Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5426089 — State of repair at 1 Beatrix Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

Published 13 February 2026 · Application 5426089

Dismissed

State of repair

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Dismissed

From published order

Location

Auckland

Tribunal region

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

The tenancy of The Estate of ELLEN ALBERT at 1 Beatrix Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 pm Friday 27 February 2026.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing remotely.
The landlord confirmed at the hearing that its application was for termination of this tenancy after the death of the sole tenant under section 50A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant’s representative has applied for compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises under section 45(1)(b) RTA. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each party must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim has been omitted.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) RTA. Tenant’s representative
The landlord provided a copy of the tenant’s death certificate confirming that the tenant died on 7 October 2025.
The tenant was represented by her son, Jonathan. With the tenant’s consent, he represented his mother in previous proceedings under application number 4666931. He confirmed that the deceased did not leave a written will and no evidence was provided that an application had been made to the High Court for Letters of Administration.
The Courts have held that the personal representatives of an estate can take or continue an action for breaches of contract claims where compensation is claimed. In addition, the definition of tenant in the RTA includes where appropriate, the personal representative of the deceased tenant.
While there is no personal representative of the tenant appointed pursuant to a grant of administration by the High Court, the RTA makes it clear that the Tribunal is to deal with applications in an expeditious manner. For the purposes of the present application, the Tribunal accepts Jonathan’s status as a person able to bring a claim on behalf of his late mother. The landlord’s claim for termination
Section 50A RTA provides a mechanism for the end of the tenancy in the event of the death of a sole tenant. One of those mechanisms is an application for termination to the Tribunal. The landlord confirmed that this was the statutory provision on which its application was based.
Jonathan claimed at the hearing that the Tribunal should not grant the landlord’s application for termination for the following reasons: a. The tenant’s whanau have made an application to the Māori Land Court under section 18(1)(h) Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 to determine whether the premises is or is not Māori customary land or Māori freehold land or General land owned by Māori or General land or Crown land. b. The tenant and her whanau have asked the landlord to transfer the tenancy to his sister, Emma, and the landlord has either not processed the request or unfairly declined the request. c. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.
The landlord gave evidence that: a. The tenant’s whanau requested the landlord to transfer the tenancy to Emma after their mother’s death. This was declined as it was an application for a new tenancy and to grant it would have bypassed the process required by the Ministry of Social Development’s (“MSD”) and allowed Emma to have jumped MSD’s register or list of approved applicants. b. The tenant’s whanau’s second request was declined on the additional ground that Emma did not meet the eligibility criteria for this particular property. Discussion and decision
This is a tenancy of residential premises. Section 4 RTA provides that the RTA applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided. There is a tenancy agreement recording the relationship.
The onus of proof in claiming that an exclusion applies is on the applicant. Jonathan did not argue that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under any exemption provided in the RTA, neither can the Tribunal see that any exemption applies.
As both Jonathan and his mother accepted that the Tribunal had jurisdiction in their prior application, in the absence of some significant change in the tenancy, it would be illogical to determine that the Tribunal now lacked jurisdiction. It would appear that Jonathan believes that the application to the Māori Land Court means that the Tribunal now lacks jurisdiction and it has passed to the Court. This is legally incorrect.
The Tenancy Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether or not a tenancy exists, whereas the Māori Land Court has jurisdiction under section 18 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 to hear and determine any claim as to ownership or possession of Māori freehold land. The Māori Land Court’s jurisdiction is therefore separate from the Tenancy Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The case of Meroiti v Meroiti 2025 Māori Appellate Court Appeal 2024/3 confirms that in principle there is no barrier to a residential tenancy existing on Māori freehold land, and the Tenancy Tribunal determining whether a residential tenancy exists.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the premises are on Māori freehold land. It is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to make such a determination. Jonathan provided evidence that an application has been filed for the Māori Land Court’s determination and it will make its decision in due course. The Tribunal cannot have regard to the existence of this application. It must make its decision based on the facts as they exist now.
The Tribunal accepts that there is a residential tenancy involving the landlord and the tenant as evidenced by the tenancy agreement and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine these applications.
In Kipa v Housing New Zealand DC Auckland CIV-2006-004-1031, 18 May 2006, DCJ Sharp confirmed: “As a matter of law the personal representative of the deceased person, who was the tenant, becomes the tenant but that is purely for administrative purposes and only until the tenanted property is made ready for vacancy and handed over to Housing New Zealand. There cannot be assignment automatically or otherwise to a member of the family of the deceased person.”
The Tribunal therefore concludes that the landlord was under no legal obligation to transfer or offer a new tenancy to Emma. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to involve itself in the internal requirements and procedures of MSD in granting new tenancies.
The landlord’s application for termination is therefore granted. The tenant’s claim for compensation
Jonathan claimed that the remedial work required under Order 4666931 made on 18 April 2024 had not been completed satisfactorily and that his mother’s estate was entitled to compensation.
In support of his application Jonathan provided photographs of a concreted, downstairs basement area that was being used as a laundry and for storage. He claimed that after the repairs undertaken at the end of 2023, the landlord’s contractor came back to do further work. He advised that this additional work did not remedy the issue as evidenced by his photographs.
Jonathan claimed that this matter had been brought to the attention of the landlord’s property manager but supplied no written evidence such as emails or texts. He confirmed that the landlord’s contractor returned to the premises to carry out further work on the basement in June 2025 and that they had “completed the job”.
The landlord advised that the work required under the Order was completed satisfactorily to the best of its knowledge. The landlord pointed out that in paragraph 28 of the Tribunal’s Order issued on 2 October 2024, the Tribunal recorded that the foundation work was completed on 15 December 2023, that compensation for the delay in carrying out the work was awarded to the tenant and no order was made for any further work.
The landlord gave evidence that the only record of any later complaint about the basement area was in June 2025 but that this was attended to by its contractor as Jonathan confirmed and that no further complaints were received. Discussion and decision
The landlord’s obligation under section 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention. The tenant has responsibility under section 40(1)(d) RTA to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of the need for any repairs.
The evidence before the Tribunal confirms that the remedial work in the basement was completed in December 2023 and further remedial work was completed in June 2025. It also confirms that the tenant was awarded compensation for the delay in completing the first works under the tenant’s prior application.
Jonathan has not supplied any written or supporting evidence that the tenant complained of further work being required after June 2025. The landlord has no record of any further complaint being made.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, Jonathan has not persuaded the Tribunal that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises because he has not persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the landlord was notified of any remedial work being required.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

State of repair Auckland

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s18, s18(1), s4, s40(1), s45, s45(1), s50A, s50A(2), s85(2)

Key findings

Dispute theme: state of repair

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5426089?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of The Estate of ELLEN ALBERT at 1 Beatrix Street, Avondale,

How much money was awarded in case 5426089?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5426089?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5426089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13108919-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing remotely.

The landlord confirmed at the hearing that its application was for termination of this tenancy after the death of the sole tenant under section 50A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The tenant’s representative has applied for compensation for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises under section 45(1)(b) RTA. Standard of proof and evidence

In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, each party must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.

The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.

While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim has been omitted.

By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.

It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.

The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) RTA. Tenant’s representative

The landlord provided a copy of the tenant’s death certificate confirming that the tenant died on 7 October 2025.

The tenant was represented by her son, Jonathan. With the tenant’s consent, he represented his mother in previous proceedings under application number 4666931. He confirmed that the deceased did not leave a written will and no evidence was provided that an application had been made to the High Court for Letters of Administration.

The Courts have held that the personal representatives of an estate can take or continue an action for breaches of contract claims where compensation is claimed. In addition, the definition of tenant in the RTA includes where appropriate, the personal representative of the deceased tenant.

While there is no personal representative of the tenant appointed pursuant to a grant of administration by the High Court, the RTA makes it clear that the Tribunal is to deal with applications in an expeditious manner. For the purposes of the present application, the Tribunal accepts Jonathan’s status as a person able to bring a claim on behalf of his late mother. The landlord’s claim for termination

Section 50A RTA provides a mechanism for the end of the tenancy in the event of the death of a sole tenant. One of those mechanisms is an application for termination to the Tribunal. The landlord confirmed that this was the statutory provision on which its application was based.

Jonathan claimed at the hearing that the Tribunal should not grant the landlord’s application for termination for the following reasons: a. The tenant’s whanau have made an application to the Māori Land Court under section 18(1)(h) Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 to determine whether the premises is or is not Māori customary land or Māori freehold land or General land owned by Māori or General land or Crown land. b. The tenant and her whanau have asked the landlord to transfer the tenancy to his sister, Emma, and the landlord has either not processed the request or unfairly declined the request. c. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.

The landlord gave evidence that: a. The tenant’s whanau requested the landlord to transfer the tenancy to Emma after their mother’s death. This was declined as it was an application for a new tenancy and to grant it would have bypassed the process required by the Ministry of Social Development’s (“MSD”) and allowed Emma to have jumped MSD’s register or list of approved applicants. b. The tenant’s whanau’s second request was declined on the additional ground that Emma did not meet the eligibility criteria for this particular property. Discussion and decision

This is a tenancy of residential premises. Section 4 RTA provides that the RTA applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided. There is a tenancy agreement recording the relationship.

The onus of proof in claiming that an exclusion applies is on the applicant. Jonathan did not argue that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under any exemption provided in the RTA, neither can the Tribunal see that any exemption applies.

As both Jonathan and his mother accepted that the Tribunal had jurisdiction in their prior application, in the absence of some significant change in the tenancy, it would be illogical to determine that the Tribunal now lacked jurisdiction. It would appear that Jonathan believes that the application to the Māori Land Court means that the Tribunal now lacks jurisdiction and it has passed to the Court. This is legally incorrect.

The Tenancy Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether or not a tenancy exists, whereas the Māori Land Court has jurisdiction under section 18 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 to hear and determine any claim as to ownership or possession of Māori freehold land. The Māori Land Court’s jurisdiction is therefore separate from the Tenancy Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

The case of Meroiti v Meroiti 2025 Māori Appellate Court Appeal 2024/3 confirms that in principle there is no barrier to a residential tenancy existing on Māori freehold land, and the Tenancy Tribunal determining whether a residential tenancy exists.

There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the premises are on Māori freehold land. It is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to make such a determination. Jonathan provided evidence that an application has been filed for the Māori Land Court’s determination and it will make its decision in due course. The Tribunal cannot have regard to the existence of this application. It must make its decision based on the facts as they exist now.

The Tribunal accepts that there is a residential tenancy involving the landlord and the tenant as evidenced by the tenancy agreement and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine these applications.

In Kipa v Housing New Zealand DC Auckland CIV-2006-004-1031, 18 May 2006, DCJ Sharp confirmed: “As a matter of law the personal representative of the deceased person, who was the tenant, becomes the tenant but that is purely for administrative purposes and only until the tenanted property is made ready for vacancy and handed over to Housing New Zealand. There cannot be assignment automatically or otherwise to a member of the family of the deceased person.”

The Tribunal therefore concludes that the landlord was under no legal obligation to transfer or offer a new tenancy to Emma. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to involve itself in the internal requirements and procedures of MSD in granting new tenancies.

The landlord’s application for termination is therefore granted. The tenant’s claim for compensation

Jonathan claimed that the remedial work required under Order 4666931 made on 18 April 2024 had not been completed satisfactorily and that his mother’s estate was entitled to compensation.

In support of his application Jonathan provided photographs of a concreted, downstairs basement area that was being used as a laundry and for storage. He claimed that after the repairs undertaken at the end of 2023, the landlord’s contractor came back to do further work. He advised that this additional work did not remedy the issue as evidenced by his photographs.

Jonathan claimed that this matter had been brought to the attention of the landlord’s property manager but supplied no written evidence such as emails or texts. He confirmed that the landlord’s contractor returned to the premises to carry out further work on the basement in June 2025 and that they had “completed the job”.

The landlord advised that the work required under the Order was completed satisfactorily to the best of its knowledge. The landlord pointed out that in paragraph 28 of the Tribunal’s Order issued on 2 October 2024, the Tribunal recorded that the foundation work was completed on 15 December 2023, that compensation for the delay in carrying out the work was awarded to the tenant and no order was made for any further work.

The landlord gave evidence that the only record of any later complaint about the basement area was in June 2025 but that this was attended to by its contractor as Jonathan confirmed and that no further complaints were received. Discussion and decision

The landlord’s obligation under section 45 RTA is to investigate and repair a defect brought to its attention. The tenant has responsibility under section 40(1)(d) RTA to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of the need for any repairs.

The evidence before the Tribunal confirms that the remedial work in the basement was completed in December 2023 and further remedial work was completed in June 2025. It also confirms that the tenant was awarded compensation for the delay in completing the first works under the tenant’s prior application.

Jonathan has not supplied any written or supporting evidence that the tenant complained of further work being required after June 2025. The landlord has no record of any further complaint being made.

On the evidence before the Tribunal, Jonathan has not persuaded the Tribunal that the landlord has failed to maintain the premises because he has not persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the landlord was notified of any remedial work being required.

The tenant’s claim is dismissed.