What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5449388 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy at 29 Anderson Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410 is

How much money was awarded in case 5449388?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5449388?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5449388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13843062-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5449388 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy at 29 Anderson Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410 is

How much money was awarded in case 5449388?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5449388?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5449388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13843062-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Anderson Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5449388 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy at 29 Anderson Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410 is terminated and possession granted to Kainga Ora Homes and Communities at 11am Friday 17 July 2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing remotely as requested. There was no appearance for the tenant.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because the tenant has failed to comply with notices to remedy breaches of her obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. In particular, she has not kept the premises reasonably clean and tidy, repaired a window, or allowed the landlord access to the property.
A hearing of the application took place via video on 20 May 2026 before Adjudicator Brennan. The tenant did not attend. The matter was adjourned to allow the tenant a further opportunity to remedy the breaches. The adjudicator made the following work order:
The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed as soon as possible but no later than Sunday 28 June 2026: a. Mow the lawn and remove all grass clippings, b. Trim edges of lawns and pathways, c.Remove all rubbish and broken items from the front driveway, d. Remove all rubbish and items from the front door area and ramp, e. Reglaze (repair) the broken window in the lounge, and f.Remove all writing on walls throughout the house, repaint if needed.
The tenant is to allow the landlord access, after appropriate notice, to conduct an inspection inside the premises.
The hearing was adjourned to be heard before Adjudicator Brennan.
On 5 June 2026 the tenant contacted Tenancy Services asking for notices to be served by mail. She said that she could not attend via video because she does not have a computer, and she has had phone problems. She preferred a face- to-face hearing.
The hearing was therefore set down for a hearing in person in Palmerston North for 2pm this afternoon. The notices of hearing were issued on 8 June 2026.
When there was no appearance from the tenant by 2.07 this afternoon, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
Earlier this week, Kainga Ora asked if they could attend via video. That was approved. There being no video equipment available this afternoon, Mr van Gent was phoned.
Although Adjudicator Brennan has previously heard this matter, he did not determine the issue of termination, instead issuing work orders and adjourning the application. I have considered the evidence filed before the May hearing, along with the evidence filed today.

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.
Under section 40(1)(c) of the Act, the tenant is required to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Kainga Ora say that the tenant has consistently refused to mow the lawns, maintain the section, repair damage, or remove writing from interior walls. Repeated attempts to engage her, offer support and resolve the issues have been unsuccessful.
The landlord provided a timeline. In particular, on 28 March 2025 granted requiring tenant to mow lawns by 11 April 2025 or pay $1,051.81 for the landlord to complete the work. The landlord says that the tenant refused to complete required work or allow contractor access. She was advised she could no longer obstruct required maintenance and on 15 May the contractors completed the work.
The landlord provided other information about events over the past year, including staff interactions with the tenant. Some of this is hearsay, but the landlord produced copies of notices to remedy as follows: a. 19 May 2025 b. 11 July 2025 c. 1 October 2025 d. 16 December 2025 e. 15 January 2026.
The landlord also provided the following photos: a. Inspection report and photos 7 January 2026 b. Updated photos 6 May 2026. c. External inspection 1 July 2026.
The last notice to remedy was issued on 15 January 2026.
The photos from the 7 January 2026 report show the property was very overgrown and large rubbish items and bikes were under the carport and there was rubbish on the path. This is all at the front of the property.
On 15 January 2026 the landlord issued the notice to remedy. The tenant was asked to: -Mow the lawn and remove all grass clipping -Trim edges of lawns and pathways -Remove all rubbish and broken items from front driveway -Remove all rubbish and items from the front door area and ramp -Reglaze the window in the lounge -Remove all the writing on the walls throughout the house, repaint where needed.
An application was filed on 19 February 2026
Photos taken on 6 May 2026 show a mattress and other items on the ramp to the front door. There is rubbish, a shopping trolley and at least 6 bikes in the carport. The photos show very overgrown lawns, paths and driveway.
On 20 May the above work order was issued. a. Mow the lawn and remove all grass clippings, b. Trim edges of lawns and pathways, c. Remove all rubbish and broken items from the front driveway, d. Remove all rubbish and items from the front door area and ramp, e. Reglaze (repair) the broken window in the lounge, and f. Remove all writing on walls throughout the house, repaint if needed.
The photographs taken on 1 July 2026 show that since the work order was made on 20 May, it is evident that part of the front lawn has been mowed, but the paths remain overgrown, and the driveway is barely visible. It appears that a pile of green waste that was on one side of the car port has been moved on to the driveway. The mattress on the ramp to the front door has been moved further up and is upright, inhibiting access to the front door. Rubbish remains on the ramp and around the property. There is a window missing.
There are no photos of the inside of the property, and so it is unknown if the writing remains on the internal walls, but as far as the outside is concerned, the tenant has not complied with the breach notice issued on 15 January 2026 or with the work order issued on 20 May 2026.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

The landlord seeks termination because: a. They are unable to maintain their property. b. The broken window is letting rain in, which be causing deterioration of walls and floors. c. The landlord’s asset is deteriorating. d. There is a risk to the landlord’s reputation if it is thought that they do not care for their properties.
For the tenant’s information, Adjudicator Brennan set out the following guidance on whether it would would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy under section 56: 1 a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. 1 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
Based on the content of five the breach notices issued since May 2025, I am satisfied that: a. There have been persistent breaches after warnings. b. The tenant has failed to comply the Tribunal’s work order. c. The ongoing failure to remedy is not inadvertent. The notices have been issued for over 12 months now. d. The history of non-compliance means that the tenant is unlikely to comply with any further notices or orders. e. The landlord has provided multiple opportunities to the tenant. f. Termination is a proportionate response to the breaches. It is not reasonable that the landlord’s property continue in this state.
Accordingly, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy and the tenancy will be terminated.
Because the tenant does not have a computer, I have allowed two weeks to enable the notice to be mailed to her. The tenancy will terminate and possession is granted to the landlord at 11am Friday 17 July 2026.

Order

The tenancy at 29 Anderson Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410 is terminated and possession granted to Kainga Ora Homes and Communities at 11am Friday 17 July 2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing remotely as requested. There was no appearance for the tenant.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy because the tenant has failed to comply with notices to remedy breaches of her obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. In particular, she has not kept the premises reasonably clean and tidy, repaired a window, or allowed the landlord access to the property.
A hearing of the application took place via video on 20 May 2026 before Adjudicator Brennan. The tenant did not attend. The matter was adjourned to allow the tenant a further opportunity to remedy the breaches. The adjudicator made the following work order:
The tenant must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed as soon as possible but no later than Sunday 28 June 2026: a. Mow the lawn and remove all grass clippings, b. Trim edges of lawns and pathways, c.Remove all rubbish and broken items from the front driveway, d. Remove all rubbish and items from the front door area and ramp, e. Reglaze (repair) the broken window in the lounge, and f.Remove all writing on walls throughout the house, repaint if needed.
The tenant is to allow the landlord access, after appropriate notice, to conduct an inspection inside the premises.
The hearing was adjourned to be heard before Adjudicator Brennan.
On 5 June 2026 the tenant contacted Tenancy Services asking for notices to be served by mail. She said that she could not attend via video because she does not have a computer, and she has had phone problems. She preferred a face- to-face hearing.
The hearing was therefore set down for a hearing in person in Palmerston North for 2pm this afternoon. The notices of hearing were issued on 8 June 2026.
When there was no appearance from the tenant by 2.07 this afternoon, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
Earlier this week, Kainga Ora asked if they could attend via video. That was approved. There being no video equipment available this afternoon, Mr van Gent was phoned.
Although Adjudicator Brennan has previously heard this matter, he did not determine the issue of termination, instead issuing work orders and adjourning the application. I have considered the evidence filed before the May hearing, along with the evidence filed today.

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.
Under section 40(1)(c) of the Act, the tenant is required to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. Kainga Ora say that the tenant has consistently refused to mow the lawns, maintain the section, repair damage, or remove writing from interior walls. Repeated attempts to engage her, offer support and resolve the issues have been unsuccessful.
The landlord provided a timeline. In particular, on 28 March 2025 granted requiring tenant to mow lawns by 11 April 2025 or pay $1,051.81 for the landlord to complete the work. The landlord says that the tenant refused to complete required work or allow contractor access. She was advised she could no longer obstruct required maintenance and on 15 May the contractors completed the work.
The landlord provided other information about events over the past year, including staff interactions with the tenant. Some of this is hearsay, but the landlord produced copies of notices to remedy as follows: a. 19 May 2025 b. 11 July 2025 c. 1 October 2025 d. 16 December 2025 e. 15 January 2026.
The landlord also provided the following photos: a. Inspection report and photos 7 January 2026 b. Updated photos 6 May 2026. c. External inspection 1 July 2026.
The last notice to remedy was issued on 15 January 2026.
The photos from the 7 January 2026 report show the property was very overgrown and large rubbish items and bikes were under the carport and there was rubbish on the path. This is all at the front of the property.
On 15 January 2026 the landlord issued the notice to remedy. The tenant was asked to: -Mow the lawn and remove all grass clipping -Trim edges of lawns and pathways -Remove all rubbish and broken items from front driveway -Remove all rubbish and items from the front door area and ramp -Reglaze the window in the lounge -Remove all the writing on the walls throughout the house, repaint where needed.
An application was filed on 19 February 2026
Photos taken on 6 May 2026 show a mattress and other items on the ramp to the front door. There is rubbish, a shopping trolley and at least 6 bikes in the carport. The photos show very overgrown lawns, paths and driveway.
On 20 May the above work order was issued. a. Mow the lawn and remove all grass clippings, b. Trim edges of lawns and pathways, c. Remove all rubbish and broken items from the front driveway, d. Remove all rubbish and items from the front door area and ramp, e. Reglaze (repair) the broken window in the lounge, and f. Remove all writing on walls throughout the house, repaint if needed.
The photographs taken on 1 July 2026 show that since the work order was made on 20 May, it is evident that part of the front lawn has been mowed, but the paths remain overgrown, and the driveway is barely visible. It appears that a pile of green waste that was on one side of the car port has been moved on to the driveway. The mattress on the ramp to the front door has been moved further up and is upright, inhibiting access to the front door. Rubbish remains on the ramp and around the property. There is a window missing.
There are no photos of the inside of the property, and so it is unknown if the writing remains on the internal walls, but as far as the outside is concerned, the tenant has not complied with the breach notice issued on 15 January 2026 or with the work order issued on 20 May 2026.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

The landlord seeks termination because: a. They are unable to maintain their property. b. The broken window is letting rain in, which be causing deterioration of walls and floors. c. The landlord’s asset is deteriorating. d. There is a risk to the landlord’s reputation if it is thought that they do not care for their properties.
For the tenant’s information, Adjudicator Brennan set out the following guidance on whether it would would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy under section 56: 1 a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. 1 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
Based on the content of five the breach notices issued since May 2025, I am satisfied that: a. There have been persistent breaches after warnings. b. The tenant has failed to comply the Tribunal’s work order. c. The ongoing failure to remedy is not inadvertent. The notices have been issued for over 12 months now. d. The history of non-compliance means that the tenant is unlikely to comply with any further notices or orders. e. The landlord has provided multiple opportunities to the tenant. f. Termination is a proportionate response to the breaches. It is not reasonable that the landlord’s property continue in this state.
Accordingly, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy and the tenancy will be terminated.
Because the tenant does not have a computer, I have allowed two weeks to enable the notice to be mailed to her. The tenancy will terminate and possession is granted to the landlord at 11am Friday 17 July 2026.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5449388 — 14-day notice at 29 Anderson Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5449388 — 14-day notice at 29 Anderson Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions