What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375121 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 1 Curzon Street, Onehunga, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5375121?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375121?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375121?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12921100-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5375121 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 1 Curzon Street, Onehunga, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5375121?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5375121?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5375121?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12921100-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 Curzon Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5375121 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 1 Curzon Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 is immediately terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities.

Reasons

The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. Should the Tribunal continue in the tenant’s absence?
The landlord was aware of several previous telephone numbers for the tenant, all of which were unsuccessfully attempted after the landlord was unable to contact the tenant on his most recently known number. For reasons that remain unclear, the Registry posted the notice of hearing, as no email address had ever been provided for the tenant. In addition, the tenant was sent text messages notifying him of the hearing and subsequent reminders.
As a matter of natural justice, insufficient evidence of proper service would ordinarily require the hearing to be adjourned.
However, the landlord requested that the hearing proceed due to ongoing damage being incurred to the property. This included complaints received from neighbouring properties the day before the hearing regarding an apparent rat infestation originating from the premises, raising health and safety concerns and risks to neighbouring properties. The landlord also submitted that the tenant’s failure to attend was consistent with a longstanding pattern of non- communication and non-engagement.
The landlord, as a social housing provider, stated that this was one of the rare occasions where it did not support an adjournment. Having regard to the matters discussed at the hearing and summarised in this decision – particularly the continuing deterioration of the property, the reported rodent infestation affecting neighbours, and the complete absence of response or engagement from the tenant – the Tribunal determined to proceed in the tenant’s absence. This decision was made pursuant to section 85(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute. While not determinative, if the Tribunal has erred in weighing the extent and ongoing nature of the property damage to favour continuing in the tenant’s absence, the tenant retains rights to seek a rehearing or to appeal.
Given that the landlord sought termination of the tenancy, the Tribunal remained conscious throughout the hearing of the need to make every reasonable effort to contact the tenant and, in his absence, to carefully assess the reliability and credibility of the landlord’s evidence regarding the alleged damage.

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 termination (section 56(1), Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
Where a breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must first serve a notice requiring the tenant to remedy the breach within a period of not less than 14 days and must establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant breached his obligations by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 7 May 2025, and the tenant failed to remedy the breach within the required timeframe.
It would be inequitable to refuse termination. By the time of the hearing, the landlord’s evidence, including reports and photographs, demonstrated significant deterioration of the property to the extent that the landlord considers the condition no longer remediable. The reported rat infestation supports the landlord’s position that the tenancy is no longer tenable, particularly considering the numerous documented attempts to engage with the tenant, offers of assistance, and warnings about the consequences of continued non- compliance, all of which were met with no actual or meaningful response.
While it is unfortunate that the tenant has apparently continued to pay rent, even if the tenant is residing at the property (which remains unclear), the premises are now uninhabitable given applicable health and safety requirements and the landlord’s duty of care to the tenant, neighbouring occupants, and any future tenants.
Accordingly, the tenancy is terminated with immediate effect, and possession is granted to the landlord.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 1 Curzon Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 is immediately terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities.

Reasons

The landlord applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. Should the Tribunal continue in the tenant’s absence?
The landlord was aware of several previous telephone numbers for the tenant, all of which were unsuccessfully attempted after the landlord was unable to contact the tenant on his most recently known number. For reasons that remain unclear, the Registry posted the notice of hearing, as no email address had ever been provided for the tenant. In addition, the tenant was sent text messages notifying him of the hearing and subsequent reminders.
As a matter of natural justice, insufficient evidence of proper service would ordinarily require the hearing to be adjourned.
However, the landlord requested that the hearing proceed due to ongoing damage being incurred to the property. This included complaints received from neighbouring properties the day before the hearing regarding an apparent rat infestation originating from the premises, raising health and safety concerns and risks to neighbouring properties. The landlord also submitted that the tenant’s failure to attend was consistent with a longstanding pattern of non- communication and non-engagement.
The landlord, as a social housing provider, stated that this was one of the rare occasions where it did not support an adjournment. Having regard to the matters discussed at the hearing and summarised in this decision – particularly the continuing deterioration of the property, the reported rodent infestation affecting neighbours, and the complete absence of response or engagement from the tenant – the Tribunal determined to proceed in the tenant’s absence. This decision was made pursuant to section 85(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute. While not determinative, if the Tribunal has erred in weighing the extent and ongoing nature of the property damage to favour continuing in the tenant’s absence, the tenant retains rights to seek a rehearing or to appeal.
Given that the landlord sought termination of the tenancy, the Tribunal remained conscious throughout the hearing of the need to make every reasonable effort to contact the tenant and, in his absence, to carefully assess the reliability and credibility of the landlord’s evidence regarding the alleged damage.

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 termination (section 56(1), Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
Where a breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must first serve a notice requiring the tenant to remedy the breach within a period of not less than 14 days and must establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant breached his obligations by failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 7 May 2025, and the tenant failed to remedy the breach within the required timeframe.
It would be inequitable to refuse termination. By the time of the hearing, the landlord’s evidence, including reports and photographs, demonstrated significant deterioration of the property to the extent that the landlord considers the condition no longer remediable. The reported rat infestation supports the landlord’s position that the tenancy is no longer tenable, particularly considering the numerous documented attempts to engage with the tenant, offers of assistance, and warnings about the consequences of continued non- compliance, all of which were met with no actual or meaningful response.
While it is unfortunate that the tenant has apparently continued to pay rent, even if the tenant is residing at the property (which remains unclear), the premises are now uninhabitable given applicable health and safety requirements and the landlord’s duty of care to the tenant, neighbouring occupants, and any future tenants.
Accordingly, the tenancy is terminated with immediate effect, and possession is granted to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375121 — 14-day notice at 1 Curzon Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5375121 — 14-day notice at 1 Curzon Street, Onehunga, Auckland 1061

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