What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5423631 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5423631?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423631?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423631?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13085026-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5423631 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5423631?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423631?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423631?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13085026-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5423631 — Mould & damp

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59pm on Friday 27 February 2026.

Reasons

The hearing was held on 4 February 2026. The landlord attended by video conference. The tenant attended by teleconference.
This is the Tribunal’s decision on an application by Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities (the landlord) seeking termination of Ms Thomson’s tenancy under section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). The landlord alleges repeated and ongoing breaches of the tenancy agreement relating to property condition, unauthorised occupants, and unconsented pets. Background
Ms Thomson is the sole tenant of a one-bedroom Kāinga Ora property that is approximately three years old. The tenancy commenced on 5 July 2022. The tenancy arose following a mutual agreement between Ms Thomson and Kāinga Ora to relocate her from a previous Kāinga Ora property where she lived with her adult son. That earlier tenancy had deteriorated significantly due to serious and ongoing family harm between the tenant and her son, as well as declining property condition.
The current tenancy was expressly established on the basis that Ms Thomson would be the sole occupier of the new property.
Since May 2024, Kāinga Ora has issued multiple breach notices to Ms Thomson. These relate to failures to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy, the presence of an unauthorised occupant (her son), and the keeping of unconsented pets. Breach notices were issued in May 2024, July 2024, October 2024, January 2025, February 2025, June 2025, and most recently on 28 November 2025 following an annual inspection conducted on 26 November 2025.
The November 2025 inspection recorded that the living room was stacked to the ceiling with belongings, all rooms and the courtyard were heavily cluttered, animals were toileting inside the property, carpets were damaged, and there was an overpowering smell of cat urine detectable from the carpark and footpath. The tenant’s son was again found to be residing at the property.
The inspection also noted that the heat pump was not operational, not due to mechanical fault, but because maintenance contractors were unable to access it due to the volume of belongings. As a result, visible mould growth was present on windows and curtains.
Subsequent attempts to inspect the property on 18 December 2025 and 2 February 2026 were unsuccessful due to lack of access. On the latter occasion, the landlord’s representative heard dogs barking inside the property and again noted strong odours from outside.
The breaches had not been remedied at the time the application was filed, and the landlord now seeks termination and possession of the property.
Kāinga Ora has provided evidence that it offered multiple support services to Ms Thomson, including Vision West and Purapura Whetu. These services were withdrawn due to non-engagement. Kāinga Ora also noted recent communication with Ms Thomson’s social worker suggesting the possibility of respite care. The Landlord’s Position
The landlord submits that the tenant has repeatedly breached the tenancy agreement by failing to keep the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, permitting an unauthorised occupant to reside at the premises, and keeping unconsented pets.
The landlord relies on a clear pattern of escalating and repeated breaches over an extended period, supported by inspection reports, photographs, and breach notices. The landlord submits that the condition of the property has deteriorated to the point where there is potential structural damage, significant health risks, and risk to neighbouring tenants.
As a social housing provider, Kāinga Ora submits that it has taken extensive steps to support the tenant, including repeated warnings, engagement with support agencies, and opportunities to remedy the breaches. Despite these efforts, the breaches persist.
The landlord submits that it would now be inequitable to refuse termination, and that continued occupation poses risks to the tenant, neighbours, and the property itself. The Tenant’s Position
The tenant accepts that the property has been in poor condition but says she has recently undertaken some cleaning inside the property. She states that she requires a skip bin to address the exterior areas and that her health conditions significantly limit her ability to manage the property.
The tenant explained that her son, is assisting her with daily care and cleaning, and that he remains at the property because he has been unable to secure alternative accommodation. She says her son is actively looking for housing.
The tenant asks the Tribunal to consider her health, her reliance on her son for support, and the progress she says she has made. Relevant Law
Section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where the landlord has served a valid notice requiring remedy of the breach and the tenant has failed to comply, and where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
A tenant is required under section 40 of the Act and the tenancy agreement to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, to comply with occupancy limits, and to obtain consent for pets where required.
Termination is a serious remedy. The Tribunal must consider proportionality, the tenant’s circumstances, the landlord’s conduct, and whether lesser remedies would realistically address the situation. Analysis Breaches of the Tenancy Agreement
The evidence establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant has breached clauses 9, 12, and 19 of the tenancy agreement.
The photographic evidence and inspection reports demonstrate that the property has not been kept in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The level of clutter, unsanitary conditions caused by animals toileting inside, and persistent odours are well beyond what could reasonably be described as acceptable.
The presence of the tenant’s son at the property is not disputed. This is a one- bedroom property let on the express basis that the tenant would be the sole occupier. The continued occupation by the tenant’s son is a clear breach.
It is also clear that multiple unconsented pets have been kept at the property over an extended period. Failure to Remedy
The Tribunal places significant weight on the repeated nature of the breach notices. These were not isolated or technical breaches. They occurred repeatedly over approximately 18 months and escalated in seriousness.
Despite numerous opportunities to remedy the breaches, including support interventions, the breaches persisted. The tenant’s recent steps are acknowledged and commended. However, they are partial, recent, and insufficient to remedy the overall situation. Equity and Proportionality
The Tribunal has carefully considered the tenant’s health challenges and reliance on her son for support. These circumstances are treated with genuine empathy. However, they do not override the statutory framework.
Allowing the tenancy to continue in its current state carries real risks: to the tenant’s own health, to neighbouring tenants, and to the landlord’s property. The evidence shows that maintenance cannot be undertaken, hygiene issues persist, and safety concerns remain unresolved.
As a social housing provider, Kāinga Ora has gone to considerable lengths to avoid this outcome. Termination is not sought lightly. At this point, however, the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
The tenancy is terminated under section 56 of the Act.
The tenant is strongly encouraged to continue engaging with her social worker and support services to assist with transition and accommodation options. Suppression
Although the landlord does not seek suppression for itself, it supports suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. Given the sensitive nature of the evidence, including health information and social services involvement, suppression is appropriate and proportionate. Suppression is granted under section 95A of the Act.

Reasons

The hearing was held on 4 February 2026. The landlord attended by video conference. The tenant attended by teleconference.

This is the Tribunal’s decision on an application by Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities (the landlord) seeking termination of Ms Thomson’s tenancy under section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). The landlord alleges repeated and ongoing breaches of the tenancy agreement relating to property condition, unauthorised occupants, and unconsented pets. Background

Ms Thomson is the sole tenant of a one-bedroom Kāinga Ora property that is approximately three years old. The tenancy commenced on 5 July 2022. The tenancy arose following a mutual agreement between Ms Thomson and Kāinga Ora to relocate her from a previous Kāinga Ora property where she lived with her adult son. That earlier tenancy had deteriorated significantly due to serious and ongoing family harm between the tenant and her son, as well as declining property condition.

The current tenancy was expressly established on the basis that Ms Thomson would be the sole occupier of the new property.

Since May 2024, Kāinga Ora has issued multiple breach notices to Ms Thomson. These relate to failures to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy, the presence of an unauthorised occupant (her son), and the keeping of unconsented pets. Breach notices were issued in May 2024, July 2024, October 2024, January 2025, February 2025, June 2025, and most recently on 28 November 2025 following an annual inspection conducted on 26 November 2025.

The November 2025 inspection recorded that the living room was stacked to the ceiling with belongings, all rooms and the courtyard were heavily cluttered, animals were toileting inside the property, carpets were damaged, and there was an overpowering smell of cat urine detectable from the carpark and footpath. The tenant’s son was again found to be residing at the property.

The inspection also noted that the heat pump was not operational, not due to mechanical fault, but because maintenance contractors were unable to access it due to the volume of belongings. As a result, visible mould growth was present on windows and curtains.

Subsequent attempts to inspect the property on 18 December 2025 and 2 February 2026 were unsuccessful due to lack of access. On the latter occasion, the landlord’s representative heard dogs barking inside the property and again noted strong odours from outside.

The breaches had not been remedied at the time the application was filed, and the landlord now seeks termination and possession of the property.

Kāinga Ora has provided evidence that it offered multiple support services to Ms Thomson, including Vision West and Purapura Whetu. These services were withdrawn due to non-engagement. Kāinga Ora also noted recent communication with Ms Thomson’s social worker suggesting the possibility of respite care. The Landlord’s Position

The landlord submits that the tenant has repeatedly breached the tenancy agreement by failing to keep the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, permitting an unauthorised occupant to reside at the premises, and keeping unconsented pets.

The landlord relies on a clear pattern of escalating and repeated breaches over an extended period, supported by inspection reports, photographs, and breach notices. The landlord submits that the condition of the property has deteriorated to the point where there is potential structural damage, significant health risks, and risk to neighbouring tenants.

As a social housing provider, Kāinga Ora submits that it has taken extensive steps to support the tenant, including repeated warnings, engagement with support agencies, and opportunities to remedy the breaches. Despite these efforts, the breaches persist.

The landlord submits that it would now be inequitable to refuse termination, and that continued occupation poses risks to the tenant, neighbours, and the property itself. The Tenant’s Position

The tenant accepts that the property has been in poor condition but says she has recently undertaken some cleaning inside the property. She states that she requires a skip bin to address the exterior areas and that her health conditions significantly limit her ability to manage the property.

The tenant explained that her son, is assisting her with daily care and cleaning, and that he remains at the property because he has been unable to secure alternative accommodation. She says her son is actively looking for housing.

The tenant asks the Tribunal to consider her health, her reliance on her son for support, and the progress she says she has made. Relevant Law

Section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where the landlord has served a valid notice requiring remedy of the breach and the tenant has failed to comply, and where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

A tenant is required under section 40 of the Act and the tenancy agreement to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy, to comply with occupancy limits, and to obtain consent for pets where required.

Termination is a serious remedy. The Tribunal must consider proportionality, the tenant’s circumstances, the landlord’s conduct, and whether lesser remedies would realistically address the situation. Analysis Breaches of the Tenancy Agreement

The evidence establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant has breached clauses 9, 12, and 19 of the tenancy agreement.

The photographic evidence and inspection reports demonstrate that the property has not been kept in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The level of clutter, unsanitary conditions caused by animals toileting inside, and persistent odours are well beyond what could reasonably be described as acceptable.

The presence of the tenant’s son at the property is not disputed. This is a one- bedroom property let on the express basis that the tenant would be the sole occupier. The continued occupation by the tenant’s son is a clear breach.

It is also clear that multiple unconsented pets have been kept at the property over an extended period. Failure to Remedy

The Tribunal places significant weight on the repeated nature of the breach notices. These were not isolated or technical breaches. They occurred repeatedly over approximately 18 months and escalated in seriousness.

Despite numerous opportunities to remedy the breaches, including support interventions, the breaches persisted. The tenant’s recent steps are acknowledged and commended. However, they are partial, recent, and insufficient to remedy the overall situation. Equity and Proportionality

The Tribunal has carefully considered the tenant’s health challenges and reliance on her son for support. These circumstances are treated with genuine empathy. However, they do not override the statutory framework.

Allowing the tenancy to continue in its current state carries real risks: to the tenant’s own health, to neighbouring tenants, and to the landlord’s property. The evidence shows that maintenance cannot be undertaken, hygiene issues persist, and safety concerns remain unresolved.

As a social housing provider, Kāinga Ora has gone to considerable lengths to avoid this outcome. Termination is not sought lightly. At this point, however, the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse termination.

The tenancy is terminated under section 56 of the Act.

The tenant is strongly encouraged to continue engaging with her social worker and support services to assist with transition and accommodation options. Suppression

Although the landlord does not seek suppression for itself, it supports suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. Given the sensitive nature of the evidence, including health information and social services involvement, suppression is appropriate and proportionate. Suppression is granted under section 95A of the Act.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423631 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5423631 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions