What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5252201?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Christopher MacDonald at 394A Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu

How much money was awarded in case 5252201?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5252201?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5252201?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12392801-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5252201?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Christopher MacDonald at 394A Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu

How much money was awarded in case 5252201?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5252201?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5252201?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12392801-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

394A Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5252201 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Christopher MacDonald at 394A Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm, Friday 26 September 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 10 September 2025.
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.

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.
Factors that are relevant to an assessment of whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy are: 2 a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such it is unlikely the tenant will comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach is inadvertent or deliberate. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken at an inspection on 14 April 2025. There is an enormous amount of rubbish and clutter. The floor is barely visible and some rooms are unable to be accessed, because the rubbish and clutter is so high. Outside, the lawns and garden are severely overgrown. The garage/carport is completely full and bits of furniture, belongings and rubbish are scattered throughout the laws/garden. These photographs convince me on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has breached their obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 3
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 27 February 2025. The landlord requested the tenant remedy the state of the premises by 16 March 2025. The photographs taken at the inspection on 14 April 2025 prove the tenant did not remedy the breach by this date. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1). 2 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(c).
This matter was originally scheduled for hearing on 25 June 2025. In an order dated 27 June 2025, I adjourned the hearing to provide the tenant with more time to clean the premises.
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken on 21 August 2025 during an inspection. Some effort has been made to tidy up the lawns/garden, but the grass is still severely overgrown, and a lot of personal belongings and rubbish are present. Inside the premises, vast amounts of rubbish and clutter remain. The premises is in almost the exact same condition as it was on 14 April 2025.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant has not remedied the breach within a reasonable period.
I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because: a. There has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings and it is unlikely the tenant will comply with their obligations in the future. I accept the landlord’s evidence that they have asked the tenant to clean the premises a number of times and have warned them that an application may be filed with the Tribunal if they fail to do so. In my order dated 27 June 2025, I also warned the tenant that the landlord’s application was strong and termination was likely if no effort was made to clean the premises. Despite these warnings, the premises remain in almost the exact same condition. The tenant claims they have been unwell for three weeks however, it has been 11 weeks since the date of the last hearing, which is more than enough time to address the issue. b. The gravity of the breach is significant. Clutter and rubbish abound and is at the point where it poses a serious safety risk to the tenant if there is a fire and they need to escape. It is also likely to be damaging the premises because the premises cannot be properly cleaned or ventilated. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the state of the premises is also causing disruption to neighbours. c. The rubbish and clutter has accrued over a long period of time. The landlord has tried to work with the tenant to address the problem and has only sought termination as a last resort. The tenant claims the landlord has frustrated their efforts to clean the premises by not allowing the tenant to place a flexi-bin on the neighbouring property. This is because the landlord is understandably concerned about how long the flexi-bin will be present before it is collected. It is not reasonable for it to remain on the neighbour’s property for a long period of time. d. Considering the gravity of the breach, termination is a proportionate response. Filing fee
The landlord did not seek the filing fee and therefore, I have not ordered the tenant to reimburse it.

Order

The tenancy of Christopher MacDonald at 394A Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm, Friday 26 September 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 10 September 2025.
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.

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.
Factors that are relevant to an assessment of whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy are: 2 a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such it is unlikely the tenant will comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach is inadvertent or deliberate. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. Analysis
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken at an inspection on 14 April 2025. There is an enormous amount of rubbish and clutter. The floor is barely visible and some rooms are unable to be accessed, because the rubbish and clutter is so high. Outside, the lawns and garden are severely overgrown. The garage/carport is completely full and bits of furniture, belongings and rubbish are scattered throughout the laws/garden. These photographs convince me on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has breached their obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. 3
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 27 February 2025. The landlord requested the tenant remedy the state of the premises by 16 March 2025. The photographs taken at the inspection on 14 April 2025 prove the tenant did not remedy the breach by this date. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1). 2 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(c).
This matter was originally scheduled for hearing on 25 June 2025. In an order dated 27 June 2025, I adjourned the hearing to provide the tenant with more time to clean the premises.
The landlord submitted photographs of the premises taken on 21 August 2025 during an inspection. Some effort has been made to tidy up the lawns/garden, but the grass is still severely overgrown, and a lot of personal belongings and rubbish are present. Inside the premises, vast amounts of rubbish and clutter remain. The premises is in almost the exact same condition as it was on 14 April 2025.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant has not remedied the breach within a reasonable period.
I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because: a. There has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings and it is unlikely the tenant will comply with their obligations in the future. I accept the landlord’s evidence that they have asked the tenant to clean the premises a number of times and have warned them that an application may be filed with the Tribunal if they fail to do so. In my order dated 27 June 2025, I also warned the tenant that the landlord’s application was strong and termination was likely if no effort was made to clean the premises. Despite these warnings, the premises remain in almost the exact same condition. The tenant claims they have been unwell for three weeks however, it has been 11 weeks since the date of the last hearing, which is more than enough time to address the issue. b. The gravity of the breach is significant. Clutter and rubbish abound and is at the point where it poses a serious safety risk to the tenant if there is a fire and they need to escape. It is also likely to be damaging the premises because the premises cannot be properly cleaned or ventilated. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the state of the premises is also causing disruption to neighbours. c. The rubbish and clutter has accrued over a long period of time. The landlord has tried to work with the tenant to address the problem and has only sought termination as a last resort. The tenant claims the landlord has frustrated their efforts to clean the premises by not allowing the tenant to place a flexi-bin on the neighbouring property. This is because the landlord is understandably concerned about how long the flexi-bin will be present before it is collected. It is not reasonable for it to remain on the neighbour’s property for a long period of time. d. Considering the gravity of the breach, termination is a proportionate response. Filing fee
The landlord did not seek the filing fee and therefore, I have not ordered the tenant to reimburse it.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5252201 — 14-day notice at 394A Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5252201 — 14-day notice at 394A Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, 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