What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5422710?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of TATIANA MAKUINI WILSON at Unit/Flat 6, 3 Bader Drive,

How much money was awarded in case 5422710?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422710?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422710?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13363775-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5422710?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of TATIANA MAKUINI WILSON at Unit/Flat 6, 3 Bader Drive,

How much money was awarded in case 5422710?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422710?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422710?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13363775-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 3 Bader Drive, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5422710 — Cleanliness

Order

The tenancy of TATIANA MAKUINI WILSON at Unit/Flat 6, 3 Bader Drive, Mangere, Auckland 2022 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately at 10am on Monday the 30 March 2026.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended today’s hearing. The hearing was stood down for 15 minutes to allow the tenant to attend, but she did not attend.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is that the tenant’s (ex) partner Justin sniffs glue outside on the landing and stairwell of the tenancy premises, falls asleep, urinates in common areas and creates a nuisance for the tenant’s neighbours. The landlord has issued 3 separate anti-social breach notices under s55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 for this behaviour. • On the 29 September 2025 the landlord issued the first breach notice it described the behaviour as: At about 12pm on Monday, 22 September 2025, your ex-partner Justin was seen sitting outside the front door of your neighbour’s apartment, sniffing the chemicals of glue. The fumes from the chemicals of glue were entering the property under the front door, giving them a headache. • On the 23 October 2025 the landlord issued the second breach notice it described the behaviour as: On 11 October2025, your ex-partner Justin was positioned directly outside your neighbour’s front door, in the communal stairwell area, obstructing the exit. Justin was seen sniffing what is believed to be toxic substances from a plastic bread bag before falling asleep in the communal entry/exit area. On 12 October, Justin was again outside your neighbour’s property. This time, he was awake and was sniffing substances believed to be glue. He was then observed by your neighbours urinating in the communal area through the railings on the second floor of the apartment complex before leaving the premises. • On the 16 December 2025 the landlord gave the tenant her third anti-social behaviour notice. It described the behaviour as: On Saturday 1 November 2025, your partner Justin was sitting outside the communal stairwell of your property at Unit 6, 3 Bader Drive. Justin was perched up against your neighbour’s front door sniffing a toxic substance believed to be glue from a plastic bread bag and passed out in.
The tenant did not challenge any of the notices.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti- social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I consider that Justin was likely to have been on the landing and stairwell with the tenant’s permission because a swipe key is needed to access the stairwell and landing and the tenant admitted both to Police and to a housing manager who conducted the inspection on the 27 November that her ex-partner Justin lives at the premises, Justin was also seen by the housing manager at the premises on the 27 November 2025 sniffing glue in the bedroom.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose, and the notices were given. I say this because it is clear to me that the tenant is permitting Justin to be at the premises as he she has stated to Police and her housing manager that he lives there. The tenant’s neighbours are families with young children, it is distressing and unsafe for the tenant’s neighbours to be exposed to glue sniffing and the behaviour that results from being under the influence of solvents.
I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The tenancy is therefore terminated.
I also record that the landlord applied for termination on the basis that the tenant had failed to comply with a breach notice given under s56 RTA for cleanliness. The landlord issued the tenant with a notice on the 21 October 2025 after inspecting the property and finding it is an unclean and untidy state. The landlord reinspected the property on the 27 November 2025 and whilst the tenant had made an attempt to clean some areas identified in the notice, the bedroom was very dirty with the grime and a substance (most likely the glue or solvent that the tenant’s partner was sniffing) all over the floor and walls.
Having consider the evidence provided by the landlord, including the inspection reports, I would have terminated the tenancy under s56 as well. Possession order may be carried immediately.
Usually, a possession order cannot be enforced (an eviction actioned) until 48 hours after the order is made. However, I can grant leave for the order to be enforced immediately; see section 138(1) of the District Court Act 2016. Section 106(2) RTA states that s 138(1) applies as if the reference to a District Court Judge, were a reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator.
The landlord may make an immediate application for an eviction warrant to have bailiff and/or police assistance to obtain possession, if required.
I consider it appropriate to make this order because the behaviour has been ongoing. The landlord has not had access to the premises since the application to the tribunal on the 12 January 2026 1 has become and is concerned about the condition of the property. As the tenant lives in close proximity to her neighbours who are families with young children, I consider that it is appropriate that the terminate is to be enforced immediately to minimise any risk of damage to the premises and risk to the safety and wellbeing of others that live in the complex.

Order

The tenancy of TATIANA MAKUINI WILSON at Unit/Flat 6, 3 Bader Drive, Mangere, Auckland 2022 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately at 10am on Monday the 30 March 2026.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended today’s hearing. The hearing was stood down for 15 minutes to allow the tenant to attend, but she did not attend.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is that the tenant’s (ex) partner Justin sniffs glue outside on the landing and stairwell of the tenancy premises, falls asleep, urinates in common areas and creates a nuisance for the tenant’s neighbours. The landlord has issued 3 separate anti-social breach notices under s55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 for this behaviour. • On the 29 September 2025 the landlord issued the first breach notice it described the behaviour as: At about 12pm on Monday, 22 September 2025, your ex-partner Justin was seen sitting outside the front door of your neighbour’s apartment, sniffing the chemicals of glue. The fumes from the chemicals of glue were entering the property under the front door, giving them a headache. • On the 23 October 2025 the landlord issued the second breach notice it described the behaviour as: On 11 October2025, your ex-partner Justin was positioned directly outside your neighbour’s front door, in the communal stairwell area, obstructing the exit. Justin was seen sniffing what is believed to be toxic substances from a plastic bread bag before falling asleep in the communal entry/exit area. On 12 October, Justin was again outside your neighbour’s property. This time, he was awake and was sniffing substances believed to be glue. He was then observed by your neighbours urinating in the communal area through the railings on the second floor of the apartment complex before leaving the premises. • On the 16 December 2025 the landlord gave the tenant her third anti-social behaviour notice. It described the behaviour as: On Saturday 1 November 2025, your partner Justin was sitting outside the communal stairwell of your property at Unit 6, 3 Bader Drive. Justin was perched up against your neighbour’s front door sniffing a toxic substance believed to be glue from a plastic bread bag and passed out in.
The tenant did not challenge any of the notices.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti- social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I consider that Justin was likely to have been on the landing and stairwell with the tenant’s permission because a swipe key is needed to access the stairwell and landing and the tenant admitted both to Police and to a housing manager who conducted the inspection on the 27 November that her ex-partner Justin lives at the premises, Justin was also seen by the housing manager at the premises on the 27 November 2025 sniffing glue in the bedroom.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose, and the notices were given. I say this because it is clear to me that the tenant is permitting Justin to be at the premises as he she has stated to Police and her housing manager that he lives there. The tenant’s neighbours are families with young children, it is distressing and unsafe for the tenant’s neighbours to be exposed to glue sniffing and the behaviour that results from being under the influence of solvents.
I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The tenancy is therefore terminated.
I also record that the landlord applied for termination on the basis that the tenant had failed to comply with a breach notice given under s56 RTA for cleanliness. The landlord issued the tenant with a notice on the 21 October 2025 after inspecting the property and finding it is an unclean and untidy state. The landlord reinspected the property on the 27 November 2025 and whilst the tenant had made an attempt to clean some areas identified in the notice, the bedroom was very dirty with the grime and a substance (most likely the glue or solvent that the tenant’s partner was sniffing) all over the floor and walls.
Having consider the evidence provided by the landlord, including the inspection reports, I would have terminated the tenancy under s56 as well. Possession order may be carried immediately.
Usually, a possession order cannot be enforced (an eviction actioned) until 48 hours after the order is made. However, I can grant leave for the order to be enforced immediately; see section 138(1) of the District Court Act 2016. Section 106(2) RTA states that s 138(1) applies as if the reference to a District Court Judge, were a reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator.
The landlord may make an immediate application for an eviction warrant to have bailiff and/or police assistance to obtain possession, if required.
I consider it appropriate to make this order because the behaviour has been ongoing. The landlord has not had access to the premises since the application to the tribunal on the 12 January 2026 1 has become and is concerned about the condition of the property. As the tenant lives in close proximity to her neighbours who are families with young children, I consider that it is appropriate that the terminate is to be enforced immediately to minimise any risk of damage to the premises and risk to the safety and wellbeing of others that live in the complex.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422710 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 6, 3 Bader Drive, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422710 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 6, 3 Bader Drive, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions