What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5258841 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5258841?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5258841?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5258841?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12008329-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5258841 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5258841?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5258841?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5258841?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12008329-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5258841 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] tenancy at 3/137 Tancred Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8062 shall continue on the condition that [The tenant/s] contacts and meets with a Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities by 5 pm on Friday 27 June 2025.
Failing compliance, the tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] will terminate at 11.59 pm on Friday 27 June 2025 and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

This matter was heard by video conference on 18 June 2025. The landlord attended the hearing by teleconference. The tenant did not attend via video or teleconference. Attempts to contact the tenant during the hearing were unsuccessful. I am satisfied that the hearing notice was adequately served, and it was reasonable to proceed in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for termination and possession of the premises on the basis that the tenant breached the tenancy agreement by no longer residing at the premises, in breach of clauses 14 and 15 of the tenancy agreement.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

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. 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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy commenced on 5 July 2023. Initially, the tenant and her children resided at the premises. The tenant’s children subsequently left the home on 18 October 2023 and 14 February 2025 respectively. At the time of the application, only the tenant was listed as residing at the tenancy premises.
On 1 April 2025, the landlord was notified by a neighbour that the tenant had vacated the premises and that squatters were observed entering and exiting the property. The landlord issued a 14-day notice to remedy under section 56(1)(b) RTA, requiring the tenant to return to the premises by 18 April 2025.
Following several welfare visits to the property between 9 and 30 April 2025 by the housing support manager (HSM), the landlord discovered that the property was in disarray, unsecured, and occupied by an unauthorised individual who confirmed he was squatting at the property. The house was eventually secured with police assistance, and a notice was left for the tenant to contact the landlord for access.
By 30 April 2025, the landlord had received no contact from the tenant. A 48- hour notice to inspect the property was issued and observed still affixed to the door at the time of entry. The property appeared abandoned with stale food, needles, and mail addressed to other individuals.
The tenant breached their obligations by abandonment or prolonged absence from the premises without notice or consent. The landlord has provided photographic and testimonial evidence, including police involvement and repeated unresponsiveness from the tenant.
However, the Tribunal also considers mitigating information provided by the landlord. On 9 June 2025, the tenant contacted the contact centre and advised she had been absent due to a home invasion and was too afraid to return. She is also seven months pregnant. The Tribunal accepts that the tenant’s explanation raises genuine safety and welfare concerns that affected her ability to comply with her tenancy obligations.
In balancing the clear breach of obligations against the tenant’s personal circumstances and her indication of willingness to re-engage, the Tribunal finds that termination of the tenancy is not immediately appropriate. Instead, a conditional continuation of the tenancy is a proportionate and fair response under section 56.
The tenancy will continue subject to the following: a. The tenant must contact the landlord and attend a meeting with the housing support manager by 5:00pm on Friday, 27 June 2025 to discuss: i. Her intentions regarding return to the tenancy. ii.Any support or intervention required. iii.Next steps and resolution of any outstanding issues. b. If the tenant fails to make contact and engage in good faith by 5 pm on 27 June 2025, the tenancy shall automatically terminate at 11.59 pm on 27 June 2025, without the need for further order from the Tribunal. Suppression order
The landlord does not seek name suppression. However, given the sensitive nature of the tenant’s personal situation, including her vulnerability following a reported home invasion and current pregnancy, I order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details under section 95A(1) RTA.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] tenancy at 3/137 Tancred Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8062 shall continue on the condition that [The tenant/s] contacts and meets with a Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities by 5 pm on Friday 27 June 2025.
Failing compliance, the tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] will terminate at 11.59 pm on Friday 27 June 2025 and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

This matter was heard by video conference on 18 June 2025. The landlord attended the hearing by teleconference. The tenant did not attend via video or teleconference. Attempts to contact the tenant during the hearing were unsuccessful. I am satisfied that the hearing notice was adequately served, and it was reasonable to proceed in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for termination and possession of the premises on the basis that the tenant breached the tenancy agreement by no longer residing at the premises, in breach of clauses 14 and 15 of the tenancy agreement.

Should a conditional termination order be made?

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. 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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy commenced on 5 July 2023. Initially, the tenant and her children resided at the premises. The tenant’s children subsequently left the home on 18 October 2023 and 14 February 2025 respectively. At the time of the application, only the tenant was listed as residing at the tenancy premises.
On 1 April 2025, the landlord was notified by a neighbour that the tenant had vacated the premises and that squatters were observed entering and exiting the property. The landlord issued a 14-day notice to remedy under section 56(1)(b) RTA, requiring the tenant to return to the premises by 18 April 2025.
Following several welfare visits to the property between 9 and 30 April 2025 by the housing support manager (HSM), the landlord discovered that the property was in disarray, unsecured, and occupied by an unauthorised individual who confirmed he was squatting at the property. The house was eventually secured with police assistance, and a notice was left for the tenant to contact the landlord for access.
By 30 April 2025, the landlord had received no contact from the tenant. A 48- hour notice to inspect the property was issued and observed still affixed to the door at the time of entry. The property appeared abandoned with stale food, needles, and mail addressed to other individuals.
The tenant breached their obligations by abandonment or prolonged absence from the premises without notice or consent. The landlord has provided photographic and testimonial evidence, including police involvement and repeated unresponsiveness from the tenant.
However, the Tribunal also considers mitigating information provided by the landlord. On 9 June 2025, the tenant contacted the contact centre and advised she had been absent due to a home invasion and was too afraid to return. She is also seven months pregnant. The Tribunal accepts that the tenant’s explanation raises genuine safety and welfare concerns that affected her ability to comply with her tenancy obligations.
In balancing the clear breach of obligations against the tenant’s personal circumstances and her indication of willingness to re-engage, the Tribunal finds that termination of the tenancy is not immediately appropriate. Instead, a conditional continuation of the tenancy is a proportionate and fair response under section 56.
The tenancy will continue subject to the following: a. The tenant must contact the landlord and attend a meeting with the housing support manager by 5:00pm on Friday, 27 June 2025 to discuss: i. Her intentions regarding return to the tenancy. ii.Any support or intervention required. iii.Next steps and resolution of any outstanding issues. b. If the tenant fails to make contact and engage in good faith by 5 pm on 27 June 2025, the tenancy shall automatically terminate at 11.59 pm on 27 June 2025, without the need for further order from the Tribunal. Suppression order
The landlord does not seek name suppression. However, given the sensitive nature of the tenant’s personal situation, including her vulnerability following a reported home invasion and current pregnancy, I order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details under section 95A(1) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5258841 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5258841 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a conditional termination order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions