What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5505489 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 12D Balfour Road, Manurewa,

How much money was awarded in case 5505489?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5505489?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5505489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13891150-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5505489 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 12D Balfour Road, Manurewa,

How much money was awarded in case 5505489?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5505489?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5505489?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13891150-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12D Balfour Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5505489 — 14-day notice

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.

The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link or by telephone. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given.

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 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.

The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy (s.40(c) RTA).

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 19 February 2026, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. Background

The first complaint received by the landlord as to the condition of their premises goes back to July 2021.

The landlord spoke to the tenant on 28 January 2026 in an effort to have the tenant remedy the problems with the premises. No action was taken by the tenant and as a result, a breach notice was served on the tenant on 19 February 2026.

The landlord provided photos of the premises at the time the breach notice was issued and further photos which were taken on 9 July 2026.

The photos show that the breaches referred to in the breach notice have not been remedied. In particular; • Inorganic waste has not been removed. • Rubbish has not been removed. • Carpets have not been cleaned. • Unauthorised structures have not been removed. • The interior of the premises has not been cleaned.

If anything, the photographic evidence would indicate that the condition of the premises has deteriorated in the period since the breach notice was issued.

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. 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.

The history of the tenancy shows that there has been a persistent failure to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy despite the landlord’s repeated warnings. The tenant has had more than enough time to comply with the breach notice. The fact that the tenant has done nothing to address the problem means that I can not be confident that the tenant will comply with the requirements in the future.

The tenant’s conduct will inevitably result in a reduction in the value of the premises. Termination of the tenancy is a proportionate response where the tenant has simply ignored the breach notice.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 12D Balfour Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 am on Monday 20 July 2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link or by telephone. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given.
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 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.
The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy (s.40(c) RTA).
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 19 February 2026, and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. Background
The first complaint received by the landlord as to the condition of their premises goes back to July 2021.
The landlord spoke to the tenant on 28 January 2026 in an effort to have the tenant remedy the problems with the premises. No action was taken by the tenant and as a result, a breach notice was served on the tenant on 19 February 2026.
The landlord provided photos of the premises at the time the breach notice was issued and further photos which were taken on 9 July 2026.
The photos show that the breaches referred to in the breach notice have not been remedied. In particular; • Inorganic waste has not been removed. • Rubbish has not been removed. • Carpets have not been cleaned. • Unauthorised structures have not been removed. • The interior of the premises has not been cleaned.
If anything, the photographic evidence would indicate that the condition of the premises has deteriorated in the period since the breach notice was issued.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. 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.
The history of the tenancy shows that there has been a persistent failure to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy despite the landlord’s repeated warnings. The tenant has had more than enough time to comply with the breach notice. The fact that the tenant has done nothing to address the problem means that I can not be confident that the tenant will comply with the requirements in the future.
The tenant’s conduct will inevitably result in a reduction in the value of the premises. Termination of the tenancy is a proportionate response where the tenant has simply ignored the breach notice.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5505489 — 14-day notice at 12D Balfour Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5505489 — 14-day notice at 12D Balfour Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

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