What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5248179?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Eva Brown at 11 Coles Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 is

How much money was awarded in case 5248179?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5248179?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248179?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12246815-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5248179?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Eva Brown at 11 Coles Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 is

How much money was awarded in case 5248179?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5248179?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5248179?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12246815-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Coles Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5248179 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Eva Brown at 11 Coles Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 6pm on Tuesday 19 August 2025.
The possession order will not be enforceable if, but only if, Eva Brown has remedied the breaches of her tenancy agreement, to the satisfaction of the landlord, outlined in Order 3 below by Monday 18 August 2025 when a further inspection of the property is to occur at 10am.
If the tenant fails to comply with the required actions set out in order 3 by 10 am on 18 August 2025 The tenancy at 11 Coles Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 will terminate and the landlord will have possession of the premises at 6pm on Tuesday 19 August 225.
One named cat is permitted to live at the property. The stray cats currently living at the property are to be rehomed with family and confirmation provided to the property manager. Ms Brown is to complete the applicant’s paperwork requesting permission for Dexter (the small fox terrier) currently living at the property to be allowed to stay. Raven the other dog currently living there is to be rehomed by 18 August and confirmation must be provided to the property manager. Section 20 of the tenancy agreement states that there are only 4 people permitted to live at the house. The additional occupants Lisa and Phillip Hardy must vacate to comply with the requirements of the tenancy agreement. They (or at least one of them) must vacate by 18 August 2025 and provide confirmation of their new address to the tenancy manager. The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by the inspection at 10am on 18 August: The rubbish at the property is to be removed, and the large skip bin must be removed. The pallets now stacked on the front section must be removed The carpets and floors must be reasonably clean and tidy The kitchen cupboards must be reasonably clean and tidy The oven and stove must be reasonably clean and tidy The bathroom/toilet must be reasonably clean and tidy

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Brown was represented/assisted by her son Hayden.
The hearing was reconvened subsequent to the Tribunal issuing an interim order on 19 June 2025.
The interim order was made by agreement. Ms Brown had indicated that she wanted to remain living at the property and that she understood that for this to occur a number of significant breaches of the tenancy agreement and RTA needed to be rectified.
Ms Brown agreed that an inspection would occur on 1 August 2025 at which time she would provide confirmation that the property was reasonably clean and tidy and the extensive rubbish had been removed. She also agreed to provide documentary confirmation that unpermitted animals and additional occupants were no longer residing at the property.
The inspection has occurred. Most breaches have not been remedied and unpermitted animals and additional occupants remain at the property.
The landlord has provided documentary evidence and photographs confirming the on going breach. The landlord now requests a conditional termination order stipulating that the tenant has one further week only to remedy the breaches if the tenancy is to continue.

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 tenant has breached their obligations by failing to keep the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove excess rubbish, including a large skip bin that is full and has remained at the property for many months.
The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant may not have pets without permission from the landlord. The landlord is prepared to permit one small dog Dexter to stay but wants Raven the large dog rehomed. The landlord is prepared to permit one cat but requires the additional stray cats to be removed/rehomed.
The tenancy agreement states that only 4 people may occupy the premises, there are additional occupants living there and the landlord requests compliance with this term (s 20) of the agreement.
The landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant on 4 October 2024 and 20 March 2025, and the tenant had not remedied the breaches within the required period.
The interim order issued on 19 June provided additional time for the tenant to remedy the breaches.
The evidence provided at the hearing including the written inspection notes and the photographs taken at the inspection on 1 August 2025 confirm that most breaches have not been remedied. The chicken coop has been removed from inside the house. a. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the serious and wide ranging nature of the breaches. The breaches have been ongoing since September 2024. There has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. b. The history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant will comply with her obligations in the future. c. The landlord has been more than patient in working with the tenant to resolve the issues. d. Termination is now a proportionate response to the breaches.
The tenant wants one final opportunity to remedy the breaches to avoid immediate termination.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, having heard the evidence I have included a conditional termination clause at the landlord’s request. See section 78(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

The tenancy of Eva Brown at 11 Coles Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 6pm on Tuesday 19 August 2025.
The possession order will not be enforceable if, but only if, Eva Brown has remedied the breaches of her tenancy agreement, to the satisfaction of the landlord, outlined in Order 3 below by Monday 18 August 2025 when a further inspection of the property is to occur at 10am.
If the tenant fails to comply with the required actions set out in order 3 by 10 am on 18 August 2025 The tenancy at 11 Coles Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 will terminate and the landlord will have possession of the premises at 6pm on Tuesday 19 August 225.
One named cat is permitted to live at the property. The stray cats currently living at the property are to be rehomed with family and confirmation provided to the property manager. Ms Brown is to complete the applicant’s paperwork requesting permission for Dexter (the small fox terrier) currently living at the property to be allowed to stay. Raven the other dog currently living there is to be rehomed by 18 August and confirmation must be provided to the property manager. Section 20 of the tenancy agreement states that there are only 4 people permitted to live at the house. The additional occupants Lisa and Phillip Hardy must vacate to comply with the requirements of the tenancy agreement. They (or at least one of them) must vacate by 18 August 2025 and provide confirmation of their new address to the tenancy manager. The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by the inspection at 10am on 18 August: The rubbish at the property is to be removed, and the large skip bin must be removed. The pallets now stacked on the front section must be removed The carpets and floors must be reasonably clean and tidy The kitchen cupboards must be reasonably clean and tidy The oven and stove must be reasonably clean and tidy The bathroom/toilet must be reasonably clean and tidy

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Brown was represented/assisted by her son Hayden.
The hearing was reconvened subsequent to the Tribunal issuing an interim order on 19 June 2025.
The interim order was made by agreement. Ms Brown had indicated that she wanted to remain living at the property and that she understood that for this to occur a number of significant breaches of the tenancy agreement and RTA needed to be rectified.
Ms Brown agreed that an inspection would occur on 1 August 2025 at which time she would provide confirmation that the property was reasonably clean and tidy and the extensive rubbish had been removed. She also agreed to provide documentary confirmation that unpermitted animals and additional occupants were no longer residing at the property.
The inspection has occurred. Most breaches have not been remedied and unpermitted animals and additional occupants remain at the property.
The landlord has provided documentary evidence and photographs confirming the on going breach. The landlord now requests a conditional termination order stipulating that the tenant has one further week only to remedy the breaches if the tenancy is to continue.

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 tenant has breached their obligations by failing to keep the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and remove excess rubbish, including a large skip bin that is full and has remained at the property for many months.
The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant may not have pets without permission from the landlord. The landlord is prepared to permit one small dog Dexter to stay but wants Raven the large dog rehomed. The landlord is prepared to permit one cat but requires the additional stray cats to be removed/rehomed.
The tenancy agreement states that only 4 people may occupy the premises, there are additional occupants living there and the landlord requests compliance with this term (s 20) of the agreement.
The landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant on 4 October 2024 and 20 March 2025, and the tenant had not remedied the breaches within the required period.
The interim order issued on 19 June provided additional time for the tenant to remedy the breaches.
The evidence provided at the hearing including the written inspection notes and the photographs taken at the inspection on 1 August 2025 confirm that most breaches have not been remedied. The chicken coop has been removed from inside the house. a. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the serious and wide ranging nature of the breaches. The breaches have been ongoing since September 2024. There has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. b. The history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant will comply with her obligations in the future. c. The landlord has been more than patient in working with the tenant to resolve the issues. d. Termination is now a proportionate response to the breaches.
The tenant wants one final opportunity to remedy the breaches to avoid immediate termination.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Despite my finding that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, having heard the evidence I have included a conditional termination clause at the landlord’s request. See section 78(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. See section 64(4)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5248179 — 14-day notice at 11 Coles Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5248179 — 14-day notice at 11 Coles Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions