Tenant Loses Tenancy After Moving Away From Rental Property
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ended a tenant's lease because they stopped living at the rental property as required by their agreement. The landlord showed the tenant had moved to a remote location in Somalia and was no longer living at the property.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must live at the premises at all times as per the tenancy agreement.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal terminated the tenancy due to the tenant's failure to reside at the property as required by the tenancy agreement.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal terminated the tenancy of a tenant who had moved away from the rental property and was no longer living there as required by the tenancy agreement. The landlord proved the tenant was residing in a remote location since April 2024, breaching the agreement's condition of continuous residency.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5247711 1
[2025] NZTT 5247711
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT AUCKLAND | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/Flat [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The tenancy of [NAME] at Unit/Flat [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] is terminated, and possession is granted to [COMPANY], at 5pm 18 June 2025.
Reasons:
1. Only the landlord attended the hearing.
2. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord says the tenant is required to live at the property at all times, in accordance with clause 26 of the tenancy agreement, which provides:
Living at the premises
26 You must live at the premises at all times and the premises must be used principally as a home for you and your family.
3. The landlord submits that the tenant has been living in a remote part of Somalia since April 2024. Shortly after that time, the tenant’s benefit payment ceased but someone else began paying the rent. The landlord understands that an adult son may be living at the property.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5247711 2
4. The landlord’s position is that if the son is in need, he ought to make his own application for housing. The premises are required for others in need, if the tenant is no longer living there.
5. A notice to return to the property was issued on 12 February 2025. It has not been complied with.
6. That notice advised:
When you signed your tenancy agreement, you agreed to live at 4/[ADDRESS], Waterview, Auckland at all times. There is a high demand for public housing support in Aotearoa New Zealand - it is important those provided with public housing are living in that home. We understand you may no longer be living at your home. If you are not living in your home, you are not meeting the conditions of your tenancy agreement. We are therefore giving you 14 days' notice to return to living in your home.
7. The landlord has been in communication with members of the tenant’s family who had indicated that the tenant would be returning earlier this year, but she has not done so.
Should the tenancy be terminated?
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. The tenant has breached their obligations by failing to comply with the breach notice that was issued.
11. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the premises are required for the use of other qualifying parties who need them. The landlord is entitled to return of the premises.
[NAME]
11 June 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5247711 3
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5247711 4
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.
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5247711 5
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].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant must live at the premises at all times according to the tenancy agreement.
- The landlord issued a notice to return to the property, which the tenant did not comply with.
- The tenant's breach of the tenancy agreement makes it inequitable to continue the tenancy.
- The premises are needed for other qualifying parties who require them.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's adult son may be living at the property, but this does not fulfill the tenant's obligation.
- The landlord did not provide direct evidence that the tenant was not living at the premises.
- The tenant did not attend the hearing to present their side of the story.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal decided to terminate the tenant's tenancy because they were not living at the property as required by the tenancy agreement.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant was still living at the rental property as required by the tenancy agreement.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to terminate the tenancy because the tenant was not living at the property as required by the agreement. The landlord provided evidence showing the tenant was living in a remote location in Somalia.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 54 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most critical argument was that the tenant was not living at the property as required by the tenancy agreement.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they are living at the property as required by their tenancy agreement to avoid having their tenancy terminated.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered included proof that the tenant was living in a remote location in Somalia and not at the rental property.