How much money was awarded in case 5465188?

Ossession Is Granted To [The Landlor…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465188?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13521441-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5465188?

Ossession Is Granted To [The Landlor…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465188?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13521441-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5465188 — 14-day notice

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465188 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5465188. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ossession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm today Thursday 30 April 2026. 3. The tenant is to pay the landlord	$28.00		ossession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm today Thursday 30 April 2026. 3. The tenant is to pay the landlord

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

The tenancy of Allan James Anderson at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm today Thursday 30 April 2026.

The tenant is to pay the landlord $28.00 immediately being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video.

The tenant did not join the hearing by following the instructions in the Notice of Hearing. The tenant was telephoned on three numbers and joined the hearing on the last attempt.

The tenant explained his response to the landlord’s application but would not stop talking and talking over the Adjudicator to such an extent that the hearing could not proceed. Having been warned about his behaviour, he persisted and was removed from the hearing so that it could continue. The landlord’s claim

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

The landlord provided the following evidence: a. Copies of 14-day breach letters requiring the tenant to remove rubbish from the premises dated 9 February, 24 February, 10 March, 27 March and 21 April 2026. b. Photographs of the outside of the premises from inspections on 24 March, 21 April and 27 April 2026 showing an extensive accumulation of rubbish and chattels. c. An email from the local council dated 9 April 2026 regarding the accumulation of rubbish at the premises and requiring its removal.

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) RTA.

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.

The landlord’s evidence shows that the tenant has breached his obligations by accumulating a substantial collection of rubbish in the front yard of the premises that is both an eyesore and a health hazard.

The landlord has served five 14-day notice on the tenant over a period of three months and the tenant has not remedied the breach.

For the following reasons it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy: a. The breach has been intentionally committed and continued by the tenant. b. The tenant has had more than adequate opportunity to address the issue and remove the accumulation of rubbish and chattels. The landlord has followed the correct steps in issuing notices to the tenant and has allowed him over two months to remedy the breach. c. The breach is persistent. This tenancy started on17 December 2025 or just four and a half months. The tenant has been in breach of his obligations for two and a half months. d. Having failed to remedy the breach or, at the hearing, acknowledge that the issue was serious and required his urgent action, the Tribunal has no confidence that the tenant will remedy the breach and will not allow the same issue to arise in the future. The landlord’s evidence was that the situation is getting worse with more rubbish being accumulated. e. The Tribunal considered making a conditional termination order allowing the tenant a final opportunity to remedy the breach, but given the tenant’s attitude at the hearing and his failure to take any steps in response to the landlord’s breach letters, the Tribunal accepts that termination of the tenancy is a proportional response to the persistent and serious breach.

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5465188. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ossession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm today Thursday 30 April 2026. 3. The tenant is to pay the landlord	$28.00		ossession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm today Thursday 30 April 2026. 3. The tenant is to pay the landlord

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Allan James Anderson at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm today Thursday 30 April 2026.
The tenant is to pay the landlord $28.00 immediately being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video.
The tenant did not join the hearing by following the instructions in the Notice of Hearing. The tenant was telephoned on three numbers and joined the hearing on the last attempt.
The tenant explained his response to the landlord’s application but would not stop talking and talking over the Adjudicator to such an extent that the hearing could not proceed. Having been warned about his behaviour, he persisted and was removed from the hearing so that it could continue. The landlord’s claim
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. See section 40(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord provided the following evidence: a. Copies of 14-day breach letters requiring the tenant to remove rubbish from the premises dated 9 February, 24 February, 10 March, 27 March and 21 April 2026. b. Photographs of the outside of the premises from inspections on 24 March, 21 April and 27 April 2026 showing an extensive accumulation of rubbish and chattels. c. An email from the local council dated 9 April 2026 regarding the accumulation of rubbish at the premises and requiring its removal.

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) RTA.
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.
The landlord’s evidence shows that the tenant has breached his obligations by accumulating a substantial collection of rubbish in the front yard of the premises that is both an eyesore and a health hazard.
The landlord has served five 14-day notice on the tenant over a period of three months and the tenant has not remedied the breach.
For the following reasons it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy: a. The breach has been intentionally committed and continued by the tenant. b. The tenant has had more than adequate opportunity to address the issue and remove the accumulation of rubbish and chattels. The landlord has followed the correct steps in issuing notices to the tenant and has allowed him over two months to remedy the breach. c. The breach is persistent. This tenancy started on17 December 2025 or just four and a half months. The tenant has been in breach of his obligations for two and a half months. d. Having failed to remedy the breach or, at the hearing, acknowledge that the issue was serious and required his urgent action, the Tribunal has no confidence that the tenant will remedy the breach and will not allow the same issue to arise in the future. The landlord’s evidence was that the situation is getting worse with more rubbish being accumulated. e. The Tribunal considered making a conditional termination order allowing the tenant a final opportunity to remedy the breach, but given the tenant’s attitude at the hearing and his failure to take any steps in response to the landlord’s breach letters, the Tribunal accepts that termination of the tenancy is a proportional response to the persistent and serious breach.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465188 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465188 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions