Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5362181 — Tenancy dispute at 7A Halleys Place, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041
Decided 30 January 2026 · Published 30 January 2026 · Application 5362181
Mixed / unclear
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Mixed / unclear
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Brennan
Dispute themes
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Order 1 by the date in Order 2, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenants the costs of this work u | $4,000.00 | Order 1 by the date in Order 2, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenants the costs of this work u |
Claims and awards for application 5362181. Verify on MoJ.
Order 1 by the date in Order 2, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenants the costs of this work u
- Amount
- $4,000.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Order 1 by the date in Order 2, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenants the costs of this work u
Order
- The tenants must complete the removal of excessive items within the premises to return the inside of the premises to a reasonably tidy state.
- This removal must be completed by Monday 2 March 2026
- If the tenant fails to comply with Order 1 by the date in Order 2, then the landlord may undertake the work and charge the tenants the costs of this work up to $4,000.00. These costs may be treated as rent in arrears and enforced accordingly.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants had a support person present with them.
- The landlord claims that the tenants have failed to keep the premises reasonably tidy by having excessive items and contents stored throughout the premises, creating a cluttered and unsafe environment.
- The first hearing was adjourned on 1 December 2025. The tenants were not joined on that call. The adjourning order noted the landlord did not, at that time, have a costing for the alternative solution of the landlord completing the declutter after any work order to the tenants remained unactioned.
- The adjournment also allowed the tenants more time to extend what was at that time, limited progress. The order encouraged the tenants to complete the decluttering immediately themselves, using the assistance available to them, to avoid any such work order in the future.
- Under section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a tenant has specific obligations in relation to the tenancy premises to ensure it remains reasonably tidy.
- Where the Tribunal finds the tenant has failed to comply with such an obligation, where appropriate it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work. See section 78(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- A work order may 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.
Has the tenant failed to comply with their obligations?
- There is no dispute from the tenants regarding the problem and resolution requirement. They explained the situation was an initial merging of two house lots into this premises and an accumulation over time, rather than a habit of hoarding.
- It seems that resolution is well underway, and the tenants are bullish about completion well within the date set in this order.
- The ceiling on costs has been set at $4,000.00 based on a recent estimate based on the volume evident in a December inspection report. The photos from that report support the estimate as reasonable.
- I have not made the order specific to any room(s) as the resolution is not relocating of the items within but rather the removal from the premises.
- The tenants submitted significant progress has been made since the last adjourned hearing. That is excellent news but, in the absence any recent photographic evidence of this progress, I accept the estimate as a means of establishing a cap on possible costs. If the landlord does undertake the work, a full set of supporting photos prior to commencement is expected to be available to support any subsequent invoiced costs, if so required.
- It sounds like 2026 has started well for the tenant efforts to resolve and I wish them the best with their final push.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s78(1), s78(2AAB)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5362181?
The tribunal order states: The tenants must complete the removal of excessive items within the premises
How much money was awarded in case 5362181?
Order 1 By The Date In Order 2, Then…: $4,000.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5362181?
The dispute type was not classified.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5362181?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13050462-Tribunal_Order.pdf.