What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496176 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 12A Nola Crescent, Otara, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5496176?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496176?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496176?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13869845-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496176 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 12A Nola Crescent, Otara, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5496176?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496176?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496176?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13869845-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12A Nola Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5496176 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 12A Nola Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

On 24 April 2026 the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. History of the claim
The matter was first called on 25 May 2026. Ms Maturan-Abuid, Senior Tribunal Adviser, appeared for the landlord. The tenant failed to appear.
At that hearing the Tribunal was invited to terminate the tenancy. The landlord argued the tenant had failed to remedy three previous 14-day breach notices (all issued for failing to maintain the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition) and was unlikely to have remedied the fourth breach notice which had expired on 13 May 2026. The Tribunal was not persuaded to terminate the tenancy without evidence the tenant had failed to remedy the fourth breach notice. The case was adjourned.
On 29 June 2026 the tenant wrote to the Registry asking for a three-month adjournment. The tenant said she was in hospital and unable to appear. The tenant was invited to provide medical evidence in support of her request for an adjournment. No evidence was provided and the application for an adjournment was declined.
Today’s hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Mr Alex Temu, Senior Tribunal Adviser, appeared for the landlord. The tenant failed to appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant had been properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.

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.
Section 40(1)(c) of the Act states that a tenant shall keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 1 . It does not mean commercially clean, 2 spotless 3 or to be hotel or motel standard. 4
Clause 16 of the tenancy agreement requires the tenant to keep the home and grounds tidy and not damage the premises, or let anyone else damage the premises.
The landlord claims the tenant has breached their obligations under the Act and the tenancy agreement by failing to keep the property reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.
The landlord has served a four 14-day notice on the tenant. The notices were issued on: a. 15 April 2025. b. 31 July 2025, expiring 21 August 2025. c. 24 October 2025, expiring 12 November 2025; and 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 4 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; ibid at [6]. d. 23 April 2026, expiring 13 May 2026. The notices specifically required the tenant address significant cleanliness issues including cleaning or remediation of carpet that had been damaged by cat faeces and urine.
The landlord told the Tribunal that the tenant has consistently failed to remedy the notices and the condition of the property is deteriorating. The Tribunal heard from Mr Scott Tuapola, Senior Housing Manager. He produced a series of photos taken of the property during an ad hoc visit on 18 March 2026 after gaining lock pick access to the property following the expiry of the third breach notice. Mr Tuapola said: a. Full PPE was required when entering the property. b. There was a strong significant odour emanating from the property of animal excrement, rotting food and general uncleanliness. c. The floors were caked in “dirt”, “filth” and “faeces”. d. There was significant piles of rubbish throughout the property, stacked against the walls and in the wardrobe e. The back door had been pushed in and was not secured. f. There was limited accessibility to the kitchen due to rubbish and a broken window frame. g. The bathroom as filthy and needed to be cleaned and the rubbish removed. The photographs support Mr Tuapola’s assertion that the property was in a very poor condition.
At the hearing the landlord produced a series of photographs taken on 6 July 2026 by the tenant’s Tenancy Support Worker. These photographs were produced to show the condition of the property after the fourth breach notice expired. These photographs showed: a. The carpets and floors, where visible, are heavily soiled with dirt, animal excrement, food and pet food. b. Cardboard, clothing and towels had been placed on the floor and were covered in animal food, food, spoiled food and pet excrement. c. There is a significant quantity of rubbish in the property. Rubbish was strewn across the floors, stacked around the rooms and against the walls. d. The bathroom was very dirty and the toilet marked. e. The walls were marked and dirty. f. The kitchen was filthy. There was food stains covering the oven, the kitchen bench and the cupboards. The kitchen sink was full of used dishes. The floor was covered in rubbish, spoilt food, pet excrement, empty food packets and general household waste. g. Cats were sighted in the property. h. The laundry window was broken. i. The lawns were long and rubbish was piled up in the garden.
The landlord reported the offensive odour remained. Full PPE gear had been used to conduct the most recent property inspection and the Landlord consider the property is no longer fit for habitation.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence I am satisfied the tenant has failed to maintain the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. I am also satisfied the tenant has failed to remedy the breach notice within the required period.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 the District Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant in considering the “inequitable’ consideration under section 56 of the Act. In considering those factors I find: a. The history of the tenancy and whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warning. The landlord has issued four 14-day breach notices requiring the tenant to return the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. I find that the tenant has failed to remedy the breach notices and the property is not reasonably clean or reasonably tidy. b. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. The tenant has consistently failed to comply with their obligations to maintain the property in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. I find that the condition of the property has deteriorated, and the tenant is unlikely to comply with their obligations in the future. c. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. I am satisfied the behaviour is deliberate. d. The conduct of the landlord. The landlord has acted to bring to the attention of the tenant the poor condition of the property. e. The gravity of the breach. The breach is ongoing and the current state of the property has been assessed by the landlord as being unfit to live in. The landlord is concerned for the welfare of the tenant and any animals living at the property, in addition to being concerned about the damage to their asset. f. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. I am satisfied that termination is a proportionate response to the breach. The tenant has failed to remedy four breach notices and the condition of the property is deteriorating.
For the reasons set out about, I conclude that it would inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. Accordingly the tenancy is terminated. Other matters
The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 12A Nola Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

On 24 April 2026 the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. History of the claim
The matter was first called on 25 May 2026. Ms Maturan-Abuid, Senior Tribunal Adviser, appeared for the landlord. The tenant failed to appear.
At that hearing the Tribunal was invited to terminate the tenancy. The landlord argued the tenant had failed to remedy three previous 14-day breach notices (all issued for failing to maintain the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition) and was unlikely to have remedied the fourth breach notice which had expired on 13 May 2026. The Tribunal was not persuaded to terminate the tenancy without evidence the tenant had failed to remedy the fourth breach notice. The case was adjourned.
On 29 June 2026 the tenant wrote to the Registry asking for a three-month adjournment. The tenant said she was in hospital and unable to appear. The tenant was invited to provide medical evidence in support of her request for an adjournment. No evidence was provided and the application for an adjournment was declined.
Today’s hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Mr Alex Temu, Senior Tribunal Adviser, appeared for the landlord. The tenant failed to appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant had been properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.

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.
Section 40(1)(c) of the Act states that a tenant shall keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable 1 . It does not mean commercially clean, 2 spotless 3 or to be hotel or motel standard. 4
Clause 16 of the tenancy agreement requires the tenant to keep the home and grounds tidy and not damage the premises, or let anyone else damage the premises.
The landlord claims the tenant has breached their obligations under the Act and the tenancy agreement by failing to keep the property reasonably clean and reasonably tidy.
The landlord has served a four 14-day notice on the tenant. The notices were issued on: a. 15 April 2025. b. 31 July 2025, expiring 21 August 2025. c. 24 October 2025, expiring 12 November 2025; and 1 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 2 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 4 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; ibid at [6]. d. 23 April 2026, expiring 13 May 2026. The notices specifically required the tenant address significant cleanliness issues including cleaning or remediation of carpet that had been damaged by cat faeces and urine.
The landlord told the Tribunal that the tenant has consistently failed to remedy the notices and the condition of the property is deteriorating. The Tribunal heard from Mr Scott Tuapola, Senior Housing Manager. He produced a series of photos taken of the property during an ad hoc visit on 18 March 2026 after gaining lock pick access to the property following the expiry of the third breach notice. Mr Tuapola said: a. Full PPE was required when entering the property. b. There was a strong significant odour emanating from the property of animal excrement, rotting food and general uncleanliness. c. The floors were caked in “dirt”, “filth” and “faeces”. d. There was significant piles of rubbish throughout the property, stacked against the walls and in the wardrobe e. The back door had been pushed in and was not secured. f. There was limited accessibility to the kitchen due to rubbish and a broken window frame. g. The bathroom as filthy and needed to be cleaned and the rubbish removed. The photographs support Mr Tuapola’s assertion that the property was in a very poor condition.
At the hearing the landlord produced a series of photographs taken on 6 July 2026 by the tenant’s Tenancy Support Worker. These photographs were produced to show the condition of the property after the fourth breach notice expired. These photographs showed: a. The carpets and floors, where visible, are heavily soiled with dirt, animal excrement, food and pet food. b. Cardboard, clothing and towels had been placed on the floor and were covered in animal food, food, spoiled food and pet excrement. c. There is a significant quantity of rubbish in the property. Rubbish was strewn across the floors, stacked around the rooms and against the walls. d. The bathroom was very dirty and the toilet marked. e. The walls were marked and dirty. f. The kitchen was filthy. There was food stains covering the oven, the kitchen bench and the cupboards. The kitchen sink was full of used dishes. The floor was covered in rubbish, spoilt food, pet excrement, empty food packets and general household waste. g. Cats were sighted in the property. h. The laundry window was broken. i. The lawns were long and rubbish was piled up in the garden.
The landlord reported the offensive odour remained. Full PPE gear had been used to conduct the most recent property inspection and the Landlord consider the property is no longer fit for habitation.
Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence I am satisfied the tenant has failed to maintain the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. I am also satisfied the tenant has failed to remedy the breach notice within the required period.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 the District Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant in considering the “inequitable’ consideration under section 56 of the Act. In considering those factors I find: a. The history of the tenancy and whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warning. The landlord has issued four 14-day breach notices requiring the tenant to return the property to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. I find that the tenant has failed to remedy the breach notices and the property is not reasonably clean or reasonably tidy. b. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. The tenant has consistently failed to comply with their obligations to maintain the property in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. I find that the condition of the property has deteriorated, and the tenant is unlikely to comply with their obligations in the future. c. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. I am satisfied the behaviour is deliberate. d. The conduct of the landlord. The landlord has acted to bring to the attention of the tenant the poor condition of the property. e. The gravity of the breach. The breach is ongoing and the current state of the property has been assessed by the landlord as being unfit to live in. The landlord is concerned for the welfare of the tenant and any animals living at the property, in addition to being concerned about the damage to their asset. f. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. I am satisfied that termination is a proportionate response to the breach. The tenant has failed to remedy four breach notices and the condition of the property is deteriorating.
For the reasons set out about, I conclude that it would inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. Accordingly the tenancy is terminated. Other matters
The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496176 — 14-day notice at 12A Nola Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496176 — 14-day notice at 12A Nola Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023

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