What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5105868 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 5, 137 Hendon

How much money was awarded in case 5105868?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5105868?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5105868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11449190-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5105868 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 5, 137 Hendon

How much money was awarded in case 5105868?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5105868?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5105868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11449190-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 137 Hendon Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5105868 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 5, 137 Hendon Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 am on Tuesday 25 February 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended this video hearing on 18 February 2025.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The call went to voicemail.
The matter had initially been set down for hearing on 8 January 2025. The tenant applied for an adjournment of that hearing on the grounds that he had just returned from a family funeral and his wish to file a cross application. The Tribunal granted the tenant’s adjournment application. The tenant was given until 16 January 2025 to file any counterclaim.
On 13 February 2025, the tenant applied for a further adjournment on the grounds of another family funeral, to obtain legal advice and to file a cross application.
The application is a matter of significance and urgency. The request for an adjournment by the tenant was not supported by any independent evidence. The tenant had not filed his cross application by 16 January 2025, as previously ordered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is required to deal with matters expeditiously. The tenant’s application for an adjournment was dismissed.
Kainga Ora (“KO”) seek to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has breached his obligations under s.55(1)(c) RTA by assaulting or threatening to assault an agent of the landlord, in this case, a KO staff member.
Section 55(1)(c) RTA provides that the Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where a tenant has assaulted or has threatened to assault, amongst other people, any agent of the landlord.
Section 55(2) RTA provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make any order under subsection (1) if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach and that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which s.55 RTA applies.
“Assault” is defined in s.2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 as; “The act of intentionally applying force or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has the present ability to effect the purpose.”
In the case of Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court Christchurch, CIV- 2004 – 409 – 717, 2 July 2004, his Honour Judge Keane accepted that an assault, or threat of assault, once made could not be remedied. His Honour however, formed the view that the discretion under section 55(2) RTA remained, regardless of whether the breach was capable of remedy or not. The High Court held that if the breach could not be remedied, then the issue could be set aside and the Tribunal go on to consider the two remaining factors under section 55(2), namely whether the landlord had been compensated for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely that the tenant would commit any further breach of the same kind. Landlord submissions
The tenancy commenced on 9 October 2020. The premises consist of a one bedroom apartment on the top floor of a three storey walk up.
On 19 November 2024, KO maintenance contractors went to the premises to carry out repairs. The tenant provided access to the contractors. The repairs were to a kitchen sink. The contractors asked the tenant to remove the dishes and water from the sink. The tenant refused to do so and said that it was the plumbers job. The contractors informed the tenant that they were not able to clear the sink and that the tenant should do so. The tenant replied by calling the plumber a “fucking racist South African” and that he would kill him. Fearing for their safety, the contractors left the premises.
A KO Housing Support Manager (“HSM”) visited the tenant on 21 November 2024 to discuss the allegation. The tenant denied making the remarks and said that the plumber had made a racist remark towards him. The tenant agreed to a KO contractor going to the premises on 22 November 2024 with a KO HSM in attendance.
The tenant was issued with notice of the landlord needing to gain entry.
The tenant was subsequently advised that the KO HSM, maintenance contractors and a locksmith would be at the premises at 10.00 am on 27 November 2024 and that the locksmith would be used to gain entry if the tenant were not present. A notice of entry was also left at the premises.
At 10.00 am on 27 November 2025, the KO HSM, contractor and the locksmith met at the premises. The KO HSM rang the tenant’s intercom twice without response. They went up to the premises and knocked on the door, loudly announcing their name .The tenant did not respond.
Access to the premises was gained by the locksmith.
The KO HSM and contractor entered the premises, once again announcing themselves loudly.
The door to the bedroom was closed. The KO staff knocked on the bedroom door. They heard a voice from inside the bedroom “who the fuck is in my room, fuck off.” The KO staff moved towards the entry door with the intention of leaving.
The tenant emerged from the bedroom and said, “why the fuck are you in my home, its breaching the tenancy agreement.” The KO staff replied that they were there to complete the maintenance work. The tenant said, “fuck off from property.”
As the KO staff and contractor walked towards the door, the tenant approached the HSM from behind and pushed him in the back. The HSM continued to leave the premises. The tenant has then in closing the door, caught the KO HSM between the door and the door frame.
The KO HSM and contractors left. A report was made by the HSM to the Police.
KO and the tenant met on 5 December 2025 to discuss the incident. In a letter to the tenant recording the meeting, KO states that; The tenant said that he was aware that KO were coming as he had received the access letter. The tenant variously said that he could not recall the incident, could not confirm if he had touched the staff member, did not touch the staff member and that the KO staff and contractor should not have been in his home.
Evidence of the incident was provided by way of statement from KO staff and the contractors.
Having reviewed all of the evidence, on the balance of probabilities, I prefer the evidence proffered by the landlord that the KO HSM was assaulted by the push to the back and being struck with the door by the tenant.
The next issue I must determine is whether this is an appropriate case to exercise my jurisdiction not to terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The breach is not capable of remedy and the landlord is not able to be financially compensated. Therefore, the only remaining factor I must consider is whether it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.
There is no evidence in front of me that would support a conclusion that the tenant is unlikely to commit a further breach of this kind. The factors that weigh with me in reaching this conclusion are the previous incidents of threatening language by the tenant towards KO staff members and contractors and the nature of the unprovoked assault in the matter before the Tribunal. The tenant was fully aware of the proposed visit to the premises. KO staff are entitled to go about their lawful business without being assaulted.
The landlord has proven their claim under s 55(1)(c)(iii) RTA and I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under s. 55(2). The tenancy is terminated.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 5, 137 Hendon Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland 1025 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 am on Tuesday 25 February 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended this video hearing on 18 February 2025.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The call went to voicemail.
The matter had initially been set down for hearing on 8 January 2025. The tenant applied for an adjournment of that hearing on the grounds that he had just returned from a family funeral and his wish to file a cross application. The Tribunal granted the tenant’s adjournment application. The tenant was given until 16 January 2025 to file any counterclaim.
On 13 February 2025, the tenant applied for a further adjournment on the grounds of another family funeral, to obtain legal advice and to file a cross application.
The application is a matter of significance and urgency. The request for an adjournment by the tenant was not supported by any independent evidence. The tenant had not filed his cross application by 16 January 2025, as previously ordered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is required to deal with matters expeditiously. The tenant’s application for an adjournment was dismissed.
Kainga Ora (“KO”) seek to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has breached his obligations under s.55(1)(c) RTA by assaulting or threatening to assault an agent of the landlord, in this case, a KO staff member.
Section 55(1)(c) RTA provides that the Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where a tenant has assaulted or has threatened to assault, amongst other people, any agent of the landlord.
Section 55(2) RTA provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make any order under subsection (1) if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach and that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which s.55 RTA applies.
“Assault” is defined in s.2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 as; “The act of intentionally applying force or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has the present ability to effect the purpose.”
In the case of Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court Christchurch, CIV- 2004 – 409 – 717, 2 July 2004, his Honour Judge Keane accepted that an assault, or threat of assault, once made could not be remedied. His Honour however, formed the view that the discretion under section 55(2) RTA remained, regardless of whether the breach was capable of remedy or not. The High Court held that if the breach could not be remedied, then the issue could be set aside and the Tribunal go on to consider the two remaining factors under section 55(2), namely whether the landlord had been compensated for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely that the tenant would commit any further breach of the same kind. Landlord submissions
The tenancy commenced on 9 October 2020. The premises consist of a one bedroom apartment on the top floor of a three storey walk up.
On 19 November 2024, KO maintenance contractors went to the premises to carry out repairs. The tenant provided access to the contractors. The repairs were to a kitchen sink. The contractors asked the tenant to remove the dishes and water from the sink. The tenant refused to do so and said that it was the plumbers job. The contractors informed the tenant that they were not able to clear the sink and that the tenant should do so. The tenant replied by calling the plumber a “fucking racist South African” and that he would kill him. Fearing for their safety, the contractors left the premises.
A KO Housing Support Manager (“HSM”) visited the tenant on 21 November 2024 to discuss the allegation. The tenant denied making the remarks and said that the plumber had made a racist remark towards him. The tenant agreed to a KO contractor going to the premises on 22 November 2024 with a KO HSM in attendance.
The tenant was issued with notice of the landlord needing to gain entry.
The tenant was subsequently advised that the KO HSM, maintenance contractors and a locksmith would be at the premises at 10.00 am on 27 November 2024 and that the locksmith would be used to gain entry if the tenant were not present. A notice of entry was also left at the premises.
At 10.00 am on 27 November 2025, the KO HSM, contractor and the locksmith met at the premises. The KO HSM rang the tenant’s intercom twice without response. They went up to the premises and knocked on the door, loudly announcing their name .The tenant did not respond.
Access to the premises was gained by the locksmith.
The KO HSM and contractor entered the premises, once again announcing themselves loudly.
The door to the bedroom was closed. The KO staff knocked on the bedroom door. They heard a voice from inside the bedroom “who the fuck is in my room, fuck off.” The KO staff moved towards the entry door with the intention of leaving.
The tenant emerged from the bedroom and said, “why the fuck are you in my home, its breaching the tenancy agreement.” The KO staff replied that they were there to complete the maintenance work. The tenant said, “fuck off from property.”
As the KO staff and contractor walked towards the door, the tenant approached the HSM from behind and pushed him in the back. The HSM continued to leave the premises. The tenant has then in closing the door, caught the KO HSM between the door and the door frame.
The KO HSM and contractors left. A report was made by the HSM to the Police.
KO and the tenant met on 5 December 2025 to discuss the incident. In a letter to the tenant recording the meeting, KO states that; The tenant said that he was aware that KO were coming as he had received the access letter. The tenant variously said that he could not recall the incident, could not confirm if he had touched the staff member, did not touch the staff member and that the KO staff and contractor should not have been in his home.
Evidence of the incident was provided by way of statement from KO staff and the contractors.
Having reviewed all of the evidence, on the balance of probabilities, I prefer the evidence proffered by the landlord that the KO HSM was assaulted by the push to the back and being struck with the door by the tenant.
The next issue I must determine is whether this is an appropriate case to exercise my jurisdiction not to terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The breach is not capable of remedy and the landlord is not able to be financially compensated. Therefore, the only remaining factor I must consider is whether it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.
There is no evidence in front of me that would support a conclusion that the tenant is unlikely to commit a further breach of this kind. The factors that weigh with me in reaching this conclusion are the previous incidents of threatening language by the tenant towards KO staff members and contractors and the nature of the unprovoked assault in the matter before the Tribunal. The tenant was fully aware of the proposed visit to the premises. KO staff are entitled to go about their lawful business without being assaulted.
The landlord has proven their claim under s 55(1)(c)(iii) RTA and I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under s. 55(2). The tenancy is terminated.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5105868 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 5, 137 Hendon Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5105868 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 5, 137 Hendon Avenue, Mount Albert, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions