Tenant's Tenancy Terminated Due to Substantial Damage
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal ended a tenant's lease because the tenant caused significant damage to the rental property. The tenant admitted to causing the damage and apologised, but the court found the situation too severe to continue the tenancy.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must maintain the rented premises in good condition to avoid termination of the tenancy.
📖 What the law says
This section allows the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy if the tenant has caused, allowed someone else to cause, or threatened to cause significant damage to the rented property. The landlord must apply to the Tribunal for this to happen.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The tenancy was terminated due to substantial damage caused by the tenant.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal terminated the tenancy of a tenant due to substantial damage caused by the tenant's actions and neglect of the premises.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5180718 1
[2025] NZTT 5180718
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The tenancy of [NAME] at [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] is terminated, and possession is granted to [COMPANY], at 11.59pm on Friday 4 April 2025.
Reasons:
1. The hearing was conducted by telephone. Both parties attended. The tenant had a support person with him during the hearing.
2. The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy and possession of the premises on ground that the tenant has caused or has permitted any other person to cause substantial damage to the premises (s55(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).
3. The tenancy began in June 2022 and there is no dispute that the premises have suffered substantial damage during the tenancy. The tenant accepted that he has caused the damage and he apologised for it.
4. There are two direct causes of the damage. One is the unclean and untidy condition that the premises have been kept in. This has resulted, for example, in damage to the carpet by staining and two ovens have had to be replaced because they were extremely dirty. The unclean condition of the premises has
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5180718 2
been towards the extreme end of the spectrum although it has improved to some extent recently.
5. The other direct cause has been the tenant’s violence to the premises. There have been numerous broken windows and holes in walls. The landlord said that it has spent over $6,000 on repairing damage to the premises. There will need to be a considerable amount more money spent on repairing damage when the landlord takes possession. Photographs taken only yesterday, 20 March, show numerous windows boarded up awaiting reglazing.
6. The tenant explained that he has mental health problems, and he has difficulty controlling his anger. He said that he is getting help to assist him to manage his behaviour.
7. The landlord acknowledged the tenant’s difficulties and said that as a social housing provider it is not well placed to assist him. It suggested that the tenant needs specialist mental health support that it is not able to provide.
8. The damage to the premises is substantial and so I must make an order terminating the tenancy. I can make a conditional order but in my view the situation has gone beyond that and the conditions necessary for a conditional order (including compensation for the loss arising from the breach) are not met and are unlikely to be met.
9. The landlord suggested an order for possession in 14 days and so that order has been made.
[NAME]
21 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5180718 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.
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5180718 4
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 caused substantial damage to the premises.
- The premises were kept in an extremely unclean and untidy condition.
- The tenant's behavior included violence resulting in broken windows and holes in walls.
- The landlord acknowledged the tenant's mental health issues but stated it could not provide the necessary support.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant's explanation of having mental health problems and seeking help to manage behavior.
- The landlord's acknowledgment of the tenant's difficulties and suggestion that the tenant needs specialist mental health support.
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 due to substantial damage to the premises.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant's actions and neglect of the premises justified terminating the tenancy.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to terminate the tenancy because the damage was substantial and the tenant had not adequately addressed the issues.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 55(1)(b) was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the substantial damage caused by the tenant's actions and neglect of the premises.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case seeking termination of the tenancy.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, maintaining the rented premises in good condition is crucial to avoid termination of the tenancy.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs showing the state of the premises and the tenant's admission of causing the damage were important pieces of evidence.