What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5482229?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Toby Verbeek Bourke at Unit/Flat Apartment 203, 314 Taranaki

How much money was awarded in case 5482229?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5482229?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5482229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13600024-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5482229?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Toby Verbeek Bourke at Unit/Flat Apartment 203, 314 Taranaki

How much money was awarded in case 5482229?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5482229?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5482229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13600024-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Apartment 203, 314 Taranaki Street, Mount Cook, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5482229 — 14-day notice

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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 (very unfair) to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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 tenant has breached his obligations by not keeping the tenancy premises reasonably clean and tidy and free of rubbish. The tenant has also placed a number of items in the communal hallway, which is a fire egress route.

The landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant on 10 December 2025 and on 8 January 2026. The first notice asked the tenant to remove the items stored outside his front door, in the common area. The second notice asked the tenant to clear the unit of excessive items and return the unit to a treasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required time frames.

I considered an application in March and made work orders that the tenant remove the items in the hallway, remove the items piled in the unit, and return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. I have been provided with photos taken on 14 April 2026 and I can see that nothing has changed.

The District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy. These are: • The history of the tenancy • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed • The conduct of the landlord • The gravity of the breach • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

History – the landlord said it took over as landlord last year and discovered that the unit was not in a reasonable condition at a routine inspection. The tenant has been offered support from other services, but this has not been accepted.

Warnings – there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings.

Likely to comply – the tenant has been warned, served 14-day notices and not complied with a Tribunal order. It seems unlikely to me that the tenant will comply with his obligations in the future.

Deliberate – I consider that the breach is most likely the result of a mental health issue.

Landlord’s conduct – from the paperwork and the evidence submitted it seems the landlord has acted reasonably.

The gravity of the breach – this is a serious breach. The landlord is concerned that there is an increased fire risk within the unit. There is also the potential for fire egress to be impeded because of the items in the common hallway.

Termination – I have weighed these factors and I am persuaded that termination is a proportionate response to the breach. I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

I note that the landlord has been talking with DCM and has a plan for moving out and cleaning up. The tenant should talk to the landlord and to DCM to understand the next steps.

Order

The tenancy of Toby Verbeek Bourke at Unit/Flat Apartment 203, 314 Taranaki Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Te Toi Mahana, at 11.59 pm on Monday 18 May 2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

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 (very unfair) to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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 tenant has breached his obligations by not keeping the tenancy premises reasonably clean and tidy and free of rubbish. The tenant has also placed a number of items in the communal hallway, which is a fire egress route.
The landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant on 10 December 2025 and on 8 January 2026. The first notice asked the tenant to remove the items stored outside his front door, in the common area. The second notice asked the tenant to clear the unit of excessive items and return the unit to a treasonably clean and tidy condition. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required time frames.
I considered an application in March and made work orders that the tenant remove the items in the hallway, remove the items piled in the unit, and return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. I have been provided with photos taken on 14 April 2026 and I can see that nothing has changed.
The District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy. These are: • The history of the tenancy • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed • The conduct of the landlord • The gravity of the breach • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
History – the landlord said it took over as landlord last year and discovered that the unit was not in a reasonable condition at a routine inspection. The tenant has been offered support from other services, but this has not been accepted.
Warnings – there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings.
Likely to comply – the tenant has been warned, served 14-day notices and not complied with a Tribunal order. It seems unlikely to me that the tenant will comply with his obligations in the future.
Deliberate – I consider that the breach is most likely the result of a mental health issue.
Landlord’s conduct – from the paperwork and the evidence submitted it seems the landlord has acted reasonably.
The gravity of the breach – this is a serious breach. The landlord is concerned that there is an increased fire risk within the unit. There is also the potential for fire egress to be impeded because of the items in the common hallway.
Termination – I have weighed these factors and I am persuaded that termination is a proportionate response to the breach. I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
I note that the landlord has been talking with DCM and has a plan for moving out and cleaning up. The tenant should talk to the landlord and to DCM to understand the next steps.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5482229 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Apartment 203, 314 Taranaki Street, Mount Cook,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5482229 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Apartment 203, 314 Taranaki Street, Mount Cook,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions