What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5433709?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5433709?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5433709?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5433709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13628148-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5433709?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5433709?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5433709?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5433709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13628148-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 26, 136 Otaika Road, Raumanga, Whangarei 0110, Otaika Tenancy Tribunal Case 5433709 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Background

The adjournment order dated 17 April 2026 sets out the background to Mr Montreal’s application.

The second hearing took place on 20 May 2026. Ms Simpson represented Mr Montreal with the consent of the Tribunal. Ms Pomare represented Otaika MC Ltd. Evidence of Ms Patrina Sullivan

The principal reason for the adjournment of the first hearing was to allow the Tribunal to hear evidence from Ms Sullivan.

Ms Sullivan gave evidence by phone at the hearing on 20 May 2026.

Ms Sullivan said she has helped Mr Montreal several times in the past with removing clutter from his cabin.

Ms Sullivan said that: a. Mr Montreal contacted her and told her that he was being evicted from his cabin. b. She came to site with a trailer. c. Mr Montreal was not on site when she first arrived. She began tidying up some of the mess that was outside the cabin. d. At some point, Mr Montreal arrived. Mr Montreal remained on site whilst she sorted through and moved Mr Montreal’s belongings. This took at least one day, possibly two. e. In her view, what was there was rubbish with no commercial value. Ms Sullivan noted that many of the items were infested with cockroaches or rats. f. Mr Montreal was reluctant to throw anything away. g. Mr Pomare was also on site, and he assisted. Findings

My finding is that the landlord did not have grounds to issue a notice for the immediate termination of Mr Montreal’s tenancy.

Mr Montreal’s hoarding caused or contributed to damage to the premises (the flooring), and the fact that there was no room to move inside the cabin arguably endangered Mr Montreal.

However, the power to give a notice for immediate termination is intended to be limited to exceptional and urgent circumstances, and it is appropriate to read the power narrowly. Mr Montreal’s cabin had been in this condition for many years. There was no relevant change in November 2025 that create an urgent risk of damage to premises or of harm to people.

Rather than an immediate termination, the landlord could have issued a 28-day termination notice. This would have been a lawful notice, and it would have also given Mr Montreal some more time to get organised in terms of re-locating his belongings.

However I accept that: a. The landlord did not give the termination notice knowing that they had no legal grounds. 1 The landlord genuinely understood that they had grounds for immediate termination, and (as noted above) there was at least some basis for this understanding. b. The landlord was motivated by genuine concern for Mr Montreal and for their other tenants. The state of Mr Montreal’s cabin was very bad. The situation was not sustainable.

Mr Montreal’s claim is based on an argument that the landlord disposed of his belongings without his consent. His claim seeks the value of those belongings.

On the evidence provided to me I am satisfied that the landlord did not improperly dispose of Mr Montreal’s belongings. The process of moving and sorting Mr Montreal’s belongings was carried out by Ms Sullivan under the direction of Mr Montreal. Ms Sullivan’s only motivation was to help Mr Montreal.

Because it is not proven that the landlord improperly disposed of Mr Montreal’s belongings, Mr Montreal’s claim must be dismissed.

Reasons

Background