Tenancy Terminated for Tenant's Failure to Live at Premises
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ended the tenancy of a tenant who had not lived at the premises since March 2022. The tenant was given two weeks to provide evidence that the premises needed to be preserved for forensic examination, but the landlord was granted possession on March 3, 2025.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must live at the premises as per the tenancy agreement.
📖 What the law says
This rule allows the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy if one party breaks the tenancy agreement or the Act. If the problem can be fixed, the party who complained must first give the other party a notice explaining the breach and giving them at least 10 working days to fix it. If the problem isn't fixed within that time, the Tribunal can terminate the tenancy.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The tenancy was terminated due to the tenant's failure to reside at the premises.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal terminated the tenancy of the tenant for breaching the obligation to live at the premises. The landlord had provided a notice requiring the tenant to remedy the breach, which was not complied with.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5095568 1
[2025] NZTT 5095568
TENANCY TRIBUNAL - [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [Tenancy address suppressed]
ORDER
1. The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.
2. The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Monday 3 March 2025.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by phone.
2. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
Should the tenancy be terminated?
3. 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
4. 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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5095568 2
5. The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to live at the premises. Clauses 26 and 27 of the tenancy agreement require the tenant to live at the premises personally and to advise the landlord if absent for more than 30 days.
6. The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 5 November 2024 with compliance required by 22 November 2024. The tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period.
7. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the tenant has not lived at the premises since 22 March 2022 when her daughter’s body was removed from the house.
8. The tenant referred to police and coronial investigations. She said the coroner had recently decided to look at the circumstances of her daughter’s death further. She suggested that the premises needed to be forensically examined.
9. It was clear to the Tribunal that the tenant was understandably distressed by the death of her daughter and by other more recent losses.
10. The landlord is a provider of social housing for which there is great demand. The tenant cannot reasonably expect that these premises remain empty when there is acute demand for social housing.
11. I have delayed the possession order by 2 weeks to allow the tenant to provide evidence from the police or the coroner that the premises must be preserved for forensic examination. If she can provide such evidence the Tribunal will consider the possession date again. But in the absence of evidence from the relevant authorities, the landlord will be entitled to possession on 3 March 2025.
12. I have suppressed the details of both parties and the address of the tenancy in this case due to the sensitive nature of the circumstances leading to this application.
[NAME] 17 February 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5095568 3
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant did not live at the premises as required by the tenancy agreement.
- The landlord provided a 14-day notice to the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach, which the tenant failed to do.
- The landlord serves social housing that is in high demand, making it inequitable to keep the premises unoccupied.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's suggestion that the premises need to be forensically examined was not supported by evidence from relevant authorities.
- The tenant's emotional distress over her daughter's death was considered, but it did not justify continuing the tenancy.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal terminated the tenancy of the tenant for breaching the obligation to live at the premises.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant had breached the tenancy agreement by not living at the premises.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to terminate the tenancy because the tenant had not lived at the premises since March 2022 and had not remedied the breach within the required period.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56(1) was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant had not lived at the premises as required by the tenancy agreement.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, it means that they must comply with the terms of their tenancy agreement, including living at the premises.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered included the tenancy agreement and the notice served by the landlord requiring the tenant to remedy the breach.