What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5340221?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Michaela-Jo Frew at 21B Robins Road, Judea, Tauranga 3110

How much money was awarded in case 5340221?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340221?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340221?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12418537-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5340221?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Michaela-Jo Frew at 21B Robins Road, Judea, Tauranga 3110

How much money was awarded in case 5340221?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5340221?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5340221?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12418537-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21B Robins Road, Judea, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5340221 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Michaela-Jo Frew at 21B Robins Road, Judea, Tauranga 3110 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not answer the calls to her phone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, namely the tenant is no longer residing in the tenancy premises. This is breach of the tenancy agreement the tenant has with the social housing provider.

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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The landlord served a 14 day notice on the tenant on 8 August 2025 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. I have seen the photos taken by the landlord on 28 August and it seems most likely to me the tenant is not residing in the premises.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
This tenancy started in October 2024. The landlord is aware that the tenant has been living away from the tenancy premises, on and off, since February 2025. They understand some of the absence is because of health concerns which is why the landlord has allowed the tenancy to continue. On 14 July 2025 MSD advised the landlord that the tenant was no longer residing at the premises. Rent continues to be paid, so the landlord cannot make an application for termination because of an abandonment.
The landlord’s records show the tenant was advised in June to return to live in the premises. She was served a 14 day notice on 8 August 2025 asking her to return to the premises. I find there has been a failure to return after repeated warnings. Also that it is unlikely the tenant will comply in the future.
It seems most likely to me the tenant knows she is required to live in the social housing provided to her, so her continued absence must be deliberate. I find the landlord’s conduct to be reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord submitted that not living in the house is a serious breach because the landlord has had to spend money to get the lawns mowed, and that would usually be a tenant cost. The landlord is concerned about vermin and squatters being attracted to the empty house. Further, many people need social housing and the tenancy premises could be used house people in need.
It seems most likely to me that termination is a proportionate response to the breach, and I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

Order

The tenancy of Michaela-Jo Frew at 21B Robins Road, Judea, Tauranga 3110 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not answer the calls to her phone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, namely the tenant is no longer residing in the tenancy premises. This is breach of the tenancy agreement the tenant has with the social housing provider.

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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The landlord served a 14 day notice on the tenant on 8 August 2025 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. I have seen the photos taken by the landlord on 28 August and it seems most likely to me the tenant is not residing in the premises.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
This tenancy started in October 2024. The landlord is aware that the tenant has been living away from the tenancy premises, on and off, since February 2025. They understand some of the absence is because of health concerns which is why the landlord has allowed the tenancy to continue. On 14 July 2025 MSD advised the landlord that the tenant was no longer residing at the premises. Rent continues to be paid, so the landlord cannot make an application for termination because of an abandonment.
The landlord’s records show the tenant was advised in June to return to live in the premises. She was served a 14 day notice on 8 August 2025 asking her to return to the premises. I find there has been a failure to return after repeated warnings. Also that it is unlikely the tenant will comply in the future.
It seems most likely to me the tenant knows she is required to live in the social housing provided to her, so her continued absence must be deliberate. I find the landlord’s conduct to be reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord submitted that not living in the house is a serious breach because the landlord has had to spend money to get the lawns mowed, and that would usually be a tenant cost. The landlord is concerned about vermin and squatters being attracted to the empty house. Further, many people need social housing and the tenancy premises could be used house people in need.
It seems most likely to me that termination is a proportionate response to the breach, and I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340221 — 14-day notice at 21B Robins Road, Judea, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5340221 — 14-day notice at 21B Robins Road, Judea, Tauranga 3110

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