What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5354961 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 512, 139B Greys

How much money was awarded in case 5354961?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5354961?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5354961?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12880509-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5354961 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 512, 139B Greys

How much money was awarded in case 5354961?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5354961?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5354961?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12880509-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 512, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5354961 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 512, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59pm on Wednesday 7 January 2026.

Reasons

A representative of Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities attended the remote hearing. The tenant did not attend.
I telephoned the tenant but there was no reply. The landlord confirmed that the telephone number provided to the Tribunal was the telephone number for the tenant held by the landlord. The landlord says that the tenant knew the hearing was happening because there has been engagement with him.
The landlord says that a support worker had also hoped to attend as a support person and the landlord provided their telephone number. On being called they advised the tenant was not with them and then left the hearing. They confirmed they were not the tenant’s representative.
Further, a telephone number (dial in details) are on the notice of hearing sent to the tenant so the hearing can be joined at any time by telephone. The tenant did not attend the hearing at any point.
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 hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. Background
The Tribunal must hear the remainder of an application bought by the landlord relating to the condition the tenant is said to be keeping the property in.
The landlord has applied for a work order and also applied for a termination order based on the tenant’s breaches of section 40(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 40(1)(c) of the RTA requires the tenant to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy during the tenancy. The tenancy agreement also sets out the need to keep the property tidy (clause 9).
Upon initially hearing the application in an order dated 13 November 2025 the Tribunal ordered that the tenant must clean the property and dispose of rubbish so that the property is in a reasonably clean and tidy condition by 11.59pm on Thursday 27 November 2025.
The order set out that if the tenant did not comply with that order the landlord could return to the Tribunal for the termination element of the application to be heard.
The landlord has now returned to the Tribunal saying the tenant has not complied with the earlier Tribunal order and it seeks termination.
I must therefore now consider whether to terminate the tenancy.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, in the case of a breach capable of remedy, notice has been given requiring the breach to be remedied, the default has not been remedied, and the breach: “...is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy” (section 56 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.
As set out above, section 40(1)(c) RTA requires the tenant to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy during the tenancy and the tenancy agreement that sets out the need to keep the property tidy (clause 9).
The earlier order of the Tribunal in this application dated 13 November 2025 sets out that: a. There has been a history of difficulties at this property with the tenant not keeping the property reasonably clean and tidy and advise of a number of 14-day notices being given in relation to cleaning throughout the tenancy. b. The latest notice to clean the property was issued on 7 August 2025. This is the 14 day breach notice the landlord relies upon. c. Photographic evidence was provided showing the condition of the property on that date and that the property was far from reasonably clean and tidy. d. On 10 September 2025 a further inspection was undertaken. Photographs from that day show a property that remained far from reasonably clean and tidy.
Since the order of the Tribunal dated 13 November 2025, I heard that the property has not been returned to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Photographs have been provided to support this.
I accept that on 1 December 2025 when the landlord re-inspected the property, to see if the work order had been complied with, the property was not in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and on this date very little appears to have changed at the property since previous photographs were taken.
The tenant has breached their obligations by not keeping the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord served a 14-day notice and the breach was not remedied in the required time frame. Despite a work order then being made to afford the tenant a further opportunity to remedy the breach, the property still remains in a condition that is not reasonably clean and tidy.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has had ample opportunity to remedy the breach. Photographs show a property that remains far from reasonably clean and tidy, I heard how it is impacting on other residents whole also live in this large complex, for example, with odour and how this is a health and safety issue and also that the rubbish and lack of cleanliness may be causing damage to the property. I accept these are all credible concerns given the condition the property is evidenced as being kept in.
The tenancy is therefore terminated. The landlord is agreeable that the tenant can have some additional time at the property to vacate.
The landlord is agreeable to the tenancy ending on 7 January 2026. I have therefore provided for this in the order. Filing fee
The landlord does not seek reimbursement of the filing fee and waives its right to recover this. Suppression
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 (s 95A RTA).
The landlord did not seek suppression, so this is not considered for the landlord.
The tenant was not at the hearing to request suppression and has not been wholly or substantially successful. I see no other reason to grant name suppression to the tenant (see section 95A(4)). The application is not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 512, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59pm on Wednesday 7 January 2026.

Reasons

A representative of Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities attended the remote hearing. The tenant did not attend.
I telephoned the tenant but there was no reply. The landlord confirmed that the telephone number provided to the Tribunal was the telephone number for the tenant held by the landlord. The landlord says that the tenant knew the hearing was happening because there has been engagement with him.
The landlord says that a support worker had also hoped to attend as a support person and the landlord provided their telephone number. On being called they advised the tenant was not with them and then left the hearing. They confirmed they were not the tenant’s representative.
Further, a telephone number (dial in details) are on the notice of hearing sent to the tenant so the hearing can be joined at any time by telephone. The tenant did not attend the hearing at any point.
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 hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence. Background
The Tribunal must hear the remainder of an application bought by the landlord relating to the condition the tenant is said to be keeping the property in.
The landlord has applied for a work order and also applied for a termination order based on the tenant’s breaches of section 40(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 40(1)(c) of the RTA requires the tenant to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy during the tenancy. The tenancy agreement also sets out the need to keep the property tidy (clause 9).
Upon initially hearing the application in an order dated 13 November 2025 the Tribunal ordered that the tenant must clean the property and dispose of rubbish so that the property is in a reasonably clean and tidy condition by 11.59pm on Thursday 27 November 2025.
The order set out that if the tenant did not comply with that order the landlord could return to the Tribunal for the termination element of the application to be heard.
The landlord has now returned to the Tribunal saying the tenant has not complied with the earlier Tribunal order and it seeks termination.
I must therefore now consider whether to terminate the tenancy.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, in the case of a breach capable of remedy, notice has been given requiring the breach to be remedied, the default has not been remedied, and the breach: “...is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy” (section 56 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.
As set out above, section 40(1)(c) RTA requires the tenant to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy during the tenancy and the tenancy agreement that sets out the need to keep the property tidy (clause 9).
The earlier order of the Tribunal in this application dated 13 November 2025 sets out that: a. There has been a history of difficulties at this property with the tenant not keeping the property reasonably clean and tidy and advise of a number of 14-day notices being given in relation to cleaning throughout the tenancy. b. The latest notice to clean the property was issued on 7 August 2025. This is the 14 day breach notice the landlord relies upon. c. Photographic evidence was provided showing the condition of the property on that date and that the property was far from reasonably clean and tidy. d. On 10 September 2025 a further inspection was undertaken. Photographs from that day show a property that remained far from reasonably clean and tidy.
Since the order of the Tribunal dated 13 November 2025, I heard that the property has not been returned to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Photographs have been provided to support this.
I accept that on 1 December 2025 when the landlord re-inspected the property, to see if the work order had been complied with, the property was not in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and on this date very little appears to have changed at the property since previous photographs were taken.
The tenant has breached their obligations by not keeping the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord served a 14-day notice and the breach was not remedied in the required time frame. Despite a work order then being made to afford the tenant a further opportunity to remedy the breach, the property still remains in a condition that is not reasonably clean and tidy.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has had ample opportunity to remedy the breach. Photographs show a property that remains far from reasonably clean and tidy, I heard how it is impacting on other residents whole also live in this large complex, for example, with odour and how this is a health and safety issue and also that the rubbish and lack of cleanliness may be causing damage to the property. I accept these are all credible concerns given the condition the property is evidenced as being kept in.
The tenancy is therefore terminated. The landlord is agreeable that the tenant can have some additional time at the property to vacate.
The landlord is agreeable to the tenancy ending on 7 January 2026. I have therefore provided for this in the order. Filing fee
The landlord does not seek reimbursement of the filing fee and waives its right to recover this. Suppression
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 (s 95A RTA).
The landlord did not seek suppression, so this is not considered for the landlord.
The tenant was not at the hearing to request suppression and has not been wholly or substantially successful. I see no other reason to grant name suppression to the tenant (see section 95A(4)). The application is not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5354961 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 512, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5354961 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 512, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

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