get around Mr Paniora’s property. If Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities were not seeking termination of the tenancy, reasonable members of the community would be right to seek and explanation why not.
In this case I determine that the breach is serious, it has been continuing for a long time, and I consider it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord sought termination within seven days. I consider this is too short a time to allow Mr Paniora to find somewhere new to live and to move. I have allowed almost two weeks.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5235855 — 14-day notice at 96 Albionvale Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5235855 — 14-day notice at 96 Albionvale Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions