What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5492908?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Eteuati Levi Mamea at 26B Johnstones Road, Otara, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5492908?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5492908?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5492908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13635472-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5492908?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Eteuati Levi Mamea at 26B Johnstones Road, Otara, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5492908?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5492908?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5492908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13635472-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26B Johnstones Road, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5492908 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Eteuati Levi Mamea at 26B Johnstones Road, Otara, Auckland 2023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 12pm on Friday 29 May 2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend. I am satisfied that adequate service of the hearing notice has been completed and considered it reasonable to proceed with the hearing in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord applies for termination of this tenancy under section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”). The landlord alleges that the tenant has repeatedly breached his obligations under the Act and the tenancy agreement by constructing unauthorised structures on the premises without written consent and by engaging in conduct that interferes with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of neighbouring occupiers.
For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the landlord has proved repeated and continuing breaches of sections 42(1) and 40(2)© of the Act, that valid notices to remedy were served and not complied with, and that termination is the only effective and proportionate remedy. Privacy of Witnesses
This decision refers to evidence provided by neighbouring residents. I have intentionally omitted their names and addresses to protect their privacy and safety. The evidence was disclosed to the parties during the proceeding, and the omission of identifying details from this published decision does not affect the substance of the findings.
Pursuant to section 95A of the Act, I prohibit publication of any information likely to identify those witnesses. I am satisfied that suppression is desirable to protect them from undue hardship and to encourage witnesses to participate in Tribunal proceedings without fear of retaliation. Background
The tenancy commenced on 22 June 2011. The tenant has occupied the premises for approximately 15 years.
This is not the first occasion on which the Tribunal has dealt with unauthorised structures at the property.
On 29 May 2024, the Tribunal made a work order authorising the landlord to enter the premises and remove a substantial unauthorised structure constructed by the tenant. In that decision, the Tribunal found that the structure was dangerous and had been the subject of a dangerous building notice issued by Auckland Council under section 124 of the Building Act 2004. The Council considered that the structure was likely to cause injury or death to persons occupying it or damage to neighbouring properties if it collapsed.
The Tribunal authorised the landlord to remove the structure and to recover the reasonable cost of removal from the tenant, up to $5,000.
The significance of that earlier decision is that the tenant was placed on clear notice that he was not permitted to construct structures on the premises without written consent and that such conduct created serious health and safety risks.
Despite that intervention, the landlord observed in December 2025 that the tenant had resumed constructing further structures on the property. The Landlord’s Evidence
The landlord produced inspection records, file notes, photographs, neighbour complaints, and copies of notices to remedy.
The evidence established that on 19 December 2025 landlord staff observed the tenant constructing new structures in the yard.
On 22 December 2025, the landlord served a 14-day notice to remedy requiring the tenant to remove the unauthorised structures, remove swings attached to trees, and cut overgrown lawns.
Further notices to remedy were issued on 13 March 2026 and 1 April 2026 concerning the external condition of the property and the cleanliness of the toilet and kitchen.
During an inspection on 27 March 2026, the landlord observed that the structures remained and that an electrical extension cord was being run from the main dwelling to one of the structures. The landlord considered this to create a significant fire and electrical hazard.
The landlord also carried out an ad hoc inspection on 12 May 2026. That inspection confirmed that unauthorised structures remained in place and that the breaches identified in the earlier notices to remedy had not been rectified.
The landlord gave evidence that extensive efforts were made to engage with the tenant and to encourage compliance. Meetings were arranged, support agencies were involved, and repeated opportunities were given to remedy the breaches. These efforts were unsuccessful.
The landlord submitted that the tenant’s conduct had adversely affected neighbouring residents and that prior Tribunal intervention had failed to prevent recurrence. It therefore sought termination of the tenancy. Evidence of Neighbouring Witnesses
The Tribunal received a written statement from a neighbouring resident who reported that, over many months, the tenant had entered her property, spread plants over her lawns, thrown food scraps and animal remains into her yard, urinated in his yard, engaged in indecent acts, and slept in a makeshift shelter in his backyard.
The witness was willing to give evidence directly to the Tribunal but was unavailable when contacted during the hearing.
A second neighbouring resident gave oral evidence at the hearing. This witness has lived in the immediate area since 2017 and personally observed the tenant continually constructing structures on the property. The witness described persistent loud banging associated with construction activities over an extended period. The witness also confirmed that the tenant sleeps on an outdoor bed in a makeshift shelter positioned only metres from a neighbouring property.
The witness described the tenant’s behaviour as bizarre and intimidating and said nearby residents were in constant fear. The witness also expressed serious concern for the tenant’s wellbeing and believed that mental health intervention was necessary.
I found this witness to be credible and reliable. The evidence was measured, direct, and based on personal observations over many years.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord seeks termination under section 56 of the Act.
Section 42(1) of the Act provides that a tenant must not attach any fixture, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition to the premises, without the landlord’s prior written consent. This obligation is reflected in clause 28 of the tenancy agreement, which expressly requires the tenant to obtain written permission before constructing structures such as sheds, sleepouts, or garages.
Section 40(2)(c) of the Act provides that a tenant must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord’s other tenants. Clause 15 of the tenancy agreement contains a corresponding obligation.
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) Act.
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.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The power to terminate is discretionary. The Tribunal must consider all relevant circumstances and determine whether termination is just and equitable. Relevant considerations include the seriousness and persistence of the breach, the extent to which it affects others, the steps already taken to secure compliance, whether a lesser remedy would be effective, and the likelihood of future compliance.
The evidential requirements for section 56 are met in this case. I am satisfied that valid 14-day notices to remedy were served on 22 December 2025, 13 March 2026, and 1 April 2026. Those notices required the tenant to remove unauthorised structures, address overgrown vegetation, and remedy other property condition issues. The breaches were not remedied within the time allowed.
I am satisfied that the tenant has repeatedly breached section 42(1) of the Act. The evidence establishes that he constructed and maintained multiple unauthorised structures on the property without written consent. This was not an isolated incident. In 2024, the Tribunal authorised the landlord to remove a dangerous structure after Auckland Council issued a notice under section 124 of the Building Act 2004. The tenant was therefore fully aware that he was prohibited from constructing such structures and that they created serious risks. Despite that earlier intervention, the tenant recommenced building further structures. The landlord’s inspections, including the ad hoc inspection on 12 May 2026, confirmed that unauthorised structures remained in place.
I am also satisfied that the tenant has breached section 40(2)(c) of the Act. The neighbouring witnesses provided consistent evidence of ongoing loud banging associated with construction work, offensive and intimidating behaviour, and conduct that caused nearby residents to feel unsafe. One witness described repeated instances of the tenant entering her property, spreading noxious plants, throwing food scraps and animal remains into her yard, urinating outdoors, and engaging in indecent acts. Another witness gave oral evidence that nearby residents, including women living alone, were in constant fear. I accepted this evidence as credible and reliable.
The legal test under section 40(2)(c) is objective. The question is whether the tenant’s conduct would interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of neighbouring occupiers. On the evidence before me, that threshold is plainly met.
The breaches are serious. They involve both physical alterations to the premises without consent and conduct that has substantially affected neighbouring residents. The structures create ongoing health and safety concerns, particularly given the use of electrical extension cords and the evidence that the tenant sleeps in makeshift shelters.
The breaches are also persistent. The tenant has continued the same conduct despite repeated notices to remedy, support from the landlord and external agencies, and prior Tribunal orders. The recurrence of the behaviour after the 2024 Tribunal intervention is particularly significant. It demonstrates that previous remedial steps have not been effective.
I have carefully considered whether a lesser remedy, such as a further work order or conditional termination order, would be sufficient. I conclude that it would not. The Tribunal has already made a work order in relation to substantially the same conduct, and the landlord has incurred significant cost removing unsafe structures. Despite this, the tenant recommenced building. This leaves me with no confidence that another remedial order would secure lasting compliance.
I have also considered the tenant’s long tenure and the hardship that termination will cause. The tenant has lived at the property since 2011. However, the Tribunal must balance that hardship against the rights of the landlord and neighbouring residents to safety and quiet enjoyment, and against the repeated failure to comply with fundamental tenancy obligations.
Having considered all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the tenant has committed repeated and continuing breaches of sections 42(1) and 40(2)(c) of the Act, that valid notices to remedy were served and not complied with, and that there is no realistic prospect of future compliance if the tenancy continues.
In those circumstances, termination of the tenancy under section 56 is just and equitable and is the only effective and proportionate remedy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5492908 — 14-day notice at 26B Johnstones Road, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5492908 — 14-day notice at 26B Johnstones Road, Otara, Auckland 2023

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