What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5431129?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Lance Adrian Henderson at 3E Winiata Street, Levin, Levin

How much money was awarded in case 5431129?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431129?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13218740-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5431129?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Lance Adrian Henderson at 3E Winiata Street, Levin, Levin

How much money was awarded in case 5431129?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5431129?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5431129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13218740-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3E Winiata Street, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5431129 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Lance Adrian Henderson at 3E Winiata Street, Levin, Levin 5510 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm on Friday 27 March 2026.

Reasons

Ms Davis, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The tenant did not join the hearing conference by phone or video as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing so did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
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.

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 having rubbish around the outside of his property, by putting graffiti and stickers on the front door, blocking any pedestrian safe access to the rear yard and removing fence palings to access the back yard through gaps in the fence created by the tenant. The landlord said the tenant also left a car wreck at the property, which has recently been removed.
The landlord said they have had complaints from neighbours and from the local Council about the tenant about the rubbish he has left outside the property, on the shared driveway, stacked up against the fence and that he has burned rubbish outside the property contrary to Council regulations.
The landlord said the tenant also has a history of disruptive behaviour at the property, which was apparently the subject of multiple 14-day breach notices in relation to loud music and abusive behaviour towards neighbours and others, but the landlord said this behaviour has been largely remedied more recently.
The landlord said they have served 14-day notices on the tenant dated 12 May 2025, 30 May 2025 and 28 November 2025. The landlord provided copies of the 14-day notices dated 12 May 2025 and 28 November 2025 but said they could not locate a copy of the 14-day notice dated 30 May 2025 that was issued, which they said required the tenant to remove rubbish.
The 14-day notice dated 12 May 2025 was in relation to rubbish at the property, which the landlord said was not remedied within the 14-day period.
The 14-day notice dated 28 November 2025 required the tenant to remove all rubbish and fully clean and tidy the exterior of the property, remove all graffiti and stickers and reinstate the paint on the front door, remove the car wreck from the shared driveway area and reinstate safe pedestrian access to the rear yard, including replacing the missing fence palings.
The landlord said that these issues were not remedied within the period of the 14 days from 28 November 2025 but said the tenant subsequently removed the car wreck but did not comply with or remedy the other issues.
The landlord provided photographs which they said were taken on the morning of the hearing on 3 March 2026, which show the front door still covered with graffiti and stickers, that the tenant has inserted a blue garage door in place of the wooden side gate, or in front of the gate, but has blocked access through what was the side gate next to the garage, and also showed the fence palings removed by the tenant and leaning up against a neighbour’s fence and a large gap in the fence, partly hidden by the tenant’s bins on the berm of the neighbour’s property, which the landlord said allows the tenant to access the rear yard through the fence gap, rather than through the side gate, which has been consistently blocked.
The landlord also provided photographs as part of an Inspection Report dated 8 January 2026, which they said showed the current condition of the property, apart from the car wreck being removed and the shared driveway being cleared since then.
The landlord said the tenant has refused access to them on numerous occasions also, indicating that they were unable to complete their annual property inspection at any time throughout 2022 and in 2023. Even in attempting to arrange a recent property inspection, the landlord said they had originally scheduled an inspection for 18 December 2025 when the tenant would not allow access, and they had to reschedule the inspection until 8 January 2026.
The landlord said there were other complaints about the tenant prior to 12 May 2025 in relation to rubbish. They reported a complaint from the Council on 4 April 2025 for rubbish on the shared driveway, which included a burnt-out couch. After some negotiation with the tenant, the landlord said this was eventually removed by the tenant.
The landlord said the tenant has continued to burn materials, accumulate scrap metal and incur complaints from the neighbours and Council. The landlord indicated the tenant fails to engage with them repeatedly.
The landlord remained concerned about the condition of the exterior of the property, including overgrown gardens which need mowing and trimming, blocked and unsafe access to the rear yard, further rubbish that needs to be removed by the tenant, and the front door that needs to be remedied.
The landlord sought a order requiring the tenant to clear all the rubbish from outside the property, clean the exterior of the property, reinstate and secure safe pedestrian access to the rear of the property, remove all graffiti and stickers from the front door and reinstate the paint on the front door, as part of a conditional termination order.
The landlord acknowledged that the tenant had recently removed the car wreck and cleared the shared driveway to an acceptable standard. However, the landlord pointed out that on a visit to the property on 20 May 2025, the Housing Support Manager noticed the tenant had started decreasing the rubbish then, but then the rubbish subsequently increased again afterwards.
The landlord said the tenant did not rectify the issues breached within the required period.
The next issue to determine is whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, at paragraph [61] set out 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 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.
I will address each of these factors in turn in relation to the evidence, as set out below: a. The landlord’s evidence was that the issues relating to the tenant’s rubbish and condition of the exterior of the property and burning rubbish at the property began at least by 4 April 2025 when the Council complained of the tenant burning rubbish at the property and rubbish left blocking the shared driveway which included a burnt-out couch. There were other incidents in relation to these issues, which resulted in 3 x 14-day notices being issued to the tenant by the landlord to remedy these issues. b. There is a history of the tenant refusing access to the property, which resulted in the landlord being unable to complete their annual property inspection in 2022 and in 2023. The landlord said the tenant would agree to inspection dates and then would consistently cancel these resulting in no access to the property. This issue occurred again in relation to the most recent property inspection in January 2026. Regular access to a property is crucial for a landlord to fulfil their maintenance obligations, which also benefits the health and safety of a tenant, as well as maintains their asset, and also often is a compliance issue for landlords to maintain any property insurance. c. There is also a history, according to the landlord, of a number of 14-day notices being issued to the tenant for disruptive behaviour, though the landlord said this had largely been addressed by the tenant more recently. d. The landlord said the tenant has repeatedly refused to engage with them, about the rubbish clearing, the condition of the exterior of the property, him blocking up the side gate and removing fence palings from the fence to have access to the rear yard through a gap in the fence and other issues. The landlord said the tenant has still has not remedied most of the issues in their 14-day notice dated 28 November 2025, several months later. e. Given the evidence of the history of breaches by the tenant, I find it unlikely that the tenant will comply with his obligations in the future. f. The breaches have been ongoing and, though the rubbish was apparently temporarily reduced in late May 2025, it subsequently increased in size and nature again. This behaviour indicates that these breaches were deliberately committed. g. The landlord gave evidence of continued support and monitoring provided by their Housing Support Managers to the tenant to attempt to resolve these issues. h. The ongoing issues in relation to rubbish, overgrown section, blocking of safe access to the rear yard, refusal to allow the landlord access to the property, the condition of the exterior of the property, including the outside of the front door, which have continued since at least early 2025, if not longer, prevent the landlord from ensuring the maintenance and good condition of their property and complying with their obligations as a landlord, which also ensures that a property is safe for a tenant. i. Given the evidence of the history of breaches by the tenant, the tenant’s refusal to engage repeatedly with the landlord or to allow consistent access to the property, and evidence of the property’s exterior condition, as well as that the breaches are ongoing, I find that termination is a proportionate response to the tenant’s breaches.
Therefore, I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy and so the tenancy is terminated.
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.
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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431129 — 14-day notice at 3E Winiata Street, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5431129 — 14-day notice at 3E Winiata Street, Levin, Levin 5510

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