Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5486255 — State of repair at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 24 Routley Avenue, Kaikohe, Kaikohe 0405

Published 30 April 2026 · Application 5486255

Landlord favoured

State of repair
Cleanliness

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Landlord favoured

From published order

Location

Kaikohe

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Kan

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

The application to terminate the tenancy under s55A for anti-social behaviour is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by way of video conference.
Ms Robinson appeared on behalf of the landlord and was assisted by Ms Maraki. Ms Wynyard participated in the hearing by teleconference.
The applicant landlord seeks termination of the tenancy pursuant to s 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) on the basis of alleged anti-social behaviour by the tenant, Ms Wynyard. Background and Evidence
The application arises from a serious incident that occurred at the premises involving Ms Wynyard and an individual residing at the property as a boarder.
Ms Robinson gave detailed oral evidence regarding the events following the incident and the condition of the premises. She also showed photographic images to me during the hearing.
The photographic material depicts extensive blood contamination throughout the premises. This includes, but is not limited to: a. Significant quantities of blood on the carpet in multiple areas of the dwelling; b. Blood splatter and staining on walls; c. A visible trail of blood through the premises, consistent with movement following injury; d. A bedroom area containing what appears to be pooled blood and biological matter; e. Signs consistent with emergency services attendance, including medical materials.
Ms Robinson described the incident as involving a violent altercation between the tenant and a boarder, resulting in serious injury. While I make no further comment on the condition of the premises, the physical aftermath is clearly evident from the evidence presented.
Having considered both the oral evidence and the photographic material, I accept that the premises were left in a condition that can properly be characterised as resembling a crime scene.
The condition of the premises raises significant concerns regarding hygiene, sanitation, and potential biohazard risk. These concerns are not confined to the tenant alone but extend to neighbouring occupants within the residential complex. Photographic Evidence
Ms Robinson expressed understandable concern about filing the photographs with the Tribunal registry due to their graphic and disturbing nature.
I record that such material constitutes relevant and probative evidence. The Tribunal is required to determine matters on the basis of available evidence, even where that evidence is confronting.
Accordingly, photographs of this nature should be filed with the Tribunal registry notwithstanding their disturbing content, so that a proper evidential record is maintained. Parties’ Obligations Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986
I raised with the parties that the obligations under the Act are reciprocal in nature.
While a landlord is required to provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair, a tenant is under a corresponding obligation to: a. Keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; and b. Not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises.
In the present case, the condition of the premises as described raises serious concerns as to whether the tenant has complied with those obligations. 14-Day Notice to Remedy
I note that no 14-day notice to remedy has been issued by the landlord in respect of the condition of the premises.
Such a notice would ordinarily provide the tenant with an opportunity to remedy the breach, including addressing hygiene, cleaning, and any associated risks.
Based on the evidence before me, I consider that the issues present are of a serious and substantial nature. The existence of biological contamination within a residential property is a matter of significant concern.
Had a compliant 14-day notice to remedy been issued, and had the tenant failed to remedy the situation within the prescribed timeframe, I consider there would have been a strong basis for termination.
In particular, given the nature and extent of the contamination and associated risks, it is likely that a refusal to terminate the tenancy in those circumstances would be inequitable. Application Under s 55A
The application before me, however, is made under s 55A, which provides for termination of a tenancy on the basis of anti-social behaviour.
That provision contains specific and mandatory procedural requirements. In particular, s 55A(2) requires that prescribed notices be issued to the tenant in a compliant form before an application for termination can be made.
These notice requirements are not merely technical. They are a substantive precondition to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to terminate a tenancy under s 55A.
On the material before me, I am not satisfied that the landlord issued notices that comply with the requirements of s 55A(2).
In the absence of such compliance, I have no jurisdiction to grant termination under that provision. Conclusion
The circumstances described by the landlord are serious and concerning. The condition of the premises, as evidenced, raises legitimate issues relating to safety, hygiene, and the wellbeing of other occupants.
However, the Tribunal’s powers under s 55A are contingent upon strict compliance with statutory notice requirements.
As those requirements have not been met, the application cannot succeed.
Accordingly, the application to terminate the tenancy under s 55A of the Act is dismissed.
This decision does not prevent the landlord from pursuing alternative remedies available under the Act, including the issuance of a 14-day notice to remedy.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

State of repair Cleanliness Kaikohe

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s55A, s55A(2)

Key findings

Dispute theme: state of repair
Dispute theme: cleaning

Property management

MID NORTH REAL ESTATE LIMITED as agent for G & E Tadema Trustee Company Ltd (applicant)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5486255?

The tribunal order states: The application to terminate the tenancy under s55A for anti-social behaviour is

How much money was awarded in case 5486255?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5486255?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5486255?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13521198-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by way of video conference.

Ms Robinson appeared on behalf of the landlord and was assisted by Ms Maraki. Ms Wynyard participated in the hearing by teleconference.

The applicant landlord seeks termination of the tenancy pursuant to s 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) on the basis of alleged anti-social behaviour by the tenant, Ms Wynyard. Background and Evidence

The application arises from a serious incident that occurred at the premises involving Ms Wynyard and an individual residing at the property as a boarder.

Ms Robinson gave detailed oral evidence regarding the events following the incident and the condition of the premises. She also showed photographic images to me during the hearing.

The photographic material depicts extensive blood contamination throughout the premises. This includes, but is not limited to: a. Significant quantities of blood on the carpet in multiple areas of the dwelling; b. Blood splatter and staining on walls; c. A visible trail of blood through the premises, consistent with movement following injury; d. A bedroom area containing what appears to be pooled blood and biological matter; e. Signs consistent with emergency services attendance, including medical materials.

Ms Robinson described the incident as involving a violent altercation between the tenant and a boarder, resulting in serious injury. While I make no further comment on the condition of the premises, the physical aftermath is clearly evident from the evidence presented.

Having considered both the oral evidence and the photographic material, I accept that the premises were left in a condition that can properly be characterised as resembling a crime scene.

The condition of the premises raises significant concerns regarding hygiene, sanitation, and potential biohazard risk. These concerns are not confined to the tenant alone but extend to neighbouring occupants within the residential complex. Photographic Evidence

Ms Robinson expressed understandable concern about filing the photographs with the Tribunal registry due to their graphic and disturbing nature.

I record that such material constitutes relevant and probative evidence. The Tribunal is required to determine matters on the basis of available evidence, even where that evidence is confronting.

Accordingly, photographs of this nature should be filed with the Tribunal registry notwithstanding their disturbing content, so that a proper evidential record is maintained. Parties’ Obligations Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986

I raised with the parties that the obligations under the Act are reciprocal in nature.

While a landlord is required to provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair, a tenant is under a corresponding obligation to: a. Keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; and b. Not intentionally or carelessly damage the premises.

In the present case, the condition of the premises as described raises serious concerns as to whether the tenant has complied with those obligations. 14-Day Notice to Remedy

I note that no 14-day notice to remedy has been issued by the landlord in respect of the condition of the premises.

Such a notice would ordinarily provide the tenant with an opportunity to remedy the breach, including addressing hygiene, cleaning, and any associated risks.

Based on the evidence before me, I consider that the issues present are of a serious and substantial nature. The existence of biological contamination within a residential property is a matter of significant concern.

Had a compliant 14-day notice to remedy been issued, and had the tenant failed to remedy the situation within the prescribed timeframe, I consider there would have been a strong basis for termination.

In particular, given the nature and extent of the contamination and associated risks, it is likely that a refusal to terminate the tenancy in those circumstances would be inequitable. Application Under s 55A

The application before me, however, is made under s 55A, which provides for termination of a tenancy on the basis of anti-social behaviour.

That provision contains specific and mandatory procedural requirements. In particular, s 55A(2) requires that prescribed notices be issued to the tenant in a compliant form before an application for termination can be made.

These notice requirements are not merely technical. They are a substantive precondition to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to terminate a tenancy under s 55A.

On the material before me, I am not satisfied that the landlord issued notices that comply with the requirements of s 55A(2).

In the absence of such compliance, I have no jurisdiction to grant termination under that provision. Conclusion

The circumstances described by the landlord are serious and concerning. The condition of the premises, as evidenced, raises legitimate issues relating to safety, hygiene, and the wellbeing of other occupants.

However, the Tribunal’s powers under s 55A are contingent upon strict compliance with statutory notice requirements.

As those requirements have not been met, the application cannot succeed.

Accordingly, the application to terminate the tenancy under s 55A of the Act is dismissed.

This decision does not prevent the landlord from pursuing alternative remedies available under the Act, including the issuance of a 14-day notice to remedy.