What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439514 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of [The tenant/s] name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5439514?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439514?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13193446-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5439514 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of [The tenant/s] name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5439514?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439514?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13193446-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5439514 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5439514 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

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 10 am, Thursday, 26 February 2026. DescriptionLandlord Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$28.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$28.00

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by video conference.
[The landlord’s representative] appeared on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant, [The tenant], did not appear. I attempted to reach her by phone, but this was unsuccessful. [The landlord’s representative] also informed me that she did not expect [The tenant] to attend the hearing. Communication had been through [The tenant]’s uncle, [The tenant’s uncle].
Accordingly, I was satisfied that the hearing should proceed in [The tenant]’s absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Background
The tenancy commenced on 15 July 2024. The premises are a public housing property owned by Kāinga Ora.
The landlord relies on a 14-day notice to remedy dated 8 January 2026 requiring the tenant to return to reside at the premises by 28 January 2026.
The written submission filed by the landlord sets out a detailed chronology of events. The landlord submits that from October 2025 the tenant had been “safety planned” to [Location 1 suppressed] following family harm issues and Oranga Tamariki involvement. The children had been uplifted and the tenant relocated to [Location 1 suppressed] where she has family support.
[The landlord’s representative] clarified at the hearing that Kāinga Ora was initially advised the tenant would be returning to [Location 2 suppressed] once matters were resolved. For that reason, the landlord allowed the tenancy to continue for a period. However, the tenant did not return.
[The landlord’s representative] advised that: a. The tenant confirmed in November 2025 that she was staying in [Location 1 suppressed]. b. Kāinga Ora attempted to assist her by initiating a potential Business Initiated Transfer (BIT), meaning Kāinga Ora would facilitate a transfer to alternative housing in the relevant area. c. That process could not proceed because the tenant did not maintain contact or provide the necessary documentation. d. At a further inspection conducted yesterday (25 February 2026), the tenant was still not residing at the premises. Her uncle, who has been staying there intermittently, told Kāinga Ora staff that the tenant has no intention of returning and that he is waiting to be told when to vacate.
The earlier inspections recorded that the property was largely empty, with only minimal belongings present, and that the uncle was staying there to prevent squatters.
[The landlord’s representative] confirmed that the landlord relies on s 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) and seeks termination effective immediately.

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 to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. Analysis
I am satisfied that the tenant has not resided at the premises since at least October 2025. The evidence demonstrates a prolonged absence. The property has largely been unoccupied, aside from intermittent presence by the tenant’s uncle to prevent unlawful occupation.
Although the tenant’s relocation arose in the context of family harm and Oranga Tamariki involvement, the obligation to reside at the premises remained. Kāinga Ora attempted to work with the tenant and explored a Business Initiated Transfer so that she could be rehoused in [Location 1 suppressed]. That process did not progress due to lack of engagement from the tenant.
A 14-day notice to remedy was issued on 8 January 2026 requiring the tenant to return by 28 January 2026 . The breach has not been remedied.
The remaining question is whether the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
This is a public housing property. Kāinga Ora manages housing for persons in significant need. Continued holding of a property without occupation, particularly over several months, undermines the purpose of public housing allocation. While rent has continued to be paid, payment alone does not satisfy the fundamental obligation to reside in the premises.
The absence has been lengthy, ongoing, and by the landlord’s latest inspection, the tenant has no intention of returning. In those circumstances, the breach goes to the heart of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the breach is of such a nature and extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
Accordingly, the tenancy is terminated. Filing fee
Because Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities has wholly succeeded with the application, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Under s 94A(4) of the Act, the Tribunal may make an order prohibiting the publication of the name of any party on its own initiative.
I have considered whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details is appropriate in this case.
I understand that [The tenant] relocated to [Location 1 suppressed] in the context of family harm issues and Oranga Tamariki involvement. [The landlord’s representative] advised that there had been family harm between the parties and that the children were uplifted by Oranga Tamariki. While [The landlord’s representative] indicated that the harm involved both parties, there is no direct evidence before me enabling me to make findings as to the precise circumstances or the extent of [The tenant]’s role.
What is clear is that children have been removed from the property and are in the care of Oranga Tamariki. Publication of the tenant’s name in connection with these circumstances carries a real risk that the children could be identified.
In cases involving family harm and vulnerable children, I must take particular care to avoid unintended harm arising from publication. Even where the primary proceeding concerns non-occupation, the surrounding circumstances are relevant to whether suppression is justified.
In the absence of clear evidence establishing that [The tenant] was not a victim of family harm, and given the involvement of Oranga Tamariki and the removal of the children, I am satisfied that publication of her name may cause undue hardship and may risk identification of children in state care.
Accordingly, pursuant to s 94A of the Act, I order that the name and identifying particulars of the tenant, [The tenant], are suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5439514 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

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 10 am, Thursday, 26 February 2026. DescriptionLandlord Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$28.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$28.00

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by video conference.
[The landlord’s representative] appeared on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant, [The tenant], did not appear. I attempted to reach her by phone, but this was unsuccessful. [The landlord’s representative] also informed me that she did not expect [The tenant] to attend the hearing. Communication had been through [The tenant]’s uncle, [The tenant’s uncle].
Accordingly, I was satisfied that the hearing should proceed in [The tenant]’s absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Background
The tenancy commenced on 15 July 2024. The premises are a public housing property owned by Kāinga Ora.
The landlord relies on a 14-day notice to remedy dated 8 January 2026 requiring the tenant to return to reside at the premises by 28 January 2026.
The written submission filed by the landlord sets out a detailed chronology of events. The landlord submits that from October 2025 the tenant had been “safety planned” to [Location 1 suppressed] following family harm issues and Oranga Tamariki involvement. The children had been uplifted and the tenant relocated to [Location 1 suppressed] where she has family support.
[The landlord’s representative] clarified at the hearing that Kāinga Ora was initially advised the tenant would be returning to [Location 2 suppressed] once matters were resolved. For that reason, the landlord allowed the tenancy to continue for a period. However, the tenant did not return.
[The landlord’s representative] advised that: a. The tenant confirmed in November 2025 that she was staying in [Location 1 suppressed]. b. Kāinga Ora attempted to assist her by initiating a potential Business Initiated Transfer (BIT), meaning Kāinga Ora would facilitate a transfer to alternative housing in the relevant area. c. That process could not proceed because the tenant did not maintain contact or provide the necessary documentation. d. At a further inspection conducted yesterday (25 February 2026), the tenant was still not residing at the premises. Her uncle, who has been staying there intermittently, told Kāinga Ora staff that the tenant has no intention of returning and that he is waiting to be told when to vacate.
The earlier inspections recorded that the property was largely empty, with only minimal belongings present, and that the uncle was staying there to prevent squatters.
[The landlord’s representative] confirmed that the landlord relies on s 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) and seeks termination effective immediately.

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 to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. Analysis
I am satisfied that the tenant has not resided at the premises since at least October 2025. The evidence demonstrates a prolonged absence. The property has largely been unoccupied, aside from intermittent presence by the tenant’s uncle to prevent unlawful occupation.
Although the tenant’s relocation arose in the context of family harm and Oranga Tamariki involvement, the obligation to reside at the premises remained. Kāinga Ora attempted to work with the tenant and explored a Business Initiated Transfer so that she could be rehoused in [Location 1 suppressed]. That process did not progress due to lack of engagement from the tenant.
A 14-day notice to remedy was issued on 8 January 2026 requiring the tenant to return by 28 January 2026 . The breach has not been remedied.
The remaining question is whether the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
This is a public housing property. Kāinga Ora manages housing for persons in significant need. Continued holding of a property without occupation, particularly over several months, undermines the purpose of public housing allocation. While rent has continued to be paid, payment alone does not satisfy the fundamental obligation to reside in the premises.
The absence has been lengthy, ongoing, and by the landlord’s latest inspection, the tenant has no intention of returning. In those circumstances, the breach goes to the heart of the tenancy.
I am satisfied that the breach is of such a nature and extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
Accordingly, the tenancy is terminated. Filing fee
Because Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities has wholly succeeded with the application, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Under s 94A(4) of the Act, the Tribunal may make an order prohibiting the publication of the name of any party on its own initiative.
I have considered whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details is appropriate in this case.
I understand that [The tenant] relocated to [Location 1 suppressed] in the context of family harm issues and Oranga Tamariki involvement. [The landlord’s representative] advised that there had been family harm between the parties and that the children were uplifted by Oranga Tamariki. While [The landlord’s representative] indicated that the harm involved both parties, there is no direct evidence before me enabling me to make findings as to the precise circumstances or the extent of [The tenant]’s role.
What is clear is that children have been removed from the property and are in the care of Oranga Tamariki. Publication of the tenant’s name in connection with these circumstances carries a real risk that the children could be identified.
In cases involving family harm and vulnerable children, I must take particular care to avoid unintended harm arising from publication. Even where the primary proceeding concerns non-occupation, the surrounding circumstances are relevant to whether suppression is justified.
In the absence of clear evidence establishing that [The tenant] was not a victim of family harm, and given the involvement of Oranga Tamariki and the removal of the children, I am satisfied that publication of her name may cause undue hardship and may risk identification of children in state care.
Accordingly, pursuant to s 94A of the Act, I order that the name and identifying particulars of the tenant, [The tenant], are suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439514 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439514 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

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