What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5489870 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 4, 85 Poulson Street, Addington,

How much money was awarded in case 5489870?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5489870?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5489870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13745508-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5489870 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 4, 85 Poulson Street, Addington,

How much money was awarded in case 5489870?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5489870?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5489870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13745508-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 85 Poulson Street, Addington, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5489870 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 4, 85 Poulson Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024, Harman Court is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 5pm Sunday 28 June 2026.
[The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $28.00 immediately, being the application filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. David Woodbury and Keith Olds appeared for the landlord (“OCHT”) via video. [The tenant/s] was joined via telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The application for termination was made pursuant to sections 40(1)(c), 40(2)(ab), and 56(1)(a)-(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The landlord claimed that the tenant has breached both the RTA and the tenancy agreement, and that these breaches have not been remedied.
There are two main factors leading to a successful claim. The first is the burden/onus of proof which rests on the applicant; and the second is the standard of proof. For matters, such as this, heard by the Tenancy Tribunal, the civil standard of proof is applied, being what is on balance of probability. Meaning, I seek to answer the question: Is it more likely than not that the alleged event happened? Further, the evidence must be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence must be consistent and supported by other acceptable evidence.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

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 s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
This tenancy commenced on 17 June 2022 after the tenant was relocated from another premises of the landlord.
A number of issues have been raised during the tenancy by both the landlord and the tenant. The tenant expressed a number of frustrations and claims regarding landlord actions and a desire to have witnesses talk to these. I was satisfied those claims, and any witness evidence, were beyond the claims that required determination at the hearing. It remains open to the tenant to lodge an application on any claim as he believes appropriate.
Section 85 RTA requires the Tribunal shall “exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies.” I considered it appropriate to proceed with determining the landlord’s application, knowing the other claims of the tenant can be dealt with later as required.
This tenancy commenced on 17 June 2022. The tenant was previously a tenant of the same landlord at another premises. This tenancy commenced as a transfer.
Section 56 RTA provides:
The landlord submitted the following, with supporting evidence: The outstanding breaches relate to:
The respondent's failure to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; and
The respondent's interference with, or rendering inoperative, a means of escape from fire (egress). A third failure to remedy, which formed part of the original application, was addressed during the mediation process. However, this issue was remedied by OCHT rather than by the respondent. Specifically, OCHT engaged a locksmith to immobilise an additional lock that the respondent had installed without the landlord's consent. OCHT submits that the evidence before the Tribunal will satisfy the threshold set out in section 56(1)(c), namely that the breaches are of such a nature that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. The evidence will demonstrate ongoing health and safety concerns arising from the respondent's conduct, particularly in relation to fire safety and the condition of the premises. OCHT will also provide evidence that these issues are recurrent in nature and form part of a pattern of behaviour. Similar concerns were present during the respondent's previous tenancy at another OCHT property. The principal basis of OCHT's application relates to a 14-day notice to remedy issued in respect of the respondent's failure to keep the premises clean and tidy. This notice was issued on 12 June 2025 and required compliance by 2 July 2025. On 25 July 2025, OCHT staff attended the property to assess compliance with the notice. They were unable to gain access using the master key because the respondent had installed an additional lock without the landlord's consent. Given that the respondent's tenancy was at risk, OCHT referred him to Visionwest, an organisation that assists tenants to sustain tenancies and address issues that may place their housing at risk. Unfortunately, Visionwest closed the respondent's case in October 2025 due to a lack of engagement and concerns that the hoarding, clutter, and fire egress issues were worsening rather than improving. On 17 December 2025, OCHT Tenancy Advisors again attempted to access the unit using a master key. Access was once again prevented by the unauthorised additional lock. During this interaction, the respondent advised OCHT staff that he would only permit access if OCHT agreed to rent him a second garage. OCHT did not agree to this request. OCHT's concern was that the respondent's existing garage was already being used to store significant amounts of clutter and rubbish, and providing additional storage was unlikely to address the underlying issues. On 6 January 2026, OCHT issued a further 14-day notice to remedy requiring the respondent to contact his Tenancy Advisor and arrange access for an annual inspection. Compliance was required by 23 January 2026. No contact was received from the respondent, and the matter was subsequently escalated to OCHT Compliance. On 30 January 2026, with the assistance of OCHT Compliance, a further three 14-day notices to remedy were issued. These notices related to: •Installing additional locks without the landlord's consent; •Blocking or obstructing fire egress; and •Refusing or preventing access for inspection purposes. The notices required the respondent to remove the unauthorised lock, ensure fire egress routes were clear and unobstructed, and arrange access for inspection. The compliance date for all three notices was 17 February 2026. None of these breaches were remedied. The respondent did not restore the locks to their original condition and did not contact OCHT to arrange an inspection. As a result, OCHT filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal seeking termination of the tenancy. Mediation was scheduled by Tenancy Services in May 2026, and OCHT participated in that process in good faith. Through agreements reached during mediation, an inspection of the unit was conducted on 22 May 2026. OCHT arranged for a locksmith to attend, and the unauthorised lock was immobilised to enable future lawful access. This was the first inspection OCHT had been able to conduct since the original clean and tidy notice was issued on 12 June 2025. The condition of the unit was extremely concerning and, in OCHT's view, bordering on uninhabitable. There was a significant accumulation of possessions and clutter throughout the premises. Means of escape were substantially obstructed, and access within the unit was severely restricted. In order to take photographs and document the condition of the premises, I was required to climb over numerous items.
The tenant response to the claims and landlord submissions were difficult to discern. It seems at time that the approach was more a belief of “attack being the best form of defence”. Numerous issues were raised that were unrelated to the claims to be determined. The defence that the landlord had failed to provide him with a second garage for storage had no basis. The landlord was not obliged for what would have been a discretionary provision. There was nothing in the tenancy agreement requiring this.
The tenant had to be reminded several times during the hearing regarding his tone and content regarding the landlord and others such as neighbours. I note this as it had to be a factor when considering whether any breach or breaches were of such a nature or to such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
The tenant challenged the photographic evidence of the landlord, claiming the extent of clutter and items at the premises was overstated. Given the difference of opinions on this key issue I relied on the photographic evidence. These were taken over time but up until just before the hearing.
I consider the landlord has evidentially established that there has been an ongoing problem with the tenant not meeting his obligations under s 40 RTA. I do not see the premises and clutter the same way as the tenant. There is a significant issue.
I consider the evidence validates the landlord’s concerns regarding interference with a means of escape from fire due to the clutter. While the tenant may have backed his ability to exit out a window during any such event, that may have been proven flawed with fatal consequences. I am equally mindful of any first responder attempting to access the premises with the premises as presented. It would be challenging. I also must consider the safety of the immediate, cojoined neighbours.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court 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: 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. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
I find the tenant has repeatedly failed to remedy a number of breaches. The landlord is a provider of social housing and the delay in bring this application to the Tribunal, in my mind, reflects an extended period of attempting to resolve the issues without such recourse.
The possibility of a conditional order was explored but I accept the landlord’s submissions against the practicalities of that, given the history to date.
I am satisfied the requirements of s 56(1) for a termination order have been met and it would be inequitable to refuse to make a termination order. Filing fee
Because Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Possession
I have ordered termination and possession to return within a short timeframe. This was considered and intentional. I had to balance the concerns of the landlord, and behaviours and intentions expressed during the hearing with making the tenant exit as smooth as possible. Given the concerns regarding possible adverse behaviours prior to departure I have made the notice short. That is done to enable the landlord to better manage any adverse activity, if this should occur. It is in the interests of the tenant to work with the landlord from here. I remind the landlord the enforcement of the possession order can be managed to grant further time to the tenant as may consider reasonable. This is of course subject to the reasonable cooperation of the tenant.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 4, 85 Poulson Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024, Harman Court is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 5pm Sunday 28 June 2026.

[The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $28.00 immediately, being the application filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. David Woodbury and Keith Olds appeared for the landlord (“OCHT”) via video. [The tenant/s] was joined via telephone.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The application for termination was made pursuant to sections 40(1)(c), 40(2)(ab), and 56(1)(a)-(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The landlord claimed that the tenant has breached both the RTA and the tenancy agreement, and that these breaches have not been remedied.

There are two main factors leading to a successful claim. The first is the burden/onus of proof which rests on the applicant; and the second is the standard of proof. For matters, such as this, heard by the Tenancy Tribunal, the civil standard of proof is applied, being what is on balance of probability. Meaning, I seek to answer the question: Is it more likely than not that the alleged event happened? Further, the evidence must be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence must be consistent and supported by other acceptable evidence.

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

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 s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

This tenancy commenced on 17 June 2022 after the tenant was relocated from another premises of the landlord.

A number of issues have been raised during the tenancy by both the landlord and the tenant. The tenant expressed a number of frustrations and claims regarding landlord actions and a desire to have witnesses talk to these. I was satisfied those claims, and any witness evidence, were beyond the claims that required determination at the hearing. It remains open to the tenant to lodge an application on any claim as he believes appropriate.

Section 85 RTA requires the Tribunal shall “exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies.” I considered it appropriate to proceed with determining the landlord’s application, knowing the other claims of the tenant can be dealt with later as required.

This tenancy commenced on 17 June 2022. The tenant was previously a tenant of the same landlord at another premises. This tenancy commenced as a transfer.

Section 56 RTA provides:

The landlord submitted the following, with supporting evidence: The outstanding breaches relate to:

The respondent's failure to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; and

