Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5315893 — Healthy homes
Decided 29 Apr 2026 · Published 29 Apr 2026 · Application 5315893
- Healthy homes
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
M Edison
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at midnight on Sunday 31 May 2026.
- The tenant is granted name suppression.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing on 28 April 2026.
- A brief summary of the background is necessary for context: • On 11 March 2025 the landlord applied to the Tribunal for termination of the tenancy for breach (application 5194691). The application referred to “extreme clutter” inside the property and inorganic rubbish outside. There was reference to a notice to remedy dated 29 October 2024. • On 12 May 2025, the Tribunal made an order for removal of “the extreme number of items that are hoarded in the interior of the property” and for removal of inorganic rubbish. The Tribunal noted that, although the problem of hoarding was being caused by the tenant’s ex-husband, it was the tenant's responsibility to “fix the problem”. The order required compliance by 20 June 2025, failing which, the landlord could apply for termination. • The landlord applied a second time for termination of the tenancy for breach on 6 August 2025 (this application). • On 9 October 2025 the hearing was adjourned after the parties had a discussion outside the hearing room prior to the hearing. The Tribunal noted that the parties might now be able to resolve the issue. • The matter came back before the Tribunal on 3 December 2025. The Tribunal directed the tenant to remove the clutter, hoarding, and inorganic rubbish at the premises and return the interior and exterior of the premises to a reasonably tidy condition by 2 February 2026. The Tribunal warned that it was likely to terminate the tenancy if satisfied that the order was not complied with. • The landlord issued a notice to remedy relating to access on 6 March 2026. • On 8 April 2026 the landlord requested a further hearing to consider making a final termination order. The landlord said that, despite multiple attempts to access the property to check the tenant’s compliance with the order, and despite issuing a breach notice, the landlord had not been able to access the property.
- This procedural history shows that the Tribunal has already made two conditional termination orders. Relevant Law
- The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy where due to the nature or extent of the breach it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate (section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).
- I have had regard to the District Court decision in Terangi v Housing New Zealand (District court Porirua, CIV-2010-091-110, Judge John Walker, 28 June 2010) which identified factors relevant to a decision whether to terminate pursuant to section 56 of the Act.
- I note that, although this case involves a social housing provider, there are no special rules which apply to such landlords when determining whether a tenancy should be terminated. The law is generally to be applied in the same way as it would be for any other landlord.
- That said, section 85 of the Act requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter, and the substantial merits and justice of the case. This may mean that, where social housing is involved, the purpose of such housing is a relevant consideration. Discussion
- The tenant said there were good reasons why she had not been able to attend the inspections notified in writing on 9 and 23 February 2026. I understood these related to recent deaths in the family and the tenant’s medical problems. The family has had a difficult time and attended several tangi.
- There was a meeting between the landlord and the tenant on 6 March 2026. The tenant is recorded by the landlord as saying that her whanau were trying to clear the premises, but her ex-husband was “making things difficult”. There had been problems obtaining mental health intervention but a referral to a social worker had been made.
- A social worker, who I will call Ms K, attended the hearing on 28 April 2026. The Tribunal spent some time discussing how she could assist the tenant. Ms K proposed to inspect the premises with the family and report to the Tribunal within 2 weeks on how the tenant’s ex-husband (Mr C) could be assessed, provided with treatment, and if necessary, removed from the property. Currently, the tenant is not living at the premises because of Mr C’s mental health issues. This is actually a breach of the tenancy agreement, which requires the tenant to live in and use the house as her home “all the time” (clause 12).
- The tenant provided photographs said to show that progress had been made tidying up the premises. This is difficult to see, and the condition looks comparable to that shown in the latest inspection report, which is dated 28 November 2025. The landlord said they did not show the garage area.
- The issue with hoarding is longstanding and serious. It is a breach of the tenant’s obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy (section 40 of the Act). The extent of the breach is such that, as the Tribunal has previously recognised, it is potentially a health and safety issue.
- The ongoing breach is not entirely outside the tenant’s control. She has the support of whanau, who have attended both hearings, and a trespass notice has been issued against Mr C. This has not been enforced but could be used to remove him. There are also mental health processes that might possibly be appropriate (for example, the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992).
- The difficulties with the tenant’s ex-partner have meant that the premises are not being used for their intended purpose. Mr C is not a social housing tenant and has no right to live at the property. Because he is living there and has been aggressive towards the landlord’s employees in the past, the landlord is unable to conduct inspections without the tenant’s attendance.
- There have been numerous attempts by the landlord to inspect the premises. This is important, because the right to inspect is one of the main ways that landlords can protect the value of their investment and also check and ensure that premises comply with all legal requirements, such as the Healthy Homes Standards.
- The tenant appears willing to remedy the issue, and the Tribunal is being told that progress is being made. The Tribunal was also told that Mr C is now much more cooperative than he was before. The Tribunal understood at the hearing in December 2025 that there was a plan to arrange for Mr C to return to the Cook Islands. Apparently this did not happen due to Court cases he was involved in. The Tribunal is now being asked to believe that the situation can be resolved, when Mr C’s previous behaviour does not inspire optimism.
- The main change in circumstances since the December 2025 hearing is that a social worker is now involved. This is a positive development, but one which could have happened some time ago. I had the impression that Ms K is still getting to know the whanau and has not yet met Mr C. If the Tribunal grants two weeks for her to assess Mr C, and identify the supports available, that still does not result in a definite end date for returning the property to a reasonable condition, or for the tenant to take up residence again.
- The tenant has lived at the premises for the best part of 25 years (the tenancy started on 29 November 2001). While that is no doubt a factor supporting the continuation of the tenancy, it is not determinative.
- The tenant’s whanau said the landlord has been unsupportive. The problem is more the condition of the premises and the fact that the tenant has had to leave her home. There comes a point when the Tribunal must recognise that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because, despite the additional time that has been given and the assurances that all will be well, the issues have proved insurmountable. Both the landlord and the tenant are prejudiced by the current situation, which cannot be allowed to continue.
- For these reasons, I have decided not to provide further time for the tenant to remedy the breach. A final termination order must be made to resolve matters. I do, however, allow the tenant several weeks to “vacate” (recognising that in a physical sense she has already left). After such a long tenancy, I consider the tenant is entitled to some leeway in terms of the termination date. This also provides the tenant with an opportunity to take stock, consult with her whanau and other supports, and exercise rights of appeal. Suppression
- Previous orders have granted suppression.
- I exercise my discretion to grant suppression in favour of the tenant pursuant to section 95A. This decision includes private and personal information about the tenant and her family which justifies a suppression order.