What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5317299?

The tribunal order states: Richard Matthew Tahana must by the end of Sunday 12 October 2025:

How much money was awarded in case 5317299?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317299?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317299?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12389558-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5317299?

The tribunal order states: Richard Matthew Tahana must by the end of Sunday 12 October 2025:

How much money was awarded in case 5317299?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5317299?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317299?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12389558-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 103, 39 Thomas Road, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317299 — 14-day notice

Order

Richard Matthew Tahana must by the end of Sunday 12 October 2025: a. Fully repair his unit’s doors and move them back to their original positions. b. Permit Kāinga Ora’s contractors to carry out remediation and repairs to the unit’s doors as required, upon Kāinga Ora giving Mr Tahana notice in accordance with s 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. c.Remove any of his belongings whatsoever from the common areas of the complex.
If Richard Matthew Tahana fails to comply with Order 1 by the end of Sunday 12 October 2025, his tenancy at Unit 103, 39 Thomas Road, Mangere, Auckland 2022 will terminate and Kāinga Ora will be entitled to immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

Roberta Perese and Melissa Taliauli attended the hearing for Kāinga Ora.
The tenant did not attend. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
Kāinga Ora applies for conditional termination of the tenancy should the tenant fail to remediate damage to his unit’s fire doors and remove his personal belongings from the communal areas. Background
Mr Tahana’s unit is situated in a modern terraced housing complex.
Last year, Mr Tahana switched his unit’s main doors around, including the entrance door which is specially fire-rated. One of the doors is damaged. This has compromised the body corporate’s insurance cover.
Mr Tahana has also been guilty of depositing his belongings, such as a spa pool and building pallets, on the common areas of the complex.
Kāinga Ora has been communicating with Mr Tahana to fix these issues. On 23 April 2025, Kāinga Ora issues Mr Tahana with a 14-day notice under s 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requiring him to remove his inorganic material from the communal area and restore the fire doo back to its original location.
After Mr Tahana did not comply with the 14-day notice, Kāinga Ora applied to the Tenancy Tribunal for assistance. Tenancy Services first referred the matter to mediation. On 25 June 2025, a mediator made an order with Mr Tahana’s agreement that he remove his inorganic belongings from the communal area, in and around his property and reinstate the fire door that he removed and replaced with his own door. Mr Tahana agreed to have these done by 21 July 2025 and was aware that if he did not complete them within the agreed time, Kāinga Ora would progress this through to the Tenancy Tribunal for termination of the tenancy.
On 23 July 2025, the Senior Housing Support Manager inspected the premises and found that Mr Tahana has not adhered to the sealed mediator’s order. He had not reinstated the unit’s doors. He had removed his larger belongings, such as the spa pool from the common property, but he still had other items lying about such as an infant play “gym” toy located outside his unit’s front door.
Consequently, Tenancy Services has listed the matter before me today to consider Kāinga Ora’s application for conditional termination.

Should the Tribunal make a conditional termination order?

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 tenant breached their obligations by damaging the premises’ doors. On 23 April 2025, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant, but the tenant did not remedy the breaches within the required period. It would be inequitable to refuse to conditionally terminate the tenancy because the unit’s fire door deficiencies compromise the complex’s insurance cover and the safety of the complex’s occupiers. Also, Kāinga Ora has a duty to its other tenants to ensure that their reasonable comfort, privacy, and peace are not interfered with. Mr Tahana’s leaving of his belongings in the communal areas is unsightly and affects the other occupiers’ enjoyment of their properties. It is not fair to the other occupiers for Mr Tahana to persist with leaving his belongings lying about the communal areas. Conclusion
Kāinga Ora seeks a conditional termination order. It would be inequitable to refuse to conditionally terminate the tenancy.
I grant the conditional order.
Given the importance of the fire door to safety, Kāinga Ora may have to get its own contractors remediate the door. Mr Tahana must cooperate with that possibility by permitting access to the unit.
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 pursuant to s 64(4) of the RTA.

Order

Richard Matthew Tahana must by the end of Sunday 12 October 2025: a. Fully repair his unit’s doors and move them back to their original positions. b. Permit Kāinga Ora’s contractors to carry out remediation and repairs to the unit’s doors as required, upon Kāinga Ora giving Mr Tahana notice in accordance with s 48 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. c.Remove any of his belongings whatsoever from the common areas of the complex.
If Richard Matthew Tahana fails to comply with Order 1 by the end of Sunday 12 October 2025, his tenancy at Unit 103, 39 Thomas Road, Mangere, Auckland 2022 will terminate and Kāinga Ora will be entitled to immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

Roberta Perese and Melissa Taliauli attended the hearing for Kāinga Ora.
The tenant did not attend. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
Kāinga Ora applies for conditional termination of the tenancy should the tenant fail to remediate damage to his unit’s fire doors and remove his personal belongings from the communal areas. Background
Mr Tahana’s unit is situated in a modern terraced housing complex.
Last year, Mr Tahana switched his unit’s main doors around, including the entrance door which is specially fire-rated. One of the doors is damaged. This has compromised the body corporate’s insurance cover.
Mr Tahana has also been guilty of depositing his belongings, such as a spa pool and building pallets, on the common areas of the complex.
Kāinga Ora has been communicating with Mr Tahana to fix these issues. On 23 April 2025, Kāinga Ora issues Mr Tahana with a 14-day notice under s 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requiring him to remove his inorganic material from the communal area and restore the fire doo back to its original location.
After Mr Tahana did not comply with the 14-day notice, Kāinga Ora applied to the Tenancy Tribunal for assistance. Tenancy Services first referred the matter to mediation. On 25 June 2025, a mediator made an order with Mr Tahana’s agreement that he remove his inorganic belongings from the communal area, in and around his property and reinstate the fire door that he removed and replaced with his own door. Mr Tahana agreed to have these done by 21 July 2025 and was aware that if he did not complete them within the agreed time, Kāinga Ora would progress this through to the Tenancy Tribunal for termination of the tenancy.
On 23 July 2025, the Senior Housing Support Manager inspected the premises and found that Mr Tahana has not adhered to the sealed mediator’s order. He had not reinstated the unit’s doors. He had removed his larger belongings, such as the spa pool from the common property, but he still had other items lying about such as an infant play “gym” toy located outside his unit’s front door.
Consequently, Tenancy Services has listed the matter before me today to consider Kāinga Ora’s application for conditional termination.

Should the Tribunal make a conditional termination order?

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 tenant breached their obligations by damaging the premises’ doors. On 23 April 2025, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant, but the tenant did not remedy the breaches within the required period. It would be inequitable to refuse to conditionally terminate the tenancy because the unit’s fire door deficiencies compromise the complex’s insurance cover and the safety of the complex’s occupiers. Also, Kāinga Ora has a duty to its other tenants to ensure that their reasonable comfort, privacy, and peace are not interfered with. Mr Tahana’s leaving of his belongings in the communal areas is unsightly and affects the other occupiers’ enjoyment of their properties. It is not fair to the other occupiers for Mr Tahana to persist with leaving his belongings lying about the communal areas. Conclusion
Kāinga Ora seeks a conditional termination order. It would be inequitable to refuse to conditionally terminate the tenancy.
I grant the conditional order.
Given the importance of the fire door to safety, Kāinga Ora may have to get its own contractors remediate the door. Mr Tahana must cooperate with that possibility by permitting access to the unit.
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 pursuant to s 64(4) of the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317299 — 14-day notice at Unit 103, 39 Thomas Road, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317299 — 14-day notice at Unit 103, 39 Thomas Road, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal make a conditional termination order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tribunal make a conditional termination order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions