What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5351063 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 1109, 139C Greys

How much money was awarded in case 5351063?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5351063?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5351063?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12753331-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5351063 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 1109, 139C Greys

How much money was awarded in case 5351063?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5351063?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5351063?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12753331-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 1109, 139C Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5351063 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 1109, 139C Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities at 11.59 am on Wednesday 26 November 2025

Reasons

A representative of Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities (‘KO”) attended the hearing, conducted by phone.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.
The tenant is the sole resident of a unit in a multi storey complex. The tenants unit is on floor 11.
KO is seeking to terminate the tenancy on 2 grounds: • The tenant has failed to comply with a 14 day breach notice dated 13 August 2025 •The tenant has breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) in circumstances where the breach is not capable of remedy. KO alleges that the tenant has breached their obligation under s.40(2)(A) RTA by intentionally damaging the premises.
The Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, which is that it is more likely than not, that the events outlined occurred. Breach notice
Section 56 RTA provides that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy, if satisfied that the tenant has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement or the RTA and where that breach can be remedied, the landlord has served a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy that breach.
The landlord’s evidence was that the tenant had failed to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord had carried out inspections and provided photos of the condition of the premises to support that claim. It is clear that the premises were in a very poor condition.
The breach notice was issued to the tenant on 13 August 2025. The notice gave the tenant until 4 September 2025 to carry out cleaning and rubbish removal.
The landlord arranged to conduct another inspection of the premises on 17 September 2025. The tenant refused entry. With the door ajar, the landlord’s evidence was that no cleaning appeared to have been carried out by the tenant and the unit smelt strongly of accumulated rubbish.
My concern is the wording of the breach notice to the tenant. It states: ”if this breach is not fixed, we may apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for an order to have it fixed.”
The tenant would not have understood from the terms of the notice that a failure to comply with the notice could result in an application to the Tribunal to have her tenancy terminated. In those circumstances, the application to terminate the tenancy for failure to comply with a breach notice is dismissed. Breach of tenant obligations
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) RTA.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
Section 40(2)(a) RTA provides that the tenant may not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises.
Section 40(5) RTA extends the definition of “premises” in this section to include “facilities”
Section 2(1) RTA includes a definition of “facilities”. That definition includes “cooking facilities” which I find includes in this case a microwave. KO Evidence
KO claim that the tenant has breached this obligation by: •On 2 September 2025, the landlord received a complaint from a neighbour of the tenant. The neighbour lived in the unit directly below the tenant’s unit. The neighbour said that someone on the floor above was throwing items off their balcony. Those items included a microwave. •The landlord reviewed CCTV footage of the exterior of the premises and at
39 pm, the video showed that a microwave had been thrown off a balcony on the premises landing on the driveway beside the basement garage roller door. •The landlord attempted to speak to the tenant. From the door of the tenant’s unit, the landlord heard the tenant screaming, swearing, slamming her door and throwing items around her apartment. The police were called. •The police attended and the tenant was arrested. The police summary of facts records that the tenant admitted having thrown the microwave from her balcony. •The tenant has been charged with endangering life/safety/health by criminal nuisance.

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

I find, given the nature of the breach, that it was not capable of remedy.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

The District Court set out the various factors that can be considered in making this decision in Huff v Central City Property Management Ltd [2020] NZDC 19229: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The history of the tenancy is such that it is clear that there have been a number of breaches by this tenant. There has been involvement with the tenant by KO and its staff, but it appears unlikely that the tenant will comply with her obligations in the future.
The breach was not inadvertent and has been deliberately committed.
The most concerning factor is the gravity of the breach. A microwave has been thrown off an 11 th floor balcony onto the driveway leading to the basement car park.
There was at all times a potentially serious risk to the safety of any person walking to the car park or any vehicle leaving the car park. In those specific and worrying circumstances, termination of the tenancy is a proportionate response to the breach. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The tenancy is terminated.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 1109, 139C Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities at 11.59 am on Wednesday 26 November 2025

Reasons

A representative of Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities (‘KO”) attended the hearing, conducted by phone.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.
The tenant is the sole resident of a unit in a multi storey complex. The tenants unit is on floor 11.
KO is seeking to terminate the tenancy on 2 grounds: • The tenant has failed to comply with a 14 day breach notice dated 13 August 2025 •The tenant has breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) in circumstances where the breach is not capable of remedy. KO alleges that the tenant has breached their obligation under s.40(2)(A) RTA by intentionally damaging the premises.
The Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, which is that it is more likely than not, that the events outlined occurred. Breach notice
Section 56 RTA provides that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy, if satisfied that the tenant has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement or the RTA and where that breach can be remedied, the landlord has served a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy that breach.
The landlord’s evidence was that the tenant had failed to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord had carried out inspections and provided photos of the condition of the premises to support that claim. It is clear that the premises were in a very poor condition.
The breach notice was issued to the tenant on 13 August 2025. The notice gave the tenant until 4 September 2025 to carry out cleaning and rubbish removal.
The landlord arranged to conduct another inspection of the premises on 17 September 2025. The tenant refused entry. With the door ajar, the landlord’s evidence was that no cleaning appeared to have been carried out by the tenant and the unit smelt strongly of accumulated rubbish.
My concern is the wording of the breach notice to the tenant. It states: ”if this breach is not fixed, we may apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for an order to have it fixed.”
The tenant would not have understood from the terms of the notice that a failure to comply with the notice could result in an application to the Tribunal to have her tenancy terminated. In those circumstances, the application to terminate the tenancy for failure to comply with a breach notice is dismissed. Breach of tenant obligations
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) RTA.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
Section 40(2)(a) RTA provides that the tenant may not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises.
Section 40(5) RTA extends the definition of “premises” in this section to include “facilities”
Section 2(1) RTA includes a definition of “facilities”. That definition includes “cooking facilities” which I find includes in this case a microwave. KO Evidence
KO claim that the tenant has breached this obligation by: •On 2 September 2025, the landlord received a complaint from a neighbour of the tenant. The neighbour lived in the unit directly below the tenant’s unit. The neighbour said that someone on the floor above was throwing items off their balcony. Those items included a microwave. •The landlord reviewed CCTV footage of the exterior of the premises and at
39 pm, the video showed that a microwave had been thrown off a balcony on the premises landing on the driveway beside the basement garage roller door. •The landlord attempted to speak to the tenant. From the door of the tenant’s unit, the landlord heard the tenant screaming, swearing, slamming her door and throwing items around her apartment. The police were called. •The police attended and the tenant was arrested. The police summary of facts records that the tenant admitted having thrown the microwave from her balcony. •The tenant has been charged with endangering life/safety/health by criminal nuisance.

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

I find, given the nature of the breach, that it was not capable of remedy.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

The District Court set out the various factors that can be considered in making this decision in Huff v Central City Property Management Ltd [2020] NZDC 19229: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The history of the tenancy is such that it is clear that there have been a number of breaches by this tenant. There has been involvement with the tenant by KO and its staff, but it appears unlikely that the tenant will comply with her obligations in the future.
The breach was not inadvertent and has been deliberately committed.
The most concerning factor is the gravity of the breach. A microwave has been thrown off an 11 th floor balcony onto the driveway leading to the basement car park.
There was at all times a potentially serious risk to the safety of any person walking to the car park or any vehicle leaving the car park. In those specific and worrying circumstances, termination of the tenancy is a proportionate response to the breach. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The tenancy is terminated.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5351063 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 1109, 139C Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5351063 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 1109, 139C Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions