What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5222232 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 31, 163 East Tamaki Road, Otara,

How much money was awarded in case 5222232?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5222232?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5222232?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12715045-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5222232 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 31, 163 East Tamaki Road, Otara,

How much money was awarded in case 5222232?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5222232?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5222232?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12715045-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 31, 163 East Tamaki Road, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5222232 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 31, 163 East Tamaki Road, Otara, Auckland 2023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Haumaru Housing Limited Partnership, at 9 am on 17 November 2025.
[The tenant/s] must pay the filing fee of $27 to Haumaru Housing Limited Partnership.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission. Background
The background to this matter is that on 7 July 2025, the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of 3 instances of anti-social behaviour.
The tenant did not appear at that hearing but later sought and obtained an order for a rehearing.
The rehearing was set down for hearing on 28 August 2025. At that hearing, the tenant’s daughter appeared for the first time and I heard from the parties. The tenant is elderly and he had an interpreter. The tenant’s daughter advised the Tribunal she intended to play a more significant role in her father’s life. In my order of 28 August I have recorded that the parties intended to meet to see if a workable solution could be found.
The matter was adjourned for that purpose. It appeared that progress was initially being made but the tenant’s daughter now feels she is unable to assist further, for the reasons set out in her email to the landlord of today: At the last Court appearance for my father, [The tenant/s], I attended in support of him. I made a submission before the Tribunal, pleading for leniency and acknowledging the harm he had caused to Haumaru. I also offered to assist him to engage positively and comply with any conditions agreed between Haumaru and himself. Since then, I have made every effort to support his wellbeing and help him make positive changes. I have taken him out for coffee, spent time with him, and tried to reconnect with him in the hope that my presence as his daughter might bring some encouragement, love, and stability to his life. Unfortunately, these efforts have not brought about any change. My father continues to refuse to take responsibility for his actions. He rejects any form of accountability or support, and he becomes aggressive and verbally abusive when challenged. At times, his behaviour has become threatening and unsafe. He has made threats to harm me and others, including Haumaru staff. I have previously reported these threats to Haumaru as I genuinely feared for the safety of those engaging with him. Despite every effort to assist, my father remains unwilling to accept help or change. For my own safety and wellbeing, I have had to step back from contact with him. Continuing to engage with him was placing my own health and safety at serious risk. So I had decided to stay away from him. ..... I apologise to the Tribunal for this very sad outcome.
The landlord says that the tenant’s daughter has said the tenant pulled a knife on her at his premises very recently.
There being no appearance for the tenant at the hearing today, I have proceeded to hear the application. I am satisfied notice of the hearing has been given. 1 The application
The landlord claims the tenant has displayed three episodes of anti-social behaviour at the premises.
The premises are one unit within a 61 unit village. A large amount of evidence was provided which set out the lengthy history of the tenant generally displaying aggressive behaviour to other parties at the premises.
The landlord has bent over backwards to work with the tenant but has concerns for staff, contractors and other tenants.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti- social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor. 1 The landlord informs me they have met with him and advised him, as has his daughter.
The evidence of the landlord establishes that three instances of anti-social behaviour took place on 26 and 28 February and 24 March 2025 respectively. There was an incident of aggression to a staff member, aggressive and threatened violence displayed to a contractor, and a further incident of aggression and threatening behaviour towards a contractor.
I am satisfied that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application. Indeed, as noted above, the landlord has bent over backwards to avoid having to bring the application. Even after bringing the application, they have continued to attempt to work with the tenant to assist him with the issues which cause him to become aggressive.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
Because Haumaru Housing Limited Partnership Paul Amaral has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 31, 163 East Tamaki Road, Otara, Auckland 2023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Haumaru Housing Limited Partnership, at 9 am on 17 November 2025.
[The tenant/s] must pay the filing fee of $27 to Haumaru Housing Limited Partnership.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission. Background
The background to this matter is that on 7 July 2025, the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of 3 instances of anti-social behaviour.
The tenant did not appear at that hearing but later sought and obtained an order for a rehearing.
The rehearing was set down for hearing on 28 August 2025. At that hearing, the tenant’s daughter appeared for the first time and I heard from the parties. The tenant is elderly and he had an interpreter. The tenant’s daughter advised the Tribunal she intended to play a more significant role in her father’s life. In my order of 28 August I have recorded that the parties intended to meet to see if a workable solution could be found.
The matter was adjourned for that purpose. It appeared that progress was initially being made but the tenant’s daughter now feels she is unable to assist further, for the reasons set out in her email to the landlord of today: At the last Court appearance for my father, [The tenant/s], I attended in support of him. I made a submission before the Tribunal, pleading for leniency and acknowledging the harm he had caused to Haumaru. I also offered to assist him to engage positively and comply with any conditions agreed between Haumaru and himself. Since then, I have made every effort to support his wellbeing and help him make positive changes. I have taken him out for coffee, spent time with him, and tried to reconnect with him in the hope that my presence as his daughter might bring some encouragement, love, and stability to his life. Unfortunately, these efforts have not brought about any change. My father continues to refuse to take responsibility for his actions. He rejects any form of accountability or support, and he becomes aggressive and verbally abusive when challenged. At times, his behaviour has become threatening and unsafe. He has made threats to harm me and others, including Haumaru staff. I have previously reported these threats to Haumaru as I genuinely feared for the safety of those engaging with him. Despite every effort to assist, my father remains unwilling to accept help or change. For my own safety and wellbeing, I have had to step back from contact with him. Continuing to engage with him was placing my own health and safety at serious risk. So I had decided to stay away from him. ..... I apologise to the Tribunal for this very sad outcome.
The landlord says that the tenant’s daughter has said the tenant pulled a knife on her at his premises very recently.
There being no appearance for the tenant at the hearing today, I have proceeded to hear the application. I am satisfied notice of the hearing has been given. 1 The application
The landlord claims the tenant has displayed three episodes of anti-social behaviour at the premises.
The premises are one unit within a 61 unit village. A large amount of evidence was provided which set out the lengthy history of the tenant generally displaying aggressive behaviour to other parties at the premises.
The landlord has bent over backwards to work with the tenant but has concerns for staff, contractors and other tenants.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti- social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor. 1 The landlord informs me they have met with him and advised him, as has his daughter.
The evidence of the landlord establishes that three instances of anti-social behaviour took place on 26 and 28 February and 24 March 2025 respectively. There was an incident of aggression to a staff member, aggressive and threatened violence displayed to a contractor, and a further incident of aggression and threatening behaviour towards a contractor.
I am satisfied that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application. Indeed, as noted above, the landlord has bent over backwards to avoid having to bring the application. Even after bringing the application, they have continued to attempt to work with the tenant to assist him with the issues which cause him to become aggressive.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
Because Haumaru Housing Limited Partnership Paul Amaral has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5222232 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 31, 163 East Tamaki Road, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5222232 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 31, 163 East Tamaki Road, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions