What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5506844?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Ash Tawis at Unit/Flat Unit 201, 29-31 Beach Road, Te Atatu

How much money was awarded in case 5506844?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5506844?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5506844?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13690302-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5506844?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Ash Tawis at Unit/Flat Unit 201, 29-31 Beach Road, Te Atatu

How much money was awarded in case 5506844?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5506844?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5506844?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13690302-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 201, 29-31 Beach Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5506844 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Ash Tawis at Unit/Flat Unit 201, 29-31 Beach Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at 11.59pm on Wednesday 3 June 2026.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, which was conducted by videoconference. The tenant did not join the video meeting at the scheduled time, and could not be contacted by telephone. As the tenant has been notified, the hearing proceeded.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord seeks termination on the basis that the tenant no longer lives at the premises and is in breach of her tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement
Clause 14 of the tenancy agreement requires that the tenant “must live at the home at all times.” It also states that the home must only be used by the tenant and the other people named in the housing application.
Clause 15 requires the tenant to notify the landlord if they are going to be away from the home for more than 30 days.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the 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.
In this case, I am satisfied that the tenant has breached her obligations under the tenancy agreement and has not remedied the breach within the required period. The landlord issued a 14-day notice on 17 March 2026, reminding the tenant of her obligation to live at the property, and requesting that she return by 2 April 2026, or provide 21 days’ written notice to end the tenancy. This was a 14-day notice under section 56(1), which was not remedied within the required period.
At the end of the notice period, there was no further contact from the tenant. The landlord conducted a further visit on 8 April 2026, and found that no-one was living at the premises. Another visit on 4 May 2026 found no-one present at the property.
The landlord states, in its written submissions, that the tenant has been overseas since October 2025 and has not returned to the property. Initial contact confirmed she was unable to return due to family illness and external circumstances, with an intended return in late April 2026. Despite this, there has been no confirmed return. Recent attempts to contact both the tenant and her granddaughter have been unsuccessful. Multiple property visits found the unit to be unoccupied, with indicators such as an accumulating mailbox. While rent payments have continued, the evidence suggests the property is not being used as her principal place of residence.
The landlord further notes that the tenant has not occupied the premises for over 6 months, has no confirmed return date, and has ceased communication since February 2026. The premises are no longer being used as a residence. Despite the notice to remedy, the breach has not been remedied. The landlord submits that it would be inequitable for the tenancy to continue.
The landlord states that it is essential that its social housing stock is available for those who need it most, particularly given the high demand for housing. The tenant may re-apply for social housing through MSD at a future date, should they require assistance.
In the circumstances, I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities provides social housing on the basis of housing need, and it is fair and reasonable that tenants are required to live in the home, due to the demand for housing. Where there is evidence that the tenant is no longer residing in the premises, and is therefore in breach if their tenancy agreement, there are sufficient grounds for termination of the tenancy. Accordingly, this tenancy is terminated. Filing fee and name suppression
While successful with its application, the landlord does not seek the filing fee or name suppression.

Order

The tenancy of Ash Tawis at Unit/Flat Unit 201, 29-31 Beach Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at 11.59pm on Wednesday 3 June 2026.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing, which was conducted by videoconference. The tenant did not join the video meeting at the scheduled time, and could not be contacted by telephone. As the tenant has been notified, the hearing proceeded.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord seeks termination on the basis that the tenant no longer lives at the premises and is in breach of her tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement
Clause 14 of the tenancy agreement requires that the tenant “must live at the home at all times.” It also states that the home must only be used by the tenant and the other people named in the housing application.
Clause 15 requires the tenant to notify the landlord if they are going to be away from the home for more than 30 days.

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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the 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.
In this case, I am satisfied that the tenant has breached her obligations under the tenancy agreement and has not remedied the breach within the required period. The landlord issued a 14-day notice on 17 March 2026, reminding the tenant of her obligation to live at the property, and requesting that she return by 2 April 2026, or provide 21 days’ written notice to end the tenancy. This was a 14-day notice under section 56(1), which was not remedied within the required period.
At the end of the notice period, there was no further contact from the tenant. The landlord conducted a further visit on 8 April 2026, and found that no-one was living at the premises. Another visit on 4 May 2026 found no-one present at the property.
The landlord states, in its written submissions, that the tenant has been overseas since October 2025 and has not returned to the property. Initial contact confirmed she was unable to return due to family illness and external circumstances, with an intended return in late April 2026. Despite this, there has been no confirmed return. Recent attempts to contact both the tenant and her granddaughter have been unsuccessful. Multiple property visits found the unit to be unoccupied, with indicators such as an accumulating mailbox. While rent payments have continued, the evidence suggests the property is not being used as her principal place of residence.
The landlord further notes that the tenant has not occupied the premises for over 6 months, has no confirmed return date, and has ceased communication since February 2026. The premises are no longer being used as a residence. Despite the notice to remedy, the breach has not been remedied. The landlord submits that it would be inequitable for the tenancy to continue.
The landlord states that it is essential that its social housing stock is available for those who need it most, particularly given the high demand for housing. The tenant may re-apply for social housing through MSD at a future date, should they require assistance.
In the circumstances, I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities provides social housing on the basis of housing need, and it is fair and reasonable that tenants are required to live in the home, due to the demand for housing. Where there is evidence that the tenant is no longer residing in the premises, and is therefore in breach if their tenancy agreement, there are sufficient grounds for termination of the tenancy. Accordingly, this tenancy is terminated. Filing fee and name suppression
While successful with its application, the landlord does not seek the filing fee or name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5506844 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 201, 29-31 Beach Road, Te Atatu Peninsula,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5506844 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 201, 29-31 Beach Road, Te Atatu Peninsula,

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