What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5496454?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5496454?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496454?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496454?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13724430-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5496454?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5496454?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496454?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496454?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13724430-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1290 Tangimoana Road, Tangimoana, RD 3, Tangimoana Tenancy Tribunal Case 5496454 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

On 28 April 2026 the landlord filed an application for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Mr Kelly Borlase, Property Manager, and Ms Linda Ballinger, Property Team Leader appeared. The tenant failed to appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in his absence. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 5 September 2026.
The fixed term of the tenancy is due to expire on 4 September 2026.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligation to: a. Failing to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy – see section 40(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act’); and b. Failing to pay for electricity – see section 39(3) of the Act.
The landlord states the property was provided in a clean and tidy condition. The landlord provided a significant number of pre-tenancy inspection photographs to evidence this.
The landlord said that since the tenant took possession of the premises there has been a has decline in the condition of the property. During a routine inspection on 9 April 2026 the landlord noted the following issues: a. The grounds are overgrown with the lawns being mown is patches and not all trimmed to the same length. b. There is a water damaged vehicle parked on the driveway along side the tenants other vehicles. c. Rubbish is accumulating in all of the rooms, an old whiteware appliance is situated at the front door along with wooden logs. d. Broken glass was on the lounge floor. e. There were three discrete carpet stains on the lounge floor. f. There are dead flies on the window sill and dust on the skirting boards. g. The kitchen cupboards are marked and the oven has baked on food spilled across the door. h. The bathroom floor has staining and is dirty and the top of the toilet cistern is dirty.
The landlord said given the deterioration in the condition of the property, a 14- day breach notice was issued on 10 April 2026 requiring the tenant to: a. Tidy the section. b. Remove a water damaged vehicle. c. Clean and tidy the inside of the property; and d. Remove marks from the carpet.
The landlord said they reinspect the property on 24 April 2026. The landlord stated the 14-day breach notice had not been remedied and provided photographs from this inspection which showed: a. Wooden logs and an old fridge/freezer outside the front door. b. The three discrete grease stains had not been removed. c. The property was untidy with items of clothing strewn about. d. The broken glass had not been removed from the lounge floor. e. Dust on the skirting boards and dead flied on the window sills. f. Dust and debris in the bath and bathroom sink. g. The bathroom floor needed mopping and the toilet cistern needed wiping. h. Small areas of overgrown lawns and patches of weeds.
On 24 April 2026 the landlord served the tenant with a 14-day breach notice for failing to pay for electricity usage at the property. The notice required the tenant to: a. Pay the overdue owing electricity for the periods 21/01/2026 ($75.53), 20/02/2026 ($119.41) and 16/03/2026 ($84.83). The notice required the breach to be remedied by 8 May 2026.
At the hearing the landlord confirmed that these outstanding electricity invoices had been paid, remedying the breach. The landlord accepted that termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations to pay electricity charges was no longer available. Analysis and decision
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.
Section 56 sets out three particular requirements before termination of the tenancy can be ordered, they are: a. The tenant must have breached some legal obligation to the landlord (section 56(1)(a)); and b. If the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord issued a 14-day notice to remedy which the tenant has not complied with (section 56(1)(b)); and c. That the breach was of such significance, that it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy (section 56(1)(a)).
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe), the Court needed to consider the extent of section 56(1)(c), which requires consideration of 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.
The Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant in that case, being:
The history of the tenancy.
Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings.
Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future.
Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed.
The conduct of the landlord.
The gravity of the breach.
Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. Has the tenant breached their obligation to keep the property reasonably clean and reasonably tidy?
Section 40(1)(c) of the Act requires the tenant to keep the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. The Act does not detail what is considered “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy”. The Act does not require the premises to be in immaculate condition, or to be cleaned to a professional or “motel” clean standard. What is required is that the premises, including stove and bathroom fittings are cleaned. A tenant is not required to rigorously clean all walls, skirting, ceiling, lightshades or behind appliance. It is common for landlords to want this extra level of “clean” however that is not required.
There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. What is requires is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available – particularly photographs present, and then consider whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
Having heard from the landlord and reviewing the available evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant has failed to maintain the property in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy in some areas, specifically those areas identified in para [9(b) – (h)].
No evidence was provided showing the condition of the kitchen bench, the hob, or inside the toilet bowl. Areas of lawn were shown to be clean and tidy. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the firewood or fridge-freezer located outside the entrance is rubbish, nor that the items stored in containers inside the property are rubbish. The Tribunal accepts the landlord may not approve of the location of these items or the clutter contained within. However, there is no legal requirement for them to be repositioned or rearranged in a way to meet with the landlord’s approval.

Is the breach capable of remedy?

The landlord served two 14-day breaches notices on the tenant. The first notice was served on 10 April 2026 requiring the tenant to return the property to a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition by 24 April 2026. The breaches were capable to remedy. However, the notice was not complied with. The second breach notice was issued on 24 April 2026 requiring the tenant to pay for outstanding electricity usage at the property. This breach was remedied. Is the breach of such significance, that it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy?
To assist the Tribunal with determining I turn to the factors identified in the case of Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management.
The history of the tenancy – the tenancy has been a foot since 5 September 2025.
Has there been a persistent failure after repeated warnings – the Tribunal was provided with evidence showing only two 14-day breaches notices have been issued. The first notice, for failing to maintain the property in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, has not been complied with. The second notice, for outstanding electricity charges, was complied with. Based on the available evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied there has been a persistent failure by the tenant to maintain the property, nor is the Tribunal satisfied there has been repeated warning.
Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future – the Tribunal heard that since 24 April 2026 the tenant has removed the broken glass from the lounge and attempted to spot clean the stains on the carpet. The tenant paid their outstanding electricity accounts. The landlord noted that, aside from failing to keep the property reasonably clean and reasonably tidy and pay their outgoings on time, the tenant has complied with all other obligations arising under the Act and their tenancy agreement. Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied the landlord has proved the tenant has a history of breaching their obligations or is unlikely to comply with their obligations in the future.
Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed – the tenant has been provided with a copy of their tenancy agreement which sets out their obligations. Failure to comply with the contract must be viewed as a deliberate act.
The conduct of the landlord – it was unclear to the Tribunal what steps the landlord had taken to engage with the tenant prior to issuing the two 14-day breach notices.
The gravity of the breach – based on the available evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the tenant has failed to maintain some areas of the property in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the whole of the property is unclean and untidy. There was no evidence showing the condition of the kitchen bench, kitchen sink or inside the toilet. The lawns in some areas were in good condition. While the landlord may not approve of the placement of some items of furniture, the water damaged vehicle, placement of the storage containers, or location of the firewood they do not breach the requirements of the Act.
Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach – the Tribunal is not satisfied that termination is a proportionate response to the breach. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy following service of two breach notices – one was remedied. The landlord has failed to demonstrate any engagement or education with the tenant regarding their statutory responsibilities, in particular the requirement to keep the property reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. The Tribunal considers there are other remedies available to the landlord, which fall short of termination, given the nature of the breach, such a work order in accordance with section 78 of the Act.
For these reasons the Tribunal finds that it would not be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy and the claim is dismissed. Other matters
The landlord seek name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Act provided that the Tribunal must, on application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, order that party’s name and identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has not succeeded with their claim and their application for name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496454 — Tenancy dispute at 1290 Tangimoana Road, Tangimoana, RD 3, Tangimoana

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496454 — Tenancy dispute at 1290 Tangimoana Road, Tangimoana, RD 3, Tangimoana

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is the breach capable of remedy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is the breach capable of remedy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions