What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5471058?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Shaquila Te Aroha Si De Thierry at 9 Byron Road, Enderley,

How much money was awarded in case 5471058?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5471058?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5471058?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13551561-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5471058?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Shaquila Te Aroha Si De Thierry at 9 Byron Road, Enderley,

How much money was awarded in case 5471058?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5471058?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5471058?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13551561-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Byron Road, Enderley, Hamilton 3214 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5471058 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Shaquila Te Aroha Si De Thierry at 9 Byron Road, Enderley, Hamilton 3214 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 6 May 2026. The tenant did not.
The landlord seeks an order for termination of the tenancy, because they claim the tenant is not living at the premises.
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

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. 1
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. 2
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 landlord claims the tenant has breached clause 14 of the tenancy agreement. This clause states: You must live in the home at all times. The home must only be used by you and other people who were named on your housing application.
The landlord claims they have not been able to contact the tenant since early 2026, despite numerous attempts. On 20 February 2026, the landlord completed an inspection of the premises. The landlord submitted a copy of the inspection report. The premises appear messy with clothes and other belongings scattered throughout. The electricity was connected at the time and a dog was locked inside the garage. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1)(b).
The landlord suspected the tenant was not living at the premises on 20 February 2026 and therefore hand delivered a 14-day breach notice for non- occupancy at the time of inspection.
The landlord visited the premises again on 28 April 2026 and submitted a copy of the inspection report. The premises are in much the same condition as they were at the last inspection. Photographs of the inside of the fridge show lots of rotting food is present. The lawns appear very overgrown. These two matters indicate no one has been living at the premises for quite some time. The landlord gave evidence a person was present at the time of the inspection, but this person was not the tenant. Whilst there appears to be someone intermittently visiting the premises, the tenant remains absent.
The landlord also submitted a copy of contemporaneous notes taken by their customer service team who receive phone calls to the main office. A note has been made that the tenant called the office on 20 March 2026, advising that they had left the premises due to safety concerns and would not be returning. The landlord gave evidence that they have tried to call the tenant multiple times since with no success.
All of this evidence convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has not been living in the premises since at least 20 February 2026. This is a breach of clause 14 of the tenancy agreement. The landlord sent the tenant a 14-day notice on 20 February 2026 and completed an inspection of the premises on 28 April 2026. I am convinced the tenant was still not living at the premises on 28 April 2026. For this reason, I find the tenant has not remedied the breach within a reasonable timeframe being no less than 14 days.
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 14 January 2025. Although the tenant is up to date with their rent, the landlord claims the tenancy has been fraught with difficulties such as, disturbances to neighbours and anti-social behaviour. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. In their 14-day notice dated 20 February 2026, the landlord warned the tenant that if they did not resume living at the premises, an application for termination would be made with the Tribunal. The landlord claims they have also warned the tenant about this via voicemail messages and text messages. I find there has been a persistent failure by the tenant to resume living at the premises after repeated warnings. c. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. I find the breach was deliberately committed. I understand the tenant may have needed to leave the premises due to safety concerns. Although the breach may not have been committed maliciously, the tenant has still made a deliberate decision to stop living at the premises without giving the landlord 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy. d. The conduct of the landlord. The landlord has been very accommodating by trying to contact the tenant and providing them with sufficient time to resume living at the premises. The landlord has only sought termination as a last resort. e. The gravity of the breach. The breach is serious. This is because the landlord is a social housing provider, and the premises have sat vacant for some months now. The landlord is unable to tenant the premises to other vulnerable people who are in need, because the tenant has not given notice to end the tenancy.
For all of these reasons, I find termination to be a proportionate response to the breach. Filing fee
The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee and therefore, I do not order the tenant to pay this cost.

Order

The tenancy of Shaquila Te Aroha Si De Thierry at 9 Byron Road, Enderley, Hamilton 3214 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 6 May 2026. The tenant did not.
The landlord seeks an order for termination of the tenancy, because they claim the tenant is not living at the premises.
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

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. 1
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. 2
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 landlord claims the tenant has breached clause 14 of the tenancy agreement. This clause states: You must live in the home at all times. The home must only be used by you and other people who were named on your housing application.
The landlord claims they have not been able to contact the tenant since early 2026, despite numerous attempts. On 20 February 2026, the landlord completed an inspection of the premises. The landlord submitted a copy of the inspection report. The premises appear messy with clothes and other belongings scattered throughout. The electricity was connected at the time and a dog was locked inside the garage. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1)(b).
The landlord suspected the tenant was not living at the premises on 20 February 2026 and therefore hand delivered a 14-day breach notice for non- occupancy at the time of inspection.
The landlord visited the premises again on 28 April 2026 and submitted a copy of the inspection report. The premises are in much the same condition as they were at the last inspection. Photographs of the inside of the fridge show lots of rotting food is present. The lawns appear very overgrown. These two matters indicate no one has been living at the premises for quite some time. The landlord gave evidence a person was present at the time of the inspection, but this person was not the tenant. Whilst there appears to be someone intermittently visiting the premises, the tenant remains absent.
The landlord also submitted a copy of contemporaneous notes taken by their customer service team who receive phone calls to the main office. A note has been made that the tenant called the office on 20 March 2026, advising that they had left the premises due to safety concerns and would not be returning. The landlord gave evidence that they have tried to call the tenant multiple times since with no success.
All of this evidence convinces me on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has not been living in the premises since at least 20 February 2026. This is a breach of clause 14 of the tenancy agreement. The landlord sent the tenant a 14-day notice on 20 February 2026 and completed an inspection of the premises on 28 April 2026. I am convinced the tenant was still not living at the premises on 28 April 2026. For this reason, I find the tenant has not remedied the breach within a reasonable timeframe being no less than 14 days.
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 14 January 2025. Although the tenant is up to date with their rent, the landlord claims the tenancy has been fraught with difficulties such as, disturbances to neighbours and anti-social behaviour. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. In their 14-day notice dated 20 February 2026, the landlord warned the tenant that if they did not resume living at the premises, an application for termination would be made with the Tribunal. The landlord claims they have also warned the tenant about this via voicemail messages and text messages. I find there has been a persistent failure by the tenant to resume living at the premises after repeated warnings. c. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. I find the breach was deliberately committed. I understand the tenant may have needed to leave the premises due to safety concerns. Although the breach may not have been committed maliciously, the tenant has still made a deliberate decision to stop living at the premises without giving the landlord 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy. d. The conduct of the landlord. The landlord has been very accommodating by trying to contact the tenant and providing them with sufficient time to resume living at the premises. The landlord has only sought termination as a last resort. e. The gravity of the breach. The breach is serious. This is because the landlord is a social housing provider, and the premises have sat vacant for some months now. The landlord is unable to tenant the premises to other vulnerable people who are in need, because the tenant has not given notice to end the tenancy.
For all of these reasons, I find termination to be a proportionate response to the breach. Filing fee
The landlord did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee and therefore, I do not order the tenant to pay this cost.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5471058 — 14-day notice at 9 Byron Road, Enderley, Hamilton 3214

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5471058 — 14-day notice at 9 Byron Road, Enderley, Hamilton 3214

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