What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5491323?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Vienna Charlene Vero Martini at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 55 May Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5491323?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5491323?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5491323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13649187-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5491323?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Vienna Charlene Vero Martini at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 55 May Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5491323?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5491323?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5491323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13649187-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 3, 55 May Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 5491323 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Vienna Charlene Vero Martini at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 55 May Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 4.00pm on Tuesday 9 June 2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not connect to the MS Teams link provided to them and nor did they connect via telephone as instructed in the Notice of Hearing sent to them by post. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The relevant law that applies in this case is the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy on the grounds the tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises (pursuant to s 55(1)(b) RTA), or in the alternative that the tenant has failed to remedy a breach, (pursuant to s 56 RTA).
Ms Thompson-Wise, a Senior Advisor Tribunal represented the landlord, and the Senior Housing Support Manager gave evidence.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. TERMINATION FOR SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE – SECTION 55 RTA
Section 55 of the RTA applies. It says: 55Termination on non-payment of rent, damage, or assault (1)Subject to subsection (2), on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that—... ... (b) the tenant has caused, or has permitted any other person to cause, or has threatened to cause, substantial damage to the premises; ... ...(2) The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies (but see also section 78A(3)(b)).
In terms of the necessary standard that needs to be met, “substantial damage” must be noteworthy and of considerable amount or value or of ample or considerable quantity or dimensions. 1

THIS CASE

The tenancy commenced in May 2025.
The landlord has provided pre-tenancy photographs which show the premises clean and undamaged.
The landlord has provided photographs of the premises taken on 18 March 2026 which shows there are holes in the walls throughout, window hardware is damaged, the carpets are soiled (to what appears beyond repair) and rubbish 1 See Morton v Barnhorn, TT189 & 302/97, DC Dunedin, 27 April 1997. scattered throughout the home. The landlord says the damage is extensive and impacts the security and habitability of the home.
The Housing Support manager said he attended at the premises the morning of the hearing and said the tenant was not present at the home. He said there was a bad smell at the home and the issue of rubbish and cleaning had worsened. He provided photographs of the premises which confirms the damage is still present, the lawns are overgrown, there is rubbish in and outside the premises and the carpet remains soiled. A door has also been removed from its hinges.
Based on the photographs taken at the different inspections, I consider that the tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises. I consider the damage is noteworthy and of considerable amount or value.
The Tribunal is satisfied after considering the evidence of the landlord and viewing photographs of the damage that the tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises.
In terms of section 55 (2) RTA I note on 26 February 2026 the landlord served the tenant with notice of the breach of the tenant’s obligations and the breaches have not been remedied nor the landlord compensated for any loss arising from the breaches, and after considering all the evidence I am not satisfied it is unlikely that the tenant would commit any further breach of this kind.
Accordingly, the tenancy is terminated.
I have not made an immediate termination order as the tenant will need to be served by post to the tenancy address. I have allowed time for the order to be posted to the tenancy address, but I understand the landlord will provide a copy of the order to the tenant as soon as possible in any event. TERMINATION FOR A BREACH - SECTION 56 RTA
For completeness I will address the claim for termination pursuant to s 56 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. 2 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.

Has the tenant breached any obligations to the landlord?

The landlord says the tenant has breached their obligations by failing to keep 2 See section 56(1) of the RTA. the premises reasonably clean and tidy, 3 and by intentionally or carelessly damaging the premises, or permitting any other person to damage the premises , 4
As noted above, the landlord has provided evidence that confirms the premises was reasonably clean and tidy at the start of the tenancy and in a good state of repair, with no apparent damage.
The landlord served a 14 day notice to remedy a breach on the tenant on 26 February 2026. The 14-day notice records there was damage to the premises and the rubbish was present at that time. The landlord has provided photographs which confirm that the premises did not meet the standard of being reasonably clean and tidy on 18 March 2026. The landlord also submitted photographs dated 25 May 2026 and provided oral evidence after viewing the property that day, being the day of the hearing. The photographs show over this period that there has been a persistent issue with a lot of rubbish in and outside the premises, the carpets were unvacuumed and stained and there is significant damage to the walls, a door and window.
I find that the tenant has breached her obligations by failing to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and by causing or allowing others in her home to cause significant damage to the premises. While the landlord had not provided photographs of the premise from 26 February 2026, the time the 14- day notice was served, I consider it more likely than not that the breach had arisen by that time.

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Where a breach is established and the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must give the tenant a notice to remedy, which the tenant does not remedy within 14 days. The breaches were capable of remedy. The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 26 February 2026. As at the hearing date the evidence presented shows the tenant did not remedy this breach within the required period or by the hearing date. Inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management 5 the Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant to whether the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. I have set out these factors and addressed below: a. The history of the tenancy - The tenancy commenced in May 2025. It is 3 See section 40 (1) (c) of the RTA 4 See section 40(2)(a) of the RTA. 5 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe) at [61]., therefore a relatively short tenancy, and the issues have arisen fairly soon into this tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings - I have no documentary evidence of persistent warnings in relation to this tenancy. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future - I consider that there is a risk of ongoing non-compliance, given the tenant did not attend the hearing to provide any assurance she could comply with her obligations, and she is not engaging with the landlord. There is therefore a risk of further deterioration from damage to the property. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed - Given the nature and extent of the breaches I consider the breaches most likely deliberate. e. The conduct of the landlord - I consider that the conduct of the landlord has been appropriate. f. The gravity of the breach - The breaches are serious. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach - I consider that termination is a proportionate response to the breaches. The landlord is a social housing provider, and the premises ought to be available for tenants who will not breach their obligations as the tenant has in this case.
For these reasons I consider it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
Accordingly, even if I was wrong in my assessment regarding a termination under section 55, I would nevertheless have ordered termination under section 56.
The tenancy is terminated.

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

The landlord waived the filing fee and did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5491323 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 55 May Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5491323 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 55 May Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

THIS CASE

Has the tenant breached any obligations to the landlord?

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

THIS CASE

Has the tenant breached any obligations to the landlord?

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

SUPPRESSION AND FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions