Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5411395 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 3D, 15 Auburn Street, Takapuna, Auckland
Decided 16 March 2026 · Published 16 March 2026 · Application 5411395
Landlord favoured
- Filing Fee
- Filing Fee Reimbursement
- Harassment
- Property damage
- 14-day notice
- Unit Titles
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
V Pasupati
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $328.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $328.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Body Corporate fine | $300.00 | Body Corporate fine | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $328.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $328.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5411395 — net $328.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Body Corporate fine
- Amount
- $300.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Body Corporate fine
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $328.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $328.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The tenancy of Jordan Glen-Gaul at Unit/Flat Flat 3D, 15 Auburn Street, Takapuna, Auckland 0622 is terminated, and possession is granted to Smith Property Management Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management Greenlane as agent for Janine Williamson and Steven Mindel as Agent Trustees for C D Mindel Family Trust, at 11.59pm on Monday 30 March 2026.
- Jordan Glen-Gaul must pay Smith Property Management Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management Greenlane as agent for Janine Williamson and Steven Mindel as Agent Trustees for C D Mindel Family Trust $328.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing, with Mr Smith representing the landlord. Ms Hemopo, the tenant’s partner, appeared as a witness.
- The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, and compensation for a Body Corporate fine. Background
- This tenancy began on 10 October 2025 and is for a fixed term, due to end on 10 October 2026. The tenancy premises is part of an apartment complex.
- The landlord issued breach notices concerning the tenant’s behaviour on 19 October, 20 October and 7 November 2025. These notices concerned smoking and vaping inside the apartment, smoking/vaping in the stairwell, exceeding the permitted occupancy within the apartment, excessive noise, loud parties, frequent loud gatherings and high visitor numbers, slamming of doors, and other breaches.
- On 18 November 2025, a resident of a neighbouring apartment reported a fight between occupants at the premises, and informed police. The following day, on 19 November 2025, one of the tenant’s visitors was seen tampering with the electrical switchboard, with the power to all the apartments being disconnected. One of the neighbours, Ms B, provided a statutory declaration dated 21 December 2025 describing these two events.
- On 5 December 2025 the Body Corporate issued a breach notice to the owner of the premises, fining them $300.00 for the disruptive behaviour of the tenant. This notice listed various issues reported to the Body Corporate as follows: • A large number of visitors frequently attending the property both day and night. • Potential incidents involving violent behaviour or threats of violence. • An ongoing lack of consideration for other occupants in the building. • Smoking on the common property. • Allegedly, one of their visitors was caught tampering with the electrical switchboard.
- There were further issues raised by neighbours of the tenant. One of the neighbours, Ms B, wrote to the landlord on 6 December 2025 reporting that there was an offensive odour coming from the tenant’s apartment. On 7 December 2025 Ms B wrote that she was no longer able to leave her side windows open to enjoy the fresh air due to the smell of vaping.
- Another neighbour, Mr D, wrote to the landlord on 8 December 2025 expressing concern about the strong, unpleasant odours permeating the hallway, including the smell of tobacco and marijuana. This was creating an uncomfortable and unwelcome environment for all residents. He noted the continuous flow of visitors during late hours, and the noise, disrupted their peace and safety. He requested urgent action by the landlord.
- The landlord emailed the tenant on 9 December 2025 advising of the breach notice and requesting payment of the $300.00 Body Corporate fine.
- The landlord issued a further 14 day breach notice to the tenant on 10 December 2025. This identified the following breaches: • smoking and vaping inside the apartment • smoking marijuana on the premises • smoking and vaping in common areas, including the stairwell • excessive noise, including loud parties, screaming and thumping sounds • incidents involving threats or potential violent behaviour • frequent large numbers of visitors • permitting a visitor to tamper with the electrical switchboard, creating a significant safety hazard, including potential fire or electrocution.
- The tenant responded on 10 December 2025, denying the allegations and asking to see the proof. The landlord replied that there was video evidence, a complaint to police, and at least two individuals had witnessed the incidents.
- On 30 December 2025 the Body Corporate received an email from occupants reporting parcels going missing, fighting in the lobby, and damage to property.
- The tenant’s neighbour continued to experience problems with the odour from vaping, reporting this to the landlord on 13 January 2026. The landlord wrote to the tenant about these events.
- On 6 March 2026 the landlord received an email from another neighbour about noise and banging from the tenant’s premises, from midnight to 2am. The hearing
- The landlord provided a written timeline of events and the supporting written communication, which were detailed at the hearing. The landlord sought termination due to the persistent pattern of behaviour by the tenant. The behaviour continued, noting there had been noise from the tenant’s apartment between midnight and 2am. There had been a series if breaches of the tenancy agreement and Body Corporate rules, including the power outage, anti-social behaviour, harassment and intimidation of neighbours, police involvement, and disturbance of the quiet enjoyment of neighbours. The landlord had talked to the tenant about ending the fixed term tenancy early, but his partner did not agree.
- In response to the landlord’s evidence, the tenant states the allegations are false. His evidence is that he vapes outside the apartment and denies smoking inside. He considers the allegations about noise to be false. The tenant has explained that the power outage occurred when he asked a friend, who was visiting, to note the ICP number while he was on the phone to his electricity provider. He had not asked her to tamper with the switchboard. The tenant also denies having excessive visitors, or being noisy at night.
- The tenant’s witness, his partner, also denied the accusations made, stating she did not smoke or vape inside the apartment, does not smoke marijuana, was not violent. She further states that there were no parties, loud music, or fighting, no large groups of people, and only the two of them live at the apartment. Legal framework
- In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
- The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach.
- Under Section 56 of the RTA, 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. 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. Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
- However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
- Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA states that a tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood.
Should the tenancy be terminated?
- In this case, the landlord served multiple breach notices and 14-day breach notices on the tenant. The first notice was issued within a week of the tenancy beginning. The evidence shows that many of the issues raised by the landlord continued to occur, and were not remedied within the required period. The landlord has received email communication from neighbours since the notices were issued. The Body Corporate has fined the owner because of breaches under the Body Corporate Operational Rules. The tenant denies many of these allegations. However, having considered the evidence as a whole, I find it more likely than not that the tenant did breach his responsibilities under the RTA.
- The next step is to consider whether the requirements for termination of the tenancy under section 56 of the RTA are met. The question is whether, due to the nature and extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to terminate the tenancy. The ending of a tenancy has significant implications for a tenant and is a measure that is not taken lightly. There are many factors to consider when determining whether a breach is serious enough to terminate. As noted by the District Court decision in Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation, 1 these factors include: whether the breach is accidental or intentional, whether a breach is made good by the tenant, the landlord’s conduct, the tenant’s financial position, the gravity of the breach, and proportionality.
- Having regard to these factors, due to the nature and extent of the breaches, I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. My reasons for this finding are as follows.
- The history of the tenancy shows there have been multiple breaches by the tenant. In situations where such failures could be remedied, there was a failure to remedy. The tenant has received repeated warnings concerning these breaches. I consider most of these breaches to be intentional. While noting the tenant and his partner’s denial at the hearing, the various issues have been reported from multiple sources. Three different residents of the apartment complex have provided written communication to the landlord expressing their concerns. One resident has provided a statutory declaration and multiple emails. The Body Corporate has also received complaints, and has communicated this to the landlord.
- I am satisfied that the landlord has acted appropriately in the circumstances. When taken as a whole, the gravity of the breaches is significant. There is evidence regarding the effect of these breaches, resulting in concerns for other residents in the apartment complex, the Body Corporate, and the landlord. The disturbances are ongoing, and the behaviour has continued. The owner of the premises has incurred additional costs as a result. Overall, termination is a 1 DC Porirua CIV-2010-091-110, 28 June 2010 proportionate response to address the concerns the tenant has created for the neighbouring residents.
- Accordingly, the tenancy is terminated, and possession is granted to the landlord after 14 days. The tenant will remain liable for the rent to the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant is also liable for the Body Corporate fine of $300.00, which is awarded above. Filing fee and name suppression
- As the landlord has been successful, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee.
- Neither party seeks name suppression.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(2), s56
Key findings
- Dispute theme: termination 14day
- Dispute theme: harassment
- Dispute theme: unit titles
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5411395?
The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jordan Glen-Gaul at Unit/Flat Flat 3D, 15 Auburn Street,
How much money was awarded in case 5411395?
Body Corporate Fine: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5411395?
The dispute type was not classified.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5411395?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13260140-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.