Tenancy Tribunal Terminates Tenancy for Breaches of Cleanliness and Fire Safety

OUTCOME: Allowed

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5489870 1

[2026] NZTT 5489870

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA

APPLICANT: [redacted]

Landlord

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Tenant

TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], [ADDRESS]

1. The tenancy of [NAME_2] at Unit/[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], [ADDRESS] is terminated, and possession is granted to [COMPANY_1], at 5pm Sunday 28 June 2026.

2. [NAME_2] must pay [COMPANY_1] $28.00 immediately, being the application filing fee.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5489870 2

Reasons:

1. Both parties attended the hearing. [NAME_3] and [NAME_3] appeared for the landlord (“[NAME_1]”) via video. [NAME_2] was joined via telephone.

2. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The application for termination was made pursuant to sections 40(1)(c), 40(2)(ab), and 56(1)(a)-(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The landlord claimed that the tenant has breached both the RTA and the tenancy agreement, and that these breaches have not been remedied.

3. There are two main factors leading to a successful claim. The first is the burden/onus of proof which rests on the applicant; and the second is the standard of proof. For matters, such as this, heard by the Tenancy Tribunal, the civil standard of proof is applied, being what is on balance of probability. Meaning, I seek to answer the question: Is it more likely than not that the alleged event happened? Further, the evidence must be reasonable with no probable defects such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence must be consistent and supported by other acceptable evidence.

4. In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

5. 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 s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

6. This tenancy commenced on 17 June 2022 after the tenant was relocated from another premises of the landlord.

7. A number of issues have been raised during the tenancy by both the landlord and the tenant. The tenant expressed a number of frustrations and claims regarding landlord actions and a desire to have witnesses talk to these. I was satisfied those claims, and any witness evidence, were beyond the claims that required determination at the hearing. It remains open to the tenant to lodge an application on any claim as he believes appropriate.

8. Section 85 RTA requires the Tribunal shall “exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies.” I considered it appropriate to proceed with determining the landlord’s application, knowing the other claims of the tenant can be dealt with later as required.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5489870 3

9. This tenancy commenced on 17 June 2022. The tenant was previously a tenant of the same landlord at another premises. This tenancy commenced as a transfer.

10. Section 56 RTA provides:

11. The landlord submitted the following, with supporting evidence:

The outstanding breaches relate to:

1. The respondent's failure to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; and

2. The respondent's interference with, or rendering inoperative, a means of escape from fire (egress).

A third failure to remedy, which formed part of the original application, was addressed during the mediation process. However, this issue was remedied by [NAME_1] rather than by the respondent. Specifically, [NAME_1] engaged a locksmith to immobilise an additional lock that the respondent had installed without the landlord's consent.

[NAME_1] submits that the evidence before the Tribunal will satisfy the threshold set out in section 56(1)(c), namely that the breaches are of such a nature that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.

The evidence will demonstrate ongoing health and safety concerns arising from the respondent's conduct, particularly in relation to fire safety and the condition of the premises. [NAME_1] will also provide evidence that these issues are recurrent in nature and form part of a pattern of behaviour. Similar concerns were present during the respondent's previous tenancy at another [NAME_1] property.

The principal basis of [NAME_1]'s application relates to a 14-day notice to remedy issued in respect of the respondent's failure to keep the premises clean and tidy. This notice was issued on 12 June 2025 and required compliance by 2 July 2025.

On 25 July 2025, [NAME_1] staff attended the property to assess compliance with the notice. They were unable to gain access using the master key because the respondent had installed an additional lock without the landlord's consent.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5489870 4

Given that the respondent's tenancy was at risk, [NAME_1] referred him to [NAME_4], an organisation that assists tenants to sustain tenancies and address issues that may place their housing at risk. Unfortunately, [NAME_4] closed the respondent's case in October 2025 due to a lack of engagement and concerns that the hoarding, clutter, and fire egress issues were worsening rather than improving.

On 17 December 2025, [NAME_1] Tenancy Advisors again attempted to access the unit using a master key. Access was once again prevented by the unauthorised additional lock. During this interaction, the respondent advised [NAME_1] staff that he would only permit access if [NAME_1] agreed to rent him a second garage. [NAME_1] did not agree to this request. [NAME_1]'s concern was that the respondent's existing garage was already being used to store significant amounts of clutter and rubbish, and providing additional storage was unlikely to address the underlying issues.

On 6 January 2026, [NAME_1] issued a further 14-day notice to remedy requiring the respondent to contact his Tenancy Advisor and arrange access for an annual inspection. Compliance was required by 23 January 2026. No contact was received from the respondent, and the matter was subsequently escalated to [NAME_1].

On 30 January 2026, with the assistance of [NAME_1], a further three 14-day notices to remedy were issued. These notices related to:

• Installing additional locks without the landlord's consent; • Blocking or obstructing fire egress; and • Refusing or preventing access for inspection purposes.

The notices required the respondent to remove the unauthorised lock, ensure fire egress routes were clear and unobstructed, and arrange access for inspection. The compliance date for all three notices was 17 February 2026.

None of these breaches were remedied. The respondent did not restore the locks to their original condition and did not contact [NAME_1] to arrange an inspection. As a result, [NAME_1] filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal seeking termination of the tenancy.

Mediation was scheduled by Tenancy Services in May 2026, and [NAME_1] participated in that process in good faith. Through agreements reached during mediation, an inspection of the unit was conducted on 22 May 2026. [NAME_1] arranged for a locksmith to attend, and the unauthorised lock was immobilised to enable future lawful access.

This was the first inspection [NAME_1] had been able to conduct since the original clean and tidy notice was issued on 12 June 2025.

The condition of the unit was extremely concerning and, in [NAME_1]'s view, bordering on uninhabitable. There was a significant accumulation of possessions and clutter throughout the premises. Means of escape were substantially obstructed, and access within the unit was severely restricted. In order to take photographs and document the condition of the premises, I was required to climb over numerous items.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5489870 5

12. The tenant response to the claims and landlord submissions were difficult to discern. It seems at time that the approach was more a belief of “attack being the best form of defence”. Numerous issues were raised that were unrelated to the claims to be determined. The defence that the landlord had failed to provide him with a second garage for storage had no basis. The landlord was not obliged for what would have been a discretionary provision. There was nothing in the tenancy agreement requiring this.

13. The tenant had to be reminded several times during the hearing regarding his tone and content regarding the landlord and others such as neighbours. I note this as it had to be a factor when considering whether any breach or breaches were of such a nature or to such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.

14. The tenant challenged the photographic evidence of the landlord, claiming the extent of clutter and items at the premises was overstated. Given the difference of opinions on this key issue I relied on the photographic evidence. These were taken over time but up until just before the hearing.

15. I consider the landlord has evidentially established that there has been an ongoing problem with the tenant not meeting his obligations under s 40 RTA. I do not see the premises and clutter the same way as the tenant. There is a significant issue.

16. I consider the evidence validates the landlord’s concerns regarding interference with a means of escape from fire due to the clutter. While the tenant may have backed his ability to exit out a window during any such event, that may have been proven flawed with fatal consequences. I am equally mindful of any first responder attempting to access the premises with the premises as presented. It would be challenging. I also must consider the safety of the immediate, cojoined neighbours.

17. In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy:

a. The history of the tenancy.

b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings.

c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future.

d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed.

e. The conduct of the landlord.

f. The gravity of the breach.

g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5489870 6

18. I find the tenant has repeatedly failed to remedy a number of breaches. The landlord is a provider of social housing and the delay in bring this application to the Tribunal, in my mind, reflects an extended period of attempting to resolve the issues without such recourse.

19. The possibility of a conditional order was explored but I accept the landlord’s submissions against the practicalities of that, given the history to date.

20. I am satisfied the requirements of s 56(1) for a termination order have been met and it would be inequitable to refuse to make a termination order.

Filing fee

21. [COMPANY_1] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Possession

22. I have ordered termination and possession to return within a short timeframe. This was considered and intentional. I had to balance the concerns of the landlord, and behaviours and intentions expressed during the hearing with making the tenant exit as smooth as possible. Given the concerns regarding possible adverse behaviours prior to departure I have made the notice short. That is done to enable the landlord to better manage any adverse activity, if this should occur. It is in the interests of the tenant to work with the landlord from here. I remind the landlord the enforcement of the possession order can be managed to grant further time to the tenant as may consider reasonable. This is of course subject to the reasonable cooperation of the tenant.

M Brennan

18 June 2026

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5489870 7

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, or the failure to make an order, where the amount in dispute on appeal is

less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work, or the failure to make an order, where the value of the

work in dispute on appeal is 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.

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: