Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342642 — 14-day notice at 23 Belfast Crescent, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

Decided 2 February 2026 · Published 2 February 2026 · Application 5342642

Mixed / unclear

14-day notice
Cleanliness

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Mixed / unclear

From published order

Location

Gisborne

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

C Price

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

The tenancy of Benjiman Te Pairi at 23 Belfast Crescent, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59 pm on Monday 23 February 2026.

Reasons

Ms Maturan-Abuid, representing the landlord, and Mr Te Pairi, the tenant, along with his support person, Mr Matene, all attended the hearing in-person.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The landlord requested the Tribunal to make an order requiring the tenant to comply with his obligations pursuant to the tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) within a reasonable time, failing which they would enforce any termination order made.
The tenant took issue with the jurisdiction of the landlord and the Tribunal to claim for termination and possession. He argued that the tenancy property land was reported to the police as stolen land when he first moved into the property, said that the land on which the property stands is Māori land, that the landlord stole the vehicles that were on his land when he first moved into the property, indicated that he signed a contract with the landlord “unbeknownst” to him and that this is null and void, and said that the Tribunal must apply and respect Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 and other statutes and caselaw related to this.
The tenant said he asked the landlord to provide to him a copy of their title to the land, which they did. However, the tenant then said that the landlord’s title was a ‘pretend title’. The tenant did not recognise the landlord’s title to the land on which the tenancy property stands.
The tenant provided a number of documents supporting his arguments, before and during the hearing, and gave lengthy and extensive verbal submissions about these issues during the hearing. The tenant said he stood under his common law status and said he required a full court and jury. I explained to the tenant that the Tribunal does not have juries but said I would note his request.
The landlord said the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the tenant’s stolen vehicles, and that much of what the tenant raised about stolen vehicles, past meetings and stolen vehicles found at another property, for example, were old issues that were not relevant to the tenant having to comply with his obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA.
I also explained to the tenant that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with stolen vehicles.
The tenant said he was happy to comply with the landlord’s requests to clear the property and let the gas inspector attend the property, but he was clear that the issues could not be resolved, and access could not be granted until he could speak with somebody he regarded as high enough in authority with the landlord, preferably the housing minister. The landlord said there have been meetings with the tenant in 2024 and in 2025 but no resolution to the issues with the tenancy.

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 landlord said the tenant has breached their obligations by leaving the exterior of the property in poor condition. They said there is long, overgrown grass, inorganic rubbish, scrap metal, wood and multiple car wrecks scattered throughout the yard. The landlord provided photographs of these items outside the tenancy property taken just prior to them filing this application, as well as photographs attached to an Ad Hoc Inspection Report dated 23 January 2026. The photographs show very long, overgrown gardens with weeds, corrugated iron sheets, wood, much other rubbish and multiple car wrecks on the outside of the property.
The landlord explained that, between January 2018 and October 2023, the landlord provided the tenant with seven skip bins at no cost. Since 12 December 2023, they said the housing support manager has offered support to the tenant to assist with cleaning up the exterior of the property.
The landlord reported the tenant accepted the landlord’s professional assistance to clean the yard on 15 January 2024 but remained disengaged and only one side of the property was cleared before the work order was closed due to access issues. They said the cleared area then returned to its previous state.
On 31 May 2024 in a meeting with the tenant, the landlord said the tenant agreed to remove car wrecks but failed to do so and instead added more items to the pile of wrecks.
The landlord said the tenant has also repeatedly failed to provide access for the completion of the annual gas inspection at the property, that trades have attempted to complete the gas inspection on five separate occasions, all of which were unsuccessful due to cancellations or refusals by the tenant.
The landlord also indicated that the tenant has been refusing access to the property by the landlord to carry out annual property inspections.
The landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant, as follows: a. On 22 July 2024 – to clean up the property’s exterior of the rubbish and car wrecks and maintain the garden. b. On 5 December 2024 – to clean up the property’s exterior of the rubbish and car wrecks and maintain the garden. c. On 28 August 2025 – to clean up the property’s exterior of the rubbish and car wrecks and maintain the garden. d. On 12 August 2025 – to allow access for the gas inspection to be completed.
The landlord said they have also sent the tenant letters notifying him of property inspections, dated 24 November 2025 and 3 December 2025, but could not gain access to complete these because of the tenant’s refusal to grant access.
The landlord said the tenant did not remedy any of the breaches in any of the 14-day notices issued to him and the issues of non-compliance by the tenant remain.
The tenant did not deny that the property’s exterior was full of rubbish and car wrecks, nor that he refused access for gas inspections or property inspections. He reiterated he was happy to comply once he could speak with somebody who he regarded as a high enough authority in the landlord’s organisation.
From the evidence provided, it is clear the tenant has not kept the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition in the exterior. Further, the tenant has an obligation to allow entry to the landlord for property inspections and gas inspections, when properly notified, as has occurred here. There are also potential health and safety implications involved in the tenant refusing to allow access for gas inspections. The tenant must also allow the landlord access for property inspections, when adequately notified, as is the case here, so the landlord can properly maintain the property.
All these breaches are capable of remedy.
The landlord has issued several 14-day breach notices to the tenant as outlined above.
The next issue to determine is whether 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 set out, at paragraph [61] the factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, including: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of beaches was such it was 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 consider each of these factors in turn as below: a. The tenancy began in 2001. As early as January 2018, the landlord attempted to resolve the issues with the tenant by offering him free skip bins and then followed up with offers of assistance to clear up the rubbish and car wrecks. b. There have been a number of meetings between the parties over the tenancy about these issues, repeated warnings to the tenancy and several 14-day breach notices issued to the tenant. The tenant has failed to comply with anything to date. c. As the tenant has failed to comply with the landlord’s repeated warnings and breach notices over a number of years, I find it unlikely, based on the evidence, that the tenant would comply with his obligations in the future. d. Given the repeated warnings, the skip bins and professional assistance provided, after which the tenant continued to add to the car wrecks and other rubbish at his property, and based on the evidence, I find the breaches have been deliberately committed. e. The landlord has provided 7 free skip bins to the tenant, has provided professional assistance to help clear up the rubbish and car wrecks, but the tenant failed to fully engage or continue with clearing up the section. I find, based on the evidence, that the landlord has tried to assist the tenant to meet his obligations over a number of years to help him retain his tenancy. Still the tenant has continued to fail to comply. f. The landlord provided a quote for the removal of rubbish from the outside of the property, as assessed, which was for 160 cubic metres of rubbish removal at a quoted cost of $26,000.00. This did not include the quoted costs of having to relandscape the property, which, if added, would bring the estimated cost of work to return the property exterior to a reasonably clean and tidy position to $40,507.60. Such is the enormity of the issues caused by the tenant to the exterior of the property. g. Given the substantial volume of rubbish and car wrecks at the property, the repeated refusals of the tenant to allow access for gas inspections, thus potentially jeopardising the health and safety of the tenant and his neighbours, were there to be any undetected gas issues, and the repeated refusal of the tenant to allow the landlord access to complete their annual property inspection, thus potentially jeopardising the landlord’s ability to identify any issues and maintain their property, I find it would likely be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. h. In the circumstances and given the evidence, I decline to make the termination order conditional, as it would be very difficult to measure accurately the degree to which the tenant might reasonably comply with any such conditional order. i. Whilst I have made a termination order, I accept the landlord may wish to still work with the tenant to see if he will comply, failing which they could then choose whether to enforce the termination order. Treaty argument for termination and possession
In relation to the treaty, consideration of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 and other arguments made by the tenant, I am bound to determine the dispute in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which states that on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person. See section 65 of the RTA.
The High Court in Edwina Chmielowski v Fort Braggs Properties Limited HC AK CIV-2005-404-4618 [15 December 2005], involved an applicant claiming that she was subject only to Māori customary laws and under those laws she was entitled to possession of the property subject to the proceedings. The Tenancy Tribunal ordered possession be granted to the respondent pursuant to section 65 of the RTA. The applicant appealed this to the District Court which held that there were no meritorious reasons for challenging the respondent’s freehold title as registered proprietor. The applicant appealed to the High Court.
The High Court considered Te Tiriti/the Treaty, particularly in relation to Crown government of the land and the grant to Māori of the same rights and duties of citizenship as non-Māori. The Court said these duties included compliance with the law. The Court held that for the Court to fail to give effect to the rights of the respondent under the Land Transfer Act (“the LTA”) (which is the law that relates to ownership of property) would itself be an infringement of the law and of the Treaty of Waitangi.
The Court further held that the LTA is the law which the Court must apply, in due exercise of the responsibility to apply the law as was contemplated by the signatories of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Court then gave effect to the respondent’s right to possession under the LTA and dismissed the appeal.
In this case, the tenant did not claim that the landlord is not a registered owner under the LTA, just that he believed the landlord’s title was a ‘pretend title’.
The tenant also claimed that the tenancy agreement/contract he signed with the landlord should be null and void as he did not know what he was signing. Parties are generally bound by a contract they sign, even if they did not read it before signing. Once signed, the contract terms are legally enforceable unless they breach specific laws. The tenant, like others, could have read the tenancy agreement and obtained legal and other advice before signing it, but did not. Further, the tenant has obtained many years of benefit under the tenancy agreement by living at the property by paying rent for it already. As such, with no additional supporting evidence provided by the tenant of valid legal grounds as to why the tenancy agreement should be considered null and void, based on the tenancy agreement signed by both parties, and other evidence, I consider the tenancy agreement to be a valid contract between the parties.
In terminating this tenancy, I must grant a possession order.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

14-day notice Cleanliness Gisborne

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s56(1), s65

Key findings

Dispute theme: termination 14day
Dispute theme: cleaning

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5342642?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Benjiman Te Pairi at 23 Belfast Crescent, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

How much money was awarded in case 5342642?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342642?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342642?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13045923-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Reasons

Ms Maturan-Abuid, representing the landlord, and Mr Te Pairi, the tenant, along with his support person, Mr Matene, all attended the hearing in-person.

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

The landlord requested the Tribunal to make an order requiring the tenant to comply with his obligations pursuant to the tenancy agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) within a reasonable time, failing which they would enforce any termination order made.

The tenant took issue with the jurisdiction of the landlord and the Tribunal to claim for termination and possession. He argued that the tenancy property land was reported to the police as stolen land when he first moved into the property, said that the land on which the property stands is Māori land, that the landlord stole the vehicles that were on his land when he first moved into the property, indicated that he signed a contract with the landlord “unbeknownst” to him and that this is null and void, and said that the Tribunal must apply and respect Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 and other statutes and caselaw related to this.

The tenant said he asked the landlord to provide to him a copy of their title to the land, which they did. However, the tenant then said that the landlord’s title was a ‘pretend title’. The tenant did not recognise the landlord’s title to the land on which the tenancy property stands.

The tenant provided a number of documents supporting his arguments, before and during the hearing, and gave lengthy and extensive verbal submissions about these issues during the hearing. The tenant said he stood under his common law status and said he required a full court and jury. I explained to the tenant that the Tribunal does not have juries but said I would note his request.

The landlord said the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the tenant’s stolen vehicles, and that much of what the tenant raised about stolen vehicles, past meetings and stolen vehicles found at another property, for example, were old issues that were not relevant to the tenant having to comply with his obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA.

I also explained to the tenant that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with stolen vehicles.

The tenant said he was happy to comply with the landlord’s requests to clear the property and let the gas inspector attend the property, but he was clear that the issues could not be resolved, and access could not be granted until he could speak with somebody he regarded as high enough in authority with the landlord, preferably the housing minister. The landlord said there have been meetings with the tenant in 2024 and in 2025 but no resolution to the issues with the tenancy.

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 landlord said the tenant has breached their obligations by leaving the exterior of the property in poor condition. They said there is long, overgrown grass, inorganic rubbish, scrap metal, wood and multiple car wrecks scattered throughout the yard. The landlord provided photographs of these items outside the tenancy property taken just prior to them filing this application, as well as photographs attached to an Ad Hoc Inspection Report dated 23 January 2026. The photographs show very long, overgrown gardens with weeds, corrugated iron sheets, wood, much other rubbish and multiple car wrecks on the outside of the property.

The landlord explained that, between January 2018 and October 2023, the landlord provided the tenant with seven skip bins at no cost. Since 12 December 2023, they said the housing support manager has offered support to the tenant to assist with cleaning up the exterior of the property.

The landlord reported the tenant accepted the landlord’s professional assistance to clean the yard on 15 January 2024 but remained disengaged and only one side of the property was cleared before the work order was closed due to access issues. They said the cleared area then returned to its previous state.

On 31 May 2024 in a meeting with the tenant, the landlord said the tenant agreed to remove car wrecks but failed to do so and instead added more items to the pile of wrecks.

The landlord said the tenant has also repeatedly failed to provide access for the completion of the annual gas inspection at the property, that trades have attempted to complete the gas inspection on five separate occasions, all of which were unsuccessful due to cancellations or refusals by the tenant.

The landlord also indicated that the tenant has been refusing access to the property by the landlord to carry out annual property inspections.

The landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant, as follows: a. On 22 July 2024 – to clean up the property’s exterior of the rubbish and car wrecks and maintain the garden. b. On 5 December 2024 – to clean up the property’s exterior of the rubbish and car wrecks and maintain the garden. c. On 28 August 2025 – to clean up the property’s exterior of the rubbish and car wrecks and maintain the garden. d. On 12 August 2025 – to allow access for the gas inspection to be completed.

The landlord said they have also sent the tenant letters notifying him of property inspections, dated 24 November 2025 and 3 December 2025, but could not gain access to complete these because of the tenant’s refusal to grant access.

The landlord said the tenant did not remedy any of the breaches in any of the 14-day notices issued to him and the issues of non-compliance by the tenant remain.

The tenant did not deny that the property’s exterior was full of rubbish and car wrecks, nor that he refused access for gas inspections or property inspections. He reiterated he was happy to comply once he could speak with somebody who he regarded as a high enough authority in the landlord’s organisation.

From the evidence provided, it is clear the tenant has not kept the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition in the exterior. Further, the tenant has an obligation to allow entry to the landlord for property inspections and gas inspections, when properly notified, as has occurred here. There are also potential health and safety implications involved in the tenant refusing to allow access for gas inspections. The tenant must also allow the landlord access for property inspections, when adequately notified, as is the case here, so the landlord can properly maintain the property.

All these breaches are capable of remedy.

The landlord has issued several 14-day breach notices to the tenant as outlined above.

The next issue to determine is whether 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 set out, at paragraph [61] the factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, including: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of beaches was such it was 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 consider each of these factors in turn as below: a. The tenancy began in 2001. As early as January 2018, the landlord attempted to resolve the issues with the tenant by offering him free skip bins and then followed up with offers of assistance to clear up the rubbish and car wrecks. b. There have been a number of meetings between the parties over the tenancy about these issues, repeated warnings to the tenancy and several 14-day breach notices issued to the tenant. The tenant has failed to comply with anything to date. c. As the tenant has failed to comply with the landlord’s repeated warnings and breach notices over a number of years, I find it unlikely, based on the evidence, that the tenant would comply with his obligations in the future. d. Given the repeated warnings, the skip bins and professional assistance provided, after which the tenant continued to add to the car wrecks and other rubbish at his property, and based on the evidence, I find the breaches have been deliberately committed. e. The landlord has provided 7 free skip bins to the tenant, has provided professional assistance to help clear up the rubbish and car wrecks, but the tenant failed to fully engage or continue with clearing up the section. I find, based on the evidence, that the landlord has tried to assist the tenant to meet his obligations over a number of years to help him retain his tenancy. Still the tenant has continued to fail to comply. f. The landlord provided a quote for the removal of rubbish from the outside of the property, as assessed, which was for 160 cubic metres of rubbish removal at a quoted cost of $26,000.00. This did not include the quoted costs of having to relandscape the property, which, if added, would bring the estimated cost of work to return the property exterior to a reasonably clean and tidy position to $40,507.60. Such is the enormity of the issues caused by the tenant to the exterior of the property. g. Given the substantial volume of rubbish and car wrecks at the property, the repeated refusals of the tenant to allow access for gas inspections, thus potentially jeopardising the health and safety of the tenant and his neighbours, were there to be any undetected gas issues, and the repeated refusal of the tenant to allow the landlord access to complete their annual property inspection, thus potentially jeopardising the landlord’s ability to identify any issues and maintain their property, I find it would likely be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. h. In the circumstances and given the evidence, I decline to make the termination order conditional, as it would be very difficult to measure accurately the degree to which the tenant might reasonably comply with any such conditional order. i. Whilst I have made a termination order, I accept the landlord may wish to still work with the tenant to see if he will comply, failing which they could then choose whether to enforce the termination order. Treaty argument for termination and possession

In relation to the treaty, consideration of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 and other arguments made by the tenant, I am bound to determine the dispute in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which states that on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person. See section 65 of the RTA.

The High Court in Edwina Chmielowski v Fort Braggs Properties Limited HC AK CIV-2005-404-4618 [15 December 2005], involved an applicant claiming that she was subject only to Māori customary laws and under those laws she was entitled to possession of the property subject to the proceedings. The Tenancy Tribunal ordered possession be granted to the respondent pursuant to section 65 of the RTA. The applicant appealed this to the District Court which held that there were no meritorious reasons for challenging the respondent’s freehold title as registered proprietor. The applicant appealed to the High Court.

The High Court considered Te Tiriti/the Treaty, particularly in relation to Crown government of the land and the grant to Māori of the same rights and duties of citizenship as non-Māori. The Court said these duties included compliance with the law. The Court held that for the Court to fail to give effect to the rights of the respondent under the Land Transfer Act (“the LTA”) (which is the law that relates to ownership of property) would itself be an infringement of the law and of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Court further held that the LTA is the law which the Court must apply, in due exercise of the responsibility to apply the law as was contemplated by the signatories of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Court then gave effect to the respondent’s right to possession under the LTA and dismissed the appeal.

In this case, the tenant did not claim that the landlord is not a registered owner under the LTA, just that he believed the landlord’s title was a ‘pretend title’.

The tenant also claimed that the tenancy agreement/contract he signed with the landlord should be null and void as he did not know what he was signing. Parties are generally bound by a contract they sign, even if they did not read it before signing. Once signed, the contract terms are legally enforceable unless they breach specific laws. The tenant, like others, could have read the tenancy agreement and obtained legal and other advice before signing it, but did not. Further, the tenant has obtained many years of benefit under the tenancy agreement by living at the property by paying rent for it already. As such, with no additional supporting evidence provided by the tenant of valid legal grounds as to why the tenancy agreement should be considered null and void, based on the tenancy agreement signed by both parties, and other evidence, I consider the tenancy agreement to be a valid contract between the parties.

In terminating this tenancy, I must grant a possession order.

Reasons

Ms Maturan-Abuid, representing the landlord, and Mr Te Pairi, the tenant, along with his support person, Mr Matene, all attended the hearing in-person.

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

I also explained to the tenant that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with stolen vehicles.

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.

On 31 May 2024 in a meeting with the tenant, the landlord said the tenant agreed to remove car wrecks but failed to do so and instead added more items to the pile of wrecks.

The landlord also indicated that the tenant has been refusing access to the property by the landlord to carry out annual property inspections.

The landlord said the tenant did not remedy any of the breaches in any of the 14-day notices issued to him and the issues of non-compliance by the tenant remain.

All these breaches are capable of remedy.

The landlord has issued several 14-day breach notices to the tenant as outlined above.

The next issue to determine is whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

In this case, the tenant did not claim that the landlord is not a registered owner under the LTA, just that he believed the landlord’s title was a ‘pretend title’.

In terminating this tenancy, I must grant a possession order.

Reasons

Ms Maturan-Abuid, representing the landlord, and Mr Te Pairi, the tenant, along with his support person, Mr Matene, all attended the hearing in-person.

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

I also explained to the tenant that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with stolen vehicles.

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.

On 31 May 2024 in a meeting with the tenant, the landlord said the tenant agreed to remove car wrecks but failed to do so and instead added more items to the pile of wrecks.

The landlord also indicated that the tenant has been refusing access to the property by the landlord to carry out annual property inspections.

The landlord said the tenant did not remedy any of the breaches in any of the 14-day notices issued to him and the issues of non-compliance by the tenant remain.

All these breaches are capable of remedy.

The landlord has issued several 14-day breach notices to the tenant as outlined above.

The next issue to determine is whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

In this case, the tenant did not claim that the landlord is not a registered owner under the LTA, just that he believed the landlord’s title was a ‘pretend title’.

In terminating this tenancy, I must grant a possession order.