What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5408751?

The tribunal order states: Maria Rosalia Seesee Talai (nee Tavita) and Maulolo Talai must remove the

How much money was awarded in case 5408751?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5408751?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5408751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13070866-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5408751?

The tribunal order states: Maria Rosalia Seesee Talai (nee Tavita) and Maulolo Talai must remove the

How much money was awarded in case 5408751?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5408751?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5408751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13070866-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7A Harwood Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5408751 — Rent arrears

Order

Maria Rosalia Seesee Talai (nee Tavita) and Maulolo Talai must remove the following unauthorised structures from the premises by 11:59pm, Sunday 1 March 2026: a. The addition/extension to the shed; and b. The large, shaded structure at the back of the premises.
If the tenant fails to remove both unauthorised structures by 11:59pm, Sunday 1 March 2026, then the tenancy at 7A Harwood Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023 will terminate. and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 3 February 2026. Maria Rosalia Seesee Talai (nee Tavita) appeared on behalf of the tenant.
The landlord claims the tenant has breached their obligations by erecting two structures in the backyard without the landlord’s consent. The landlord has issued the tenant with two 14-day notices to remove the structures, which the tenant has not complied with. Therefore, the landlord claims the tenancy should be terminated. The landlord seeks a conditional order for termination of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The law

A tenant must not affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises, except: 1 a. In accordance with the tenancy agreement; or b. With the prior written consent of the landlord.
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. 2
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. 3
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 [23 September 2020], the District Court held that the following factors are relevant to an assessment whether it is inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings c. Whether the history of breaches 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 Analysis
The tenant has erected two structures in the backyard. The first is an extension or addition to a shed. The tenant referred to this as the “sleep out”. The second structure resembles a carport. It appears to have been erected for the purpose of providing shade. The tenant gave evidence that they used an umu, which is a traditional Samoan earth oven, to cook food under this area. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 42(1). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1)(b).
The tenancy agreement does not permit the tenant to build or erect additional structures on the premises. The landlord did not give the tenant written permission to do this either. By building two structures in the backyard, I find the tenant breached their obligations under section 42(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The breach is capable of remedy and the landlord issued the tenant two 14-day notices on 27 November 2024 and 24 September 2025. The tenant has not remedied the breach by removing the unauthorised structures within a reasonable timeframe.
I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the following reasons: a. The history of the tenancy. The tenancy began on 12 May 2022. In addition to erecting the two unauthorised structures, the tenant owes $960.00 in rent arrears. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. The landlord has issued two 14-day notices, which the tenant has failed to comply with. The landlord has engaged extensively with the tenant over telephone and visits to the premises throughout 2024 and 2025, requesting that the structures be removed and offering support to the tenant. Despite this, the tenant has not removed the unauthorised structures. I find there has been a persistent failure after repeated requests and warnings by the landlord. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. The landlord has been asking the tenant to remove the unauthorised structures since 2024. Given how long the tenant has failed to comply with the landlord’s request, I find it unlikely that they will comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberate. The tenant intentionally built the structures and did not seek the landlord’s written permission first. They have failed to remove them after being asked to do so for over one year. For these reasons, I find the breach was deliberate. e. The conduct of the landlord. The landlord has acted reasonably and fairly towards the tenant in respect of this issue, only seeking termination as a last resort. f. The gravity of the breach. The structures are large and have not been built by a qualified builder. The landlord submitted an email from the Asset Manager who has inspected the structures. The Asset Manager raises concerns about their structural integrity and the fact that the extension to the shed requires a building consent but does not have one. The roof on the other structure is noted as not having any drainage. Considering the size of the structures and concerns around their structural integrity, I find the breach to be serious. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. The structures are large. The tenant has had over one year to remove them and has failed to do so. The health and safety risks outlined by the Asset Manager are concerning. For these reasons, I find termination to be a proportionate response to the breach.
Any order made by the Tribunal may be unconditional or subject to such conditions (whether as to the time for, or mode of, compliance, or otherwise) as the Tribunal thinks fit to impose. 4 In this case, I find it fair and reasonable to make the termination order conditional upon the tenant failing to remove the unauthorised structures by 11:59pm, Sunday 1 March 2026. This provides the tenant with one final opportunity to remove the structures if they want to keep living at the premises. The landlord was not opposed to a conditional termination order being made. The tenant gave evidence they should be able to remove the structures over the weekend of 14 and 15 February 2026.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order may be enforced for 90 days from the first breach. 5

Order

Maria Rosalia Seesee Talai (nee Tavita) and Maulolo Talai must remove the following unauthorised structures from the premises by 11:59pm, Sunday 1 March 2026: a. The addition/extension to the shed; and b. The large, shaded structure at the back of the premises.
If the tenant fails to remove both unauthorised structures by 11:59pm, Sunday 1 March 2026, then the tenancy at 7A Harwood Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023 will terminate. and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 3 February 2026. Maria Rosalia Seesee Talai (nee Tavita) appeared on behalf of the tenant.
The landlord claims the tenant has breached their obligations by erecting two structures in the backyard without the landlord’s consent. The landlord has issued the tenant with two 14-day notices to remove the structures, which the tenant has not complied with. Therefore, the landlord claims the tenancy should be terminated. The landlord seeks a conditional order for termination of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The law

A tenant must not affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises, except: 1 a. In accordance with the tenancy agreement; or b. With the prior written consent of the landlord.
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. 2
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. 3
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 [23 September 2020], the District Court held that the following factors are relevant to an assessment whether it is inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings c. Whether the history of breaches 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 Analysis
The tenant has erected two structures in the backyard. The first is an extension or addition to a shed. The tenant referred to this as the “sleep out”. The second structure resembles a carport. It appears to have been erected for the purpose of providing shade. The tenant gave evidence that they used an umu, which is a traditional Samoan earth oven, to cook food under this area. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 42(1). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1)(b).
The tenancy agreement does not permit the tenant to build or erect additional structures on the premises. The landlord did not give the tenant written permission to do this either. By building two structures in the backyard, I find the tenant breached their obligations under section 42(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The breach is capable of remedy and the landlord issued the tenant two 14-day notices on 27 November 2024 and 24 September 2025. The tenant has not remedied the breach by removing the unauthorised structures within a reasonable timeframe.
I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the following reasons: a. The history of the tenancy. The tenancy began on 12 May 2022. In addition to erecting the two unauthorised structures, the tenant owes $960.00 in rent arrears. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. The landlord has issued two 14-day notices, which the tenant has failed to comply with. The landlord has engaged extensively with the tenant over telephone and visits to the premises throughout 2024 and 2025, requesting that the structures be removed and offering support to the tenant. Despite this, the tenant has not removed the unauthorised structures. I find there has been a persistent failure after repeated requests and warnings by the landlord. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. The landlord has been asking the tenant to remove the unauthorised structures since 2024. Given how long the tenant has failed to comply with the landlord’s request, I find it unlikely that they will comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberate. The tenant intentionally built the structures and did not seek the landlord’s written permission first. They have failed to remove them after being asked to do so for over one year. For these reasons, I find the breach was deliberate. e. The conduct of the landlord. The landlord has acted reasonably and fairly towards the tenant in respect of this issue, only seeking termination as a last resort. f. The gravity of the breach. The structures are large and have not been built by a qualified builder. The landlord submitted an email from the Asset Manager who has inspected the structures. The Asset Manager raises concerns about their structural integrity and the fact that the extension to the shed requires a building consent but does not have one. The roof on the other structure is noted as not having any drainage. Considering the size of the structures and concerns around their structural integrity, I find the breach to be serious. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. The structures are large. The tenant has had over one year to remove them and has failed to do so. The health and safety risks outlined by the Asset Manager are concerning. For these reasons, I find termination to be a proportionate response to the breach.
Any order made by the Tribunal may be unconditional or subject to such conditions (whether as to the time for, or mode of, compliance, or otherwise) as the Tribunal thinks fit to impose. 4 In this case, I find it fair and reasonable to make the termination order conditional upon the tenant failing to remove the unauthorised structures by 11:59pm, Sunday 1 March 2026. This provides the tenant with one final opportunity to remove the structures if they want to keep living at the premises. The landlord was not opposed to a conditional termination order being made. The tenant gave evidence they should be able to remove the structures over the weekend of 14 and 15 February 2026.
The conditional termination order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, the possession order may be enforced for 90 days from the first breach. 5

Tenancy Tribunal case 5408751 — Rent arrears at 7A Harwood Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5408751 — Rent arrears at 7A Harwood Crescent, Otara, Auckland 2023

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