What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5365162 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5365162?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5365162?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5365162?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12891758-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5365162 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5365162?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5365162?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Healthy homes, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5365162?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12891758-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5365162 — 14-day notice

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5365162. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Bryan Ivor Schwerin at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord], at 5:00pm on Thursday 18 December 2025.
By Realty Limited are granted leave to enforce the possession order immediately. (Refer to District Court Act 2016, s138(1)(b)).
Bryan Ivor Schwerin must pay By Realty Limited $28.00 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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 tenant has breached his obligations by: a. Repeatedly refusing the landlord and its glass contractor entry to the premise in circumstances where they have provided lawful notice and are legally entitled to enter. Specifically, the landlord had provided email and text messages in the period April to December 2025 where the tenant has initially agreed to routine inspection dates or to the glass contractor coming to fix a cracked ranch slider or to the healthy homes assessor coming to complete the assessment, and then at the last minute will not let them enter the premise on the agreed date(s). He repeats this pattern over and over again until eventually a property inspection was completed on 23 September 2025 and the healthy homes assessment was partially completed in April 2025 but the glazier has still not been granted entry to repair the ranch slider (Refer to s48(2)(b), 48(2)(cb), 48(2)(d), 48(4)(b) and Schedule 1A of the RTA); and b. Breaching his s40(1)(c) of the RTA obligations to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. The 23 September 2025 inspection report shows the inside of the premise is full of rubbish that the landlord says has a foul odour, the inside of the premise is extremely dirty, and it is hard to tell what level of damage had been done to the inside of the premise due to the amount of rubbish piled up, the lawns are not mown and the yard in unkempt. The house is so full of rubbish, the healthy homes assessor was unable to access parts of the house to complete the assessment.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 24 September 2025 requiring the tenant to thoroughly clean the inside of the premise, remove any rubbish inside and outside and allow access to the premise for the glass contractor, and the tenant did not remedy the breaches within the required period.
The landlord also sent the tenant an email on 5 May 2025 requiring him to thoroughly clean the inside of the premise, remove any rubbish inside and outside and mow and tidy the outside grass area, and the tenant has never remedied these breaches.
The owners of the property are concerned that the increasing volume of rubbish inside the house is causing significant damage to the property and may be attracting pests. The house is also extremely unhygienic for the tenant to live in.
The property manager has also reported that the tenant is becoming increasingly aggressive and threatening to her and her colleagues and is engaging is racist and gender-based slurs in all his communications. Additionally, the property manager says the tenant is so volatile and unpredictable she fears for her and her colleague’s safety when they are trying to gain access to the premise for inspections or letting contractors into the house to undertake repair and maintenance work.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves the because of the tenant’s refusal to thoroughly clean the inside of the premise, remove any rubbish inside and outside and allow access to the premise for the glass contractor and the completion of the healthy homes assessment it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The tenancy is terminated from 5:00pm on 18 December 2025, pursuant to s56(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA.
Section 138(1)(a) of the District Court Act 2016 provides that the applicant may not enforce this possession order for 48 hours. Section 138(1)(b) allows me to grant leave to enforce the possession order immediately.
The applicant has provided evidence that supports its claim that the tenant has already caused some damage to the premise and given his recent and escalating aggressive, threatening and volatile state, he is likely to do more damage if he is evicted from the premise. The applicant has satisfied me that there is a risk that the tenant will cause considerable damage to the premise if the eviction and possession process is delayed by 48 hours. Therefore, I grant the applicants’ application to have immediate possession of the premises at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 106 Colwill Road, Massey, Auckland 0614. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
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.
The landlord has wholly succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5365162. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Bryan Ivor Schwerin at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord], at 5:00pm on Thursday 18 December 2025.
By Realty Limited are granted leave to enforce the possession order immediately. (Refer to District Court Act 2016, s138(1)(b)).
Bryan Ivor Schwerin must pay By Realty Limited $28.00 immediately, calculated as set out in the table below:

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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 tenant has breached his obligations by: a. Repeatedly refusing the landlord and its glass contractor entry to the premise in circumstances where they have provided lawful notice and are legally entitled to enter. Specifically, the landlord had provided email and text messages in the period April to December 2025 where the tenant has initially agreed to routine inspection dates or to the glass contractor coming to fix a cracked ranch slider or to the healthy homes assessor coming to complete the assessment, and then at the last minute will not let them enter the premise on the agreed date(s). He repeats this pattern over and over again until eventually a property inspection was completed on 23 September 2025 and the healthy homes assessment was partially completed in April 2025 but the glazier has still not been granted entry to repair the ranch slider (Refer to s48(2)(b), 48(2)(cb), 48(2)(d), 48(4)(b) and Schedule 1A of the RTA); and b. Breaching his s40(1)(c) of the RTA obligations to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. The 23 September 2025 inspection report shows the inside of the premise is full of rubbish that the landlord says has a foul odour, the inside of the premise is extremely dirty, and it is hard to tell what level of damage had been done to the inside of the premise due to the amount of rubbish piled up, the lawns are not mown and the yard in unkempt. The house is so full of rubbish, the healthy homes assessor was unable to access parts of the house to complete the assessment.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 24 September 2025 requiring the tenant to thoroughly clean the inside of the premise, remove any rubbish inside and outside and allow access to the premise for the glass contractor, and the tenant did not remedy the breaches within the required period.
The landlord also sent the tenant an email on 5 May 2025 requiring him to thoroughly clean the inside of the premise, remove any rubbish inside and outside and mow and tidy the outside grass area, and the tenant has never remedied these breaches.
The owners of the property are concerned that the increasing volume of rubbish inside the house is causing significant damage to the property and may be attracting pests. The house is also extremely unhygienic for the tenant to live in.
The property manager has also reported that the tenant is becoming increasingly aggressive and threatening to her and her colleagues and is engaging is racist and gender-based slurs in all his communications. Additionally, the property manager says the tenant is so volatile and unpredictable she fears for her and her colleague’s safety when they are trying to gain access to the premise for inspections or letting contractors into the house to undertake repair and maintenance work.
I am satisfied that the evidence proves the because of the tenant’s refusal to thoroughly clean the inside of the premise, remove any rubbish inside and outside and allow access to the premise for the glass contractor and the completion of the healthy homes assessment it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The tenancy is terminated from 5:00pm on 18 December 2025, pursuant to s56(1)(b) and (c) of the RTA.
Section 138(1)(a) of the District Court Act 2016 provides that the applicant may not enforce this possession order for 48 hours. Section 138(1)(b) allows me to grant leave to enforce the possession order immediately.
The applicant has provided evidence that supports its claim that the tenant has already caused some damage to the premise and given his recent and escalating aggressive, threatening and volatile state, he is likely to do more damage if he is evicted from the premise. The applicant has satisfied me that there is a risk that the tenant will cause considerable damage to the premise if the eviction and possession process is delayed by 48 hours. Therefore, I grant the applicants’ application to have immediate possession of the premises at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 106 Colwill Road, Massey, Auckland 0614. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
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.
The landlord has wholly succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5365162 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5365162 — 14-day notice

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