What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421943 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 706, 40 Frederick

How much money was awarded in case 5421943?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421943?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421943?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13165190-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421943 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 706, 40 Frederick

How much money was awarded in case 5421943?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421943?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421943?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13165190-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 706, 40 Frederick Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421943 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 706, 40 Frederick Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust, at 11.59 pm on Monday 9 March 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Edwards had a support person from the central community mental health team with him at the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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 (very unfair) to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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. This is the landlord’s claim to prove.
The landlord said the tenant has breached his obligations by not keeping his apartment in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Tenants must keep tenancy premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA.
The landlord said they served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 13 November 2025 by handing the notice to the tenant. The notice asked the tenant to clean and remove rubbish. The tenant said he did not receive the notice, but it seems likely to me he was served.
The RTA does not require tenancy premises to be kept in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord carried out a follow up inspection on 27 November and the tenant had not remedied the breach within the required period. I was provided with photos taken by the landlord on 27 November 2025. The tenant said that other people go into his apartment and mess it up, but this seems unlikely to me. I have looked at the photos and I find the house not in a reasonable condition.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy. These are: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
History - the landlord said the tenant has not kept the house in a reasonably clean and tidy condition since he moved in. The landlord has issued a series of breach notices and the tenant has relied on the city mission to clean before the follow up inspections. The city mission can no longer help, which is why there was no improvement for the follow up inspection in November.
Persistent failure - there have more than one breach during the tenancy and a number of warnings.
Compliance - the support person at the hearing today agreed that the tenant is not able to keep his apartment reasonably clean and tidy.
Inadvertent – it seems likely to me that the breaches have occurred because of the tenant’s health conditions and have not been done deliberately.
Conduct – The tenant was suspicious of the property manager’s motives but I could not see anything in the documentary evidence or at the hearing to suggest the landlord was acting inappropriately.
Gravity – the landlord said it had no confidence the tenant would keep the apartment in a reasonable condition if the tenancy was allowed to continue. Also, the tenant’s breach was impacting on the other tenants living in the complex.
Proportionate to the breach – I am persuaded that ending the tenancy is a proportionate response to the breach. I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord asked for the tenancy to end this week. The tenant’s support person asked that the tenant be allowed a month to arrange to move out and to arrange for cleaning. I have allowed the tenant two weeks to move out because of the additional support required. I have not allowed longer because the apartment is part of a complex and other tenants could be affected.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 706, 40 Frederick Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust, at 11.59 pm on Monday 9 March 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Edwards had a support person from the central community mental health team with him at the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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 (very unfair) to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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. This is the landlord’s claim to prove.
The landlord said the tenant has breached his obligations by not keeping his apartment in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Tenants must keep tenancy premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) RTA.
The landlord said they served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 13 November 2025 by handing the notice to the tenant. The notice asked the tenant to clean and remove rubbish. The tenant said he did not receive the notice, but it seems likely to me he was served.
The RTA does not require tenancy premises to be kept in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
The landlord carried out a follow up inspection on 27 November and the tenant had not remedied the breach within the required period. I was provided with photos taken by the landlord on 27 November 2025. The tenant said that other people go into his apartment and mess it up, but this seems unlikely to me. I have looked at the photos and I find the house not in a reasonable condition.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy. These are: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
History - the landlord said the tenant has not kept the house in a reasonably clean and tidy condition since he moved in. The landlord has issued a series of breach notices and the tenant has relied on the city mission to clean before the follow up inspections. The city mission can no longer help, which is why there was no improvement for the follow up inspection in November.
Persistent failure - there have more than one breach during the tenancy and a number of warnings.
Compliance - the support person at the hearing today agreed that the tenant is not able to keep his apartment reasonably clean and tidy.
Inadvertent – it seems likely to me that the breaches have occurred because of the tenant’s health conditions and have not been done deliberately.
Conduct – The tenant was suspicious of the property manager’s motives but I could not see anything in the documentary evidence or at the hearing to suggest the landlord was acting inappropriately.
Gravity – the landlord said it had no confidence the tenant would keep the apartment in a reasonable condition if the tenancy was allowed to continue. Also, the tenant’s breach was impacting on the other tenants living in the complex.
Proportionate to the breach – I am persuaded that ending the tenancy is a proportionate response to the breach. I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord asked for the tenancy to end this week. The tenant’s support person asked that the tenant be allowed a month to arrange to move out and to arrange for cleaning. I have allowed the tenant two weeks to move out because of the additional support required. I have not allowed longer because the apartment is part of a complex and other tenants could be affected.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421943 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 706, 40 Frederick Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421943 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 706, 40 Frederick Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011

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