The respondent's interference with, or rendering inoperative, a means of escape from fire (egress). A third failure to remedy, which formed part of the original application, was addressed during the mediation process. However, this issue was remedied by OCHT rather than by the respondent. Specifically, OCHT engaged a locksmith to immobilise an additional lock that the respondent had installed without the landlord's consent. OCHT submits that the evidence before the Tribunal will satisfy the threshold set out in section 56(1)(c), namely that the breaches are of such a nature that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. The evidence will demonstrate ongoing health and safety concerns arising from the respondent's conduct, particularly in relation to fire safety and the condition of the premises. OCHT will also provide evidence that these issues are recurrent in nature and form part of a pattern of behaviour. Similar concerns were present during the respondent's previous tenancy at another OCHT property. The principal basis of OCHT's application relates to a 14-day notice to remedy issued in respect of the respondent's failure to keep the premises clean and tidy. This notice was issued on 12 June 2025 and required compliance by 2 July 2025. On 25 July 2025, OCHT staff attended the property to assess compliance with the notice. They were unable to gain access using the master key because the respondent had installed an additional lock without the landlord's consent. Given that the respondent's tenancy was at risk, OCHT referred him to Visionwest, an organisation that assists tenants to sustain tenancies and address issues that may place their housing at risk. Unfortunately, Visionwest closed the respondent's case in October 2025 due to a lack of engagement and concerns that the hoarding, clutter, and fire egress issues were worsening rather than improving. On 17 December 2025, OCHT Tenancy Advisors again attempted to access the unit using a master key. Access was once again prevented by the unauthorised additional lock. During this interaction, the respondent advised OCHT staff that he would only permit access if OCHT agreed to rent him a second garage. OCHT did not agree to this request. OCHT's concern was that the respondent's existing garage was already being used to store significant amounts of clutter and rubbish, and providing additional storage was unlikely to address the underlying issues. On 6 January 2026, OCHT issued a further 14-day notice to remedy requiring the respondent to contact his Tenancy Advisor and arrange access for an annual inspection. Compliance was required by 23 January 2026. No contact was received from the respondent, and the matter was subsequently escalated to OCHT Compliance. On 30 January 2026, with the assistance of OCHT Compliance, a further three 14-day notices to remedy were issued. These notices related to: •Installing additional locks without the landlord's consent; •Blocking or obstructing fire egress; and •Refusing or preventing access for inspection purposes. The notices required the respondent to remove the unauthorised lock, ensure fire egress routes were clear and unobstructed, and arrange access for inspection. The compliance date for all three notices was 17 February 2026. None of these breaches were remedied. The respondent did not restore the locks to their original condition and did not contact OCHT to arrange an inspection. As a result, OCHT filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal seeking termination of the tenancy. Mediation was scheduled by Tenancy Services in May 2026, and OCHT participated in that process in good faith. Through agreements reached during mediation, an inspection of the unit was conducted on 22 May 2026. OCHT arranged for a locksmith to attend, and the unauthorised lock was immobilised to enable future lawful access. This was the first inspection OCHT had been able to conduct since the original clean and tidy notice was issued on 12 June 2025. The condition of the unit was extremely concerning and, in OCHT's view, bordering on uninhabitable. There was a significant accumulation of possessions and clutter throughout the premises. Means of escape were substantially obstructed, and access within the unit was severely restricted. In order to take photographs and document the condition of the premises, I was required to climb over numerous items.

The tenant response to the claims and landlord submissions were difficult to discern. It seems at time that the approach was more a belief of “attack being the best form of defence”. Numerous issues were raised that were unrelated to the claims to be determined. The defence that the landlord had failed to provide him with a second garage for storage had no basis. The landlord was not obliged for what would have been a discretionary provision. There was nothing in the tenancy agreement requiring this.

The tenant had to be reminded several times during the hearing regarding his tone and content regarding the landlord and others such as neighbours. I note this as it had to be a factor when considering whether any breach or breaches were of such a nature or to such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.

The tenant challenged the photographic evidence of the landlord, claiming the extent of clutter and items at the premises was overstated. Given the difference of opinions on this key issue I relied on the photographic evidence. These were taken over time but up until just before the hearing.

I consider the landlord has evidentially established that there has been an ongoing problem with the tenant not meeting his obligations under s 40 RTA. I do not see the premises and clutter the same way as the tenant. There is a significant issue.

I consider the evidence validates the landlord’s concerns regarding interference with a means of escape from fire due to the clutter. While the tenant may have backed his ability to exit out a window during any such event, that may have been proven flawed with fatal consequences. I am equally mindful of any first responder attempting to access the premises with the premises as presented. It would be challenging. I also must consider the safety of the immediate, cojoined neighbours.

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court 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: 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. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

I find the tenant has repeatedly failed to remedy a number of breaches. The landlord is a provider of social housing and the delay in bring this application to the Tribunal, in my mind, reflects an extended period of attempting to resolve the issues without such recourse.

The possibility of a conditional order was explored but I accept the landlord’s submissions against the practicalities of that, given the history to date.

I am satisfied the requirements of s 56(1) for a termination order have been met and it would be inequitable to refuse to make a termination order. Filing fee

Because Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Possession

I have ordered termination and possession to return within a short timeframe. This was considered and intentional. I had to balance the concerns of the landlord, and behaviours and intentions expressed during the hearing with making the tenant exit as smooth as possible. Given the concerns regarding possible adverse behaviours prior to departure I have made the notice short. That is done to enable the landlord to better manage any adverse activity, if this should occur. It is in the interests of the tenant to work with the landlord from here. I remind the landlord the enforcement of the possession order can be managed to grant further time to the tenant as may consider reasonable. This is of course subject to the reasonable cooperation of the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5489870 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 4, 85 Poulson Street, Addington, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5489870 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 4, 85 Poulson Street, Addington, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions