In contrast, photos taken in March this year showed concrete and paving stones had replaced grassy areas in various parts of the garden, and a makeshift pond and pop-up pool had been installed.
Inside, the walls have been painted different colours. There was exposed wiring, damaged doors, and the kitchen cabinets had been removed. A makeshift shower has been built in the laundry. Rubbish and clutter littered the house inside and out.
In March, Kāinga Ora inspected the property and the following day sent Lupton a 14-day notice to remedy matters, listing 11 repairs to return the house to its original state by the end of the month
In June, Kāinga Ora sought to evict Amy Lupton, claiming she had failed to keep the home reasonably clean and tidy, had damaged the house, and undertaken unauthorised alterations.
It asked the Tenancy Tribunal to terminate the tenancy, claiming she hadn’t made the repairs it had asked for.
And it was submitted that this wasn’t the first time the tenant had damaged the property. Inspections in February and August 2024 found the power supply and electrical wiring had been tampered with, leaving wires exposed and creating a fire risk.
It organised contractors to repair the damage and unconsented alterations, with the work completed by the end of August last year. But despite repeated warnings, the tenant continued to make modifications to the house, creating a serious health and safety risk.
The house was to be demolished
Meanwhile, at the hearing, Lupton said Kāinga Ora had told her two years earlier it planned to demolish the house.
Not wanting to trouble them over “a number of maintenance items” and believing it was a waste of the government department’s money, given the pending demolition, the tenants took it upon themselves to complete the necessary repairs, believing there was no harm in doing so. She also claimed the alterations weren’t significant.
Lupton told the tribunal she had remedied all the matters and had photographs to prove it.
Adjudicator Lily Ryken gave Lupton until the end of the day of the hearing to provide the photographs. When none were forthcoming, she made an order terminating the tenancy on Sunday, June 29, this year.
In making the order, Ryken said evidence presented by Kāinga Ora showed Lupton had ”substantially altered” the home.
She found Lupton had failed to keep the property reasonably clean and tidy, had undertaken unauthorised modifications and had damaged the premises.
“Major work such as removing the laundry tub and installing a make-shift shower have been carried out. There are also exposed wires, and the stovetop appears broken.
“Even if the tenant had received notice that the premises were going to be demolished, this does not permit them to undertake alterations and damage the premises without the consent of the landlord.”
The tenant sought a rehearing at the Tenancy Tribunal, but was unsuccessful. Photo / 123RF
Didn’t believe the eviction was serious
Two days before her eviction, Lupton applied for a rehearing, claiming she didn’t know where to email the photographs, and she didn’t believe the landlord was serious in seeking termination.
“In retrospect, she had a lot more that she wanted to say,” the decision said.
Last month, the landlord again inspected the property, taking additional photographs which it produced at a hearing a week later.
These showed the rubbish had been removed from inside the house, and the holes in the bedroom walls had been fixed. In the backyard, the pool had been removed and the grass had been reinstated.
But the majority of repairs hadn’t been undertaken, including removing the shower from the laundry.
“The shower tray is still present, and the laundry tub has been placed over the top. The plumbing around the area is leaking.”
During the inspection, new plumbing was discovered under the house, which was leaking sewage. Lupton claimed they had installed the plumbing after a leak two years earlier.
While the tenant had replaced doors in the kitchen and hallway, the repairs were inadequate because the doors were too short and the handles didn’t work.
The landlord also remained concerned about the state of the floorboards throughout much of the house, which the tenant had replaced as a result of a leak under the house, causing the floors to rot.
The inspection found the work hadn’t been undertaken by professionals, and many of the materials were non-compliant or the work didn’t meet health and safety standards.
Ryken found Lupton had ample opportunity since the hearing in June to provide evidence the tenants had remedied matters in the 14-day notice, but had failed to do so. They had also had ample opportunity to prepare submissions, but, again, had failed to do so.
Ryken also rejected the tenant’s claims that they had altered the house because it was going to be demolished, they hadn’t taken the eviction notice seriously, and they needed to remain there to look after their dog, who had just had puppies.
She said none of these issues was a defence against the breaches the tenant had committed and she upheld the original termination order and the house was to be given back to Kāinga Ora by September 14.
Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter, based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist for 20 years, including at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently she was working as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice.