What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5348306 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 8A Dawson Street, New Plymouth,

How much money was awarded in case 5348306?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5348306?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5348306?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12579741-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5348306 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 8A Dawson Street, New Plymouth,

How much money was awarded in case 5348306?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5348306?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5348306?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12579741-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8A Dawson Street, New Plymouth, New Plymouth 4310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5348306 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 8A Dawson Street, New Plymouth, New Plymouth 4310 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities, at 11.59 pm, Friday, 17 October 2025.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted via teleconference.
Ms Maturan-Abuid attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
Mr Curits attended the hearing. His support person, Ms Ewing, was present but did not participate.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The application is made under sections 55 and 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) following the tenant’s failure to comply with a previous Tribunal order made on 16 July 2025 by Adjudicator M Kemp in case [2025] NZTT 5291081 (“the previous Tribunal order”). Background
The tenancy commenced on 12 May 2022. It is a one-bedroom property managed by Kāinga Ora.
On 16 July 2025, Adjudicator Kemp found that Mr Curtis had caused intentional damage to the premises through extensive graffiti and artwork on interior walls, doors, and the heat pump. The Tribunal ordered Mr Curtis to remove the graffiti and make good the damage by 11:59 pm on 5 August 2025, with provision that the landlord could seek termination if the order were not complied with.
An ad hoc inspection was carried out on 8 August 2025 with Mr Curtis and Police present, followed by another inspection on 15 October 2025. Both reports showed the same graffiti damage throughout the property. In addition, the later inspection recorded a broken laundry window which was not broken at the earlier inspection. Ms Maturan-Abuid submits that the property continues to deteriorate if the damage is not remedied. Issues to be determined
Whether the tenant has complied with the previous Tribunal order dated 16 July 2025.
Whether the Tribunal should terminate the tenancy under sections 55(1)(b) or 56 of the RTA. Ms Maturan-Abuid’s submissions
Ms Maturan-Abuid submitted that the tenant has failed to comply with the previous Tribunal order and that the condition of the property remains unchanged since the inspection on 8 August 2025.
Ms Maturan-Abuid said that the landlord seeks termination under s55(1)(b) for substantial damage, and alternatively under s56, on the grounds that the tenant has breached section 40(2)(a) RTA and failed to remedy that breach.
She noted that the cost of repairs is estimated at $24,144.49, based on the inspection findings, and that graffiti matching the tenant’s known “artist name” remains on the walls.
She also highlighted that the broken laundry window observed in the October inspection supports concerns that the property is deteriorating. Mr Curtis’ submissions
Mr Curtis stated that he has attempted to paint over the graffiti, and that other damage has occurred because his property has been repeatedly entered or vandalised while he was absent.
He said he has not been provided replacement keys and cannot secure the property, and believes Kāinga Ora seeks termination to demolish the block of flats.
He denied responsibility for some of the graffiti, saying that others have entered and defaced the property despite his efforts to repaint.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

I may exercise my jurisdiction to 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) RTA.
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.
Having considered the evidence and submissions, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that: a. The tenant has not complied with paragraph 1(b) of the Tribunal’s order dated 16 July 2025. b. The inspection reports dated 8 August 2025 and 15 October 2025 are effectively identical in content, showing that the graffiti and interior damage remain unremedied. c. The addition of a broken laundry window confirms that the property’s condition has further deteriorated. d. The damage is intentional within the meaning of section 49B(1)(a) RTA. The previous decision established that Mr Curtis regarded the graffiti as “artwork” and had no intention to remove it. His minimal repainting efforts do not constitute “making good” the damage. e. The graffiti damage, therefore, remains a continuing intentional breach.
The landlord has proven substantial damage under section 55(1)(b) RTA. The graffiti is extensive, affecting multiple interior surfaces, including the walls, doors, and heat pump. The estimated remediation cost of over $24,000 supports a finding that the damage is substantial and not minor or cosmetic.
I reject Mr Curtis’s explanations for his failure to comply with the Tribunal order.
While Mr Curtis referred to vandalism by third parties, no corroborating evidence was provided. The property’s condition has remained unchanged for over two months after the compliance date, indicating a lack of remedial action.
Even if vandalism by third parties were a credible explanation, Mr Curtis has failed to identify which damages were caused by those third parties. He has also not complied with the previous Tribunal order, which required him to remove the graffiti and repair the damage by 11:59 p.m. on 5 August 2025.
Accordingly, I conclude that the breach is serious, ongoing, and has not been remedied despite prior opportunity and the Tribunal’s previous order. It would therefore be inequitable to refuse termination under section 56(1)(c) RTA.
The tenancy is therefore terminated.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 8A Dawson Street, New Plymouth, New Plymouth 4310 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities, at 11.59 pm, Friday, 17 October 2025.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted via teleconference.
Ms Maturan-Abuid attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
Mr Curits attended the hearing. His support person, Ms Ewing, was present but did not participate.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The application is made under sections 55 and 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) following the tenant’s failure to comply with a previous Tribunal order made on 16 July 2025 by Adjudicator M Kemp in case [2025] NZTT 5291081 (“the previous Tribunal order”). Background
The tenancy commenced on 12 May 2022. It is a one-bedroom property managed by Kāinga Ora.
On 16 July 2025, Adjudicator Kemp found that Mr Curtis had caused intentional damage to the premises through extensive graffiti and artwork on interior walls, doors, and the heat pump. The Tribunal ordered Mr Curtis to remove the graffiti and make good the damage by 11:59 pm on 5 August 2025, with provision that the landlord could seek termination if the order were not complied with.
An ad hoc inspection was carried out on 8 August 2025 with Mr Curtis and Police present, followed by another inspection on 15 October 2025. Both reports showed the same graffiti damage throughout the property. In addition, the later inspection recorded a broken laundry window which was not broken at the earlier inspection. Ms Maturan-Abuid submits that the property continues to deteriorate if the damage is not remedied. Issues to be determined
Whether the tenant has complied with the previous Tribunal order dated 16 July 2025.
Whether the Tribunal should terminate the tenancy under sections 55(1)(b) or 56 of the RTA. Ms Maturan-Abuid’s submissions
Ms Maturan-Abuid submitted that the tenant has failed to comply with the previous Tribunal order and that the condition of the property remains unchanged since the inspection on 8 August 2025.
Ms Maturan-Abuid said that the landlord seeks termination under s55(1)(b) for substantial damage, and alternatively under s56, on the grounds that the tenant has breached section 40(2)(a) RTA and failed to remedy that breach.
She noted that the cost of repairs is estimated at $24,144.49, based on the inspection findings, and that graffiti matching the tenant’s known “artist name” remains on the walls.
She also highlighted that the broken laundry window observed in the October inspection supports concerns that the property is deteriorating. Mr Curtis’ submissions
Mr Curtis stated that he has attempted to paint over the graffiti, and that other damage has occurred because his property has been repeatedly entered or vandalised while he was absent.
He said he has not been provided replacement keys and cannot secure the property, and believes Kāinga Ora seeks termination to demolish the block of flats.
He denied responsibility for some of the graffiti, saying that others have entered and defaced the property despite his efforts to repaint.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

I may exercise my jurisdiction to 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) RTA.
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.
Having considered the evidence and submissions, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that: a. The tenant has not complied with paragraph 1(b) of the Tribunal’s order dated 16 July 2025. b. The inspection reports dated 8 August 2025 and 15 October 2025 are effectively identical in content, showing that the graffiti and interior damage remain unremedied. c. The addition of a broken laundry window confirms that the property’s condition has further deteriorated. d. The damage is intentional within the meaning of section 49B(1)(a) RTA. The previous decision established that Mr Curtis regarded the graffiti as “artwork” and had no intention to remove it. His minimal repainting efforts do not constitute “making good” the damage. e. The graffiti damage, therefore, remains a continuing intentional breach.
The landlord has proven substantial damage under section 55(1)(b) RTA. The graffiti is extensive, affecting multiple interior surfaces, including the walls, doors, and heat pump. The estimated remediation cost of over $24,000 supports a finding that the damage is substantial and not minor or cosmetic.
I reject Mr Curtis’s explanations for his failure to comply with the Tribunal order.
While Mr Curtis referred to vandalism by third parties, no corroborating evidence was provided. The property’s condition has remained unchanged for over two months after the compliance date, indicating a lack of remedial action.
Even if vandalism by third parties were a credible explanation, Mr Curtis has failed to identify which damages were caused by those third parties. He has also not complied with the previous Tribunal order, which required him to remove the graffiti and repair the damage by 11:59 p.m. on 5 August 2025.
Accordingly, I conclude that the breach is serious, ongoing, and has not been remedied despite prior opportunity and the Tribunal’s previous order. It would therefore be inequitable to refuse termination under section 56(1)(c) RTA.
The tenancy is therefore terminated.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5348306 — 14-day notice at 8A Dawson Street, New Plymouth, New Plymouth 4310

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5348306 — 14-day notice at 8A Dawson Street, New Plymouth, New Plymouth 4310

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

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions