What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5337166 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 5337166?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5337166?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5337166?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12684032-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5337166 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be

How much money was awarded in case 5337166?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5337166?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5337166?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12684032-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 6, 5 Castlefinn Drive, Manurewa, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5337166 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 3.00pm on Friday 15 November 2025: a) Remove all exterior rubbish including building materials, inorganic rubbish, whiteware, large water tank, pallets and any other general bricka-brac
As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, the tenant must pay the landlord $6000.00 to the Landlord.
If Order 1 or 2 are not complied with by 15 November 2025, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Flat 6, 5 Castlefinn Drive, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 shall be terminated and possession granted to the Landlord at 12pm on 18 November 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Landlord has applied for work orders and termination. Work Order
The landlord claims that the tenant has failed to keep the property clean and tidy. The landlord wants the problem fixed.
Under section 40(1)(c), Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tenant must keep a property reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.
Where the Tribunal finds the tenant has failed to comply with any of these obligations, where appropriate it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the landlord to undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of doing the work, if the tenant should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Landlord submitted that the Tenant has accumulated rubbish, furniture, and building materials around the exterior of the property. The issue concerns both the volume of materials and the manner in which they have been placed against the house, causing potential drainage issues, lawn damage, and slip hazards. The Landlord provided photographs showing a significant quantity of materials stored outside the dwelling.
On 18 July 2025, the Landlord served the Tenant with a 14-day notice to remedy the breach, but the issue was not resolved within the required timeframe. A further photograph taken on the morning of the hearing shows the exterior of the property still covered with extensive materials. The Landlord expressed concern that, although the Tenant stated some items had been moved since the last inspection, it was unclear whether they were removed from the property or simply relocated elsewhere on site. The Landlord estimated it would cost approximately $6,000.00 to remove all the materials.
The Tenant submitted that they had cleaned up the exterior and that the remaining materials did not pose drainage or safety issues. They also referred to other outstanding repair matters but, when asked by the Tribunal whether they would remove the remaining materials by 18 November 2025 (as proposed by the Landlord), the Tenant stated they would prefer not to.
After considering all evidence, I find that the Tenant has breached their obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, as required by section 40(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The photographs and the Tenant’s own admissions confirm that materials remain on the property.
Accordingly, a work order is made requiring the Tenant to remove all exterior rubbish, furniture, and building materials from the property by 15 November 2025, or alternatively, to pay the Landlord $6,000.00 by that date to enable removal.

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.
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 failing to keep the property clean and tidy.
On 18 July 2025, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant but the breach was not remedied within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, as this is not the first time the Landlord has issued a breach notice. In May 2024, the Landlord received complaints from neighbours that the Tenant was accumulating rubbish, furniture, and fridges outside the property, raising concerns about potential rodent infestation. The Tenant met with the Landlord and agreed to remove the rubbish. A section 56 breach notice was issued, requiring the breach to be remedied by 18 June 2024. The breach was not remedied by that date, but an extension was granted on 19 August 2024. The Landlord also offered support services, which the Tenant declined. Despite the extension, the breach remained unremedied, and further accumulation of items was observed. Mediation occurred on 3 October 2024, and a Tribunal hearing scheduled for 10 December 2024 was later adjourned, as the Tenant had removed some items, noted on 14 January 2025.
In February 2025, the Landlord was again advised that the Tenant had begun accumulating inorganic rubbish and various items around the property. Another section 56 notice was issued on 28 February 2025, later extended due to the Tenant’s medical issues. By 23 April 2025, some items had been removed, but during an inspection on 3 June 2025, the Landlord observed that the condition of the property’s exterior had deteriorated. Damaged timber and additional stored materials were present, and by July 2025, monthly inspections revealed ongoing hoarding behaviour, with numerous items both inside and outside the home. These included boxes of hoses, reels, nozzles, and other equipment, creating fire hazards and blocked emergency exits.
Externally, the Tenant had stored wood, crates, and decking materials, and by August 2025, had dug up parts of the rear and side sections of the property, laid tarpaulins, plastic pallets, and wood to form decking, and relocated the clothesline. The Landlord submits that the Tenant has continued to accumulate and store items, some of which have extended into the neighbour’s carport. The Asset Manager raised further concerns, noting that the makeshift decking surfaces pose a slip hazard, lack proper drainage, and may cause water ingress to the dwelling. The lawn was damaged, and the accumulation of items presents health and safety risks, including trip and fall hazards. The Tenant was again offered support services by the Landlord but declined.
For these reasons, it would be inequitable to refuse a termination order because of the repeated breaches, lack of engagement by the Tenant with support services to address any issues. This suggests that the issue may continue.
If the Tenant has not complied with the work orders by the 15 November 2025, the tenancy shall be terminated by 18 November 2025.
Section 95(A)(1) RTA states that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. In this case, the Tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in these proceedings so name suppression is not granted to the Tenant. it is also in the public interest that Landlords are made aware of Tenants breaches that may cause damage to their properties.

Order

The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by 3.00pm on Friday 15 November 2025: a) Remove all exterior rubbish including building materials, inorganic rubbish, whiteware, large water tank, pallets and any other general bricka-brac
As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, the tenant must pay the landlord $6000.00 to the Landlord.
If Order 1 or 2 are not complied with by 15 November 2025, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Flat 6, 5 Castlefinn Drive, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 shall be terminated and possession granted to the Landlord at 12pm on 18 November 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Landlord has applied for work orders and termination. Work Order
The landlord claims that the tenant has failed to keep the property clean and tidy. The landlord wants the problem fixed.
Under section 40(1)(c), Residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tenant must keep a property reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.
Where the Tribunal finds the tenant has failed to comply with any of these obligations, where appropriate it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order. This provision does not apply to any work order, or part of a work order, in relation to smoke alarms. See sections 78(2) and 78(2AA) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A work order may also authorise the landlord to undertake the work and charge the tenant the costs of doing the work, if the tenant should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Landlord submitted that the Tenant has accumulated rubbish, furniture, and building materials around the exterior of the property. The issue concerns both the volume of materials and the manner in which they have been placed against the house, causing potential drainage issues, lawn damage, and slip hazards. The Landlord provided photographs showing a significant quantity of materials stored outside the dwelling.
On 18 July 2025, the Landlord served the Tenant with a 14-day notice to remedy the breach, but the issue was not resolved within the required timeframe. A further photograph taken on the morning of the hearing shows the exterior of the property still covered with extensive materials. The Landlord expressed concern that, although the Tenant stated some items had been moved since the last inspection, it was unclear whether they were removed from the property or simply relocated elsewhere on site. The Landlord estimated it would cost approximately $6,000.00 to remove all the materials.
The Tenant submitted that they had cleaned up the exterior and that the remaining materials did not pose drainage or safety issues. They also referred to other outstanding repair matters but, when asked by the Tribunal whether they would remove the remaining materials by 18 November 2025 (as proposed by the Landlord), the Tenant stated they would prefer not to.
After considering all evidence, I find that the Tenant has breached their obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, as required by section 40(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The photographs and the Tenant’s own admissions confirm that materials remain on the property.
Accordingly, a work order is made requiring the Tenant to remove all exterior rubbish, furniture, and building materials from the property by 15 November 2025, or alternatively, to pay the Landlord $6,000.00 by that date to enable removal.

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.
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 failing to keep the property clean and tidy.
On 18 July 2025, the landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant but the breach was not remedied within the required period.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, as this is not the first time the Landlord has issued a breach notice. In May 2024, the Landlord received complaints from neighbours that the Tenant was accumulating rubbish, furniture, and fridges outside the property, raising concerns about potential rodent infestation. The Tenant met with the Landlord and agreed to remove the rubbish. A section 56 breach notice was issued, requiring the breach to be remedied by 18 June 2024. The breach was not remedied by that date, but an extension was granted on 19 August 2024. The Landlord also offered support services, which the Tenant declined. Despite the extension, the breach remained unremedied, and further accumulation of items was observed. Mediation occurred on 3 October 2024, and a Tribunal hearing scheduled for 10 December 2024 was later adjourned, as the Tenant had removed some items, noted on 14 January 2025.
In February 2025, the Landlord was again advised that the Tenant had begun accumulating inorganic rubbish and various items around the property. Another section 56 notice was issued on 28 February 2025, later extended due to the Tenant’s medical issues. By 23 April 2025, some items had been removed, but during an inspection on 3 June 2025, the Landlord observed that the condition of the property’s exterior had deteriorated. Damaged timber and additional stored materials were present, and by July 2025, monthly inspections revealed ongoing hoarding behaviour, with numerous items both inside and outside the home. These included boxes of hoses, reels, nozzles, and other equipment, creating fire hazards and blocked emergency exits.
Externally, the Tenant had stored wood, crates, and decking materials, and by August 2025, had dug up parts of the rear and side sections of the property, laid tarpaulins, plastic pallets, and wood to form decking, and relocated the clothesline. The Landlord submits that the Tenant has continued to accumulate and store items, some of which have extended into the neighbour’s carport. The Asset Manager raised further concerns, noting that the makeshift decking surfaces pose a slip hazard, lack proper drainage, and may cause water ingress to the dwelling. The lawn was damaged, and the accumulation of items presents health and safety risks, including trip and fall hazards. The Tenant was again offered support services by the Landlord but declined.
For these reasons, it would be inequitable to refuse a termination order because of the repeated breaches, lack of engagement by the Tenant with support services to address any issues. This suggests that the issue may continue.
If the Tenant has not complied with the work orders by the 15 November 2025, the tenancy shall be terminated by 18 November 2025.
Section 95(A)(1) RTA states that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. In this case, the Tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in these proceedings so name suppression is not granted to the Tenant. it is also in the public interest that Landlords are made aware of Tenants breaches that may cause damage to their properties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5337166 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 5 Castlefinn Drive, Manurewa, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5337166 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 5 Castlefinn Drive, Manurewa, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions