What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5246871?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Mele F Taufa at 27B O'Connor Street, Otara, Auckland 2023 is

How much money was awarded in case 5246871?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5246871?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5246871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12020575-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5246871?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Mele F Taufa at 27B O'Connor Street, Otara, Auckland 2023 is

How much money was awarded in case 5246871?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5246871?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5246871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12020575-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27B O'Connor Street, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5246871 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5246871 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

The tenancy of Mele F Taufa at 27B O'Connor Street, Otara, Auckland 2023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm, Sunday 29 June 2025.
Mele F Taufa must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

SHOULD THE TENANCY BE TERMINATED?

The law

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. 1
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. 2
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 [23 September 2020], the District Court held that the following factors are relevant to an assessment whether it is inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed e. The conduct of the landlord f. The gravity of the breach 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1)(b). g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord gave evidence that they do not hold a copy of the tenancy agreement. The landlord claims the tenancy began in 2000 and due to the passage of the past 25 years, the tenancy agreement has been misplaced.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenancy agreement includes a clause requiring the tenant to live in the premises at all times. The landlord claims this is a standard clause that is included in all of their tenancy agreements. As a social housing provider, the landlord gave evidence that they include this clause in all of their tenancy agreements to ensure that their properties are only used by those who meet the relevant criteria. If a tenant is not residing in the premises, the landlord states it is important that the premises be made available for other people in need of social housing.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant is not living in the premises. The tenant is not in rent arrears and therefore, the landlord is unable to bring an application for termination under section 61 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord submitted correspondence dated 17 June 2025 from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) stating that the tenant left the country on 12 February 2025 and has not returned.
The landlord submitted a copy of a 14-day notice sent to the tenant on 26 March 2025 requiring the tenant to return to the premises. The landlord completed an inspection on 21 May 2025 and claims there was no evidence of the tenant living in the premises.
The landlord submitted a copy of a work order made by the Tribunal in respect of the premises on 26 February 2025. This order required the tenant to do a number of things such as remove rubbish, remove unauthorised structures and remove unauthorised dogs from the premises. The landlord gave evidence the tenant has not complied with the terms of the work order and submitted photographs to support this. Analysis
Notwithstanding the absence of a physical copy of the tenancy agreement, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenancy agreement includes a clause requiring the tenant to live in the premises at all times. I accept the landlord’s evidence regarding the purpose behind such a clause and note that it is a clause I have seen in numerous tenancy agreements where Kainga Ora Homes and Communities is the landlord.
The landlord sent the tenant a 14-day breach notice on 26 March 2025 requiring the tenant to return to the premises by 15 April 2025. The landlord gave evidence that during an inspection on 21 May 2025, the tenant had not returned to the premises. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
The landlord also submitted correspondence from MBIE as recent as 17 June 2025 advising that the tenant left the country on 12 February 2025 and has not returned.
In these circumstances, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has breached their tenancy agreement by failing to live in the premises at all times and has not remedied the breach within a reasonable period.
Applying the factors in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 [23 September 2020], I make the following observations: a. The breach is deliberate. The tenant has purposefully chosen to leave the premises and not return. b. The gravity of the breach is serious. The tenant has essentially abandoned the premises. It is important that social housing is utilised efficiently for those in need. c. This is not the only breach the tenant has committed. In its order dated 26 February 2025, the Tribunal found the tenant to be in breach of their obligations under section 40(1)(a) – (e) RTA. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant has not remedied these breaches. The photographs of the premises submitted by the landlord show a significant accumulation of clutter and rubbish outside the premises, as well as a dog chained to a washing line.
For all of these reasons, I find termination to be an appropriate response to the breach.
The landlord gave evidence that extended family members are occupying the premises at present. The landlord requested that some time be allowed for the landlord to communicate the result of this decision with these occupants and for them to vacate the premises. Therefore, the tenancy will terminate at 11:59pm on Sunday, 29 June 2025.

FILING FEE

Because Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5246871 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

The tenancy of Mele F Taufa at 27B O'Connor Street, Otara, Auckland 2023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm, Sunday 29 June 2025.
Mele F Taufa must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

SHOULD THE TENANCY BE TERMINATED?

The law

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. 1
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. 2
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 [23 September 2020], the District Court held that the following factors are relevant to an assessment whether it is inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed e. The conduct of the landlord f. The gravity of the breach 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1)(b). g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord gave evidence that they do not hold a copy of the tenancy agreement. The landlord claims the tenancy began in 2000 and due to the passage of the past 25 years, the tenancy agreement has been misplaced.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenancy agreement includes a clause requiring the tenant to live in the premises at all times. The landlord claims this is a standard clause that is included in all of their tenancy agreements. As a social housing provider, the landlord gave evidence that they include this clause in all of their tenancy agreements to ensure that their properties are only used by those who meet the relevant criteria. If a tenant is not residing in the premises, the landlord states it is important that the premises be made available for other people in need of social housing.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant is not living in the premises. The tenant is not in rent arrears and therefore, the landlord is unable to bring an application for termination under section 61 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord submitted correspondence dated 17 June 2025 from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) stating that the tenant left the country on 12 February 2025 and has not returned.
The landlord submitted a copy of a 14-day notice sent to the tenant on 26 March 2025 requiring the tenant to return to the premises. The landlord completed an inspection on 21 May 2025 and claims there was no evidence of the tenant living in the premises.
The landlord submitted a copy of a work order made by the Tribunal in respect of the premises on 26 February 2025. This order required the tenant to do a number of things such as remove rubbish, remove unauthorised structures and remove unauthorised dogs from the premises. The landlord gave evidence the tenant has not complied with the terms of the work order and submitted photographs to support this. Analysis
Notwithstanding the absence of a physical copy of the tenancy agreement, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenancy agreement includes a clause requiring the tenant to live in the premises at all times. I accept the landlord’s evidence regarding the purpose behind such a clause and note that it is a clause I have seen in numerous tenancy agreements where Kainga Ora Homes and Communities is the landlord.
The landlord sent the tenant a 14-day breach notice on 26 March 2025 requiring the tenant to return to the premises by 15 April 2025. The landlord gave evidence that during an inspection on 21 May 2025, the tenant had not returned to the premises. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
The landlord also submitted correspondence from MBIE as recent as 17 June 2025 advising that the tenant left the country on 12 February 2025 and has not returned.
In these circumstances, I am convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has breached their tenancy agreement by failing to live in the premises at all times and has not remedied the breach within a reasonable period.
Applying the factors in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 [23 September 2020], I make the following observations: a. The breach is deliberate. The tenant has purposefully chosen to leave the premises and not return. b. The gravity of the breach is serious. The tenant has essentially abandoned the premises. It is important that social housing is utilised efficiently for those in need. c. This is not the only breach the tenant has committed. In its order dated 26 February 2025, the Tribunal found the tenant to be in breach of their obligations under section 40(1)(a) – (e) RTA. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the tenant has not remedied these breaches. The photographs of the premises submitted by the landlord show a significant accumulation of clutter and rubbish outside the premises, as well as a dog chained to a washing line.
For all of these reasons, I find termination to be an appropriate response to the breach.
The landlord gave evidence that extended family members are occupying the premises at present. The landlord requested that some time be allowed for the landlord to communicate the result of this decision with these occupants and for them to vacate the premises. Therefore, the tenancy will terminate at 11:59pm on Sunday, 29 June 2025.

FILING FEE

Because Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5246871 — Tenancy dispute at 27B O'Connor Street, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5246871 — Tenancy dispute at 27B O'Connor Street, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

SHOULD THE TENANCY BE TERMINATED?

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

SHOULD THE TENANCY BE TERMINATED?

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions