What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5262905 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. The

How much money was awarded in case 5262905?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5262905?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5262905?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12159155-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5262905 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. The

How much money was awarded in case 5262905?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5262905?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5262905?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12159155-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5262905 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. The Tribunal also orders suppression of the names and details of all witnesses.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 17 December 2010 and is periodic. On 14 May 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking to terminate the tenancy on the basis that, on three occasions, the tenant had threatened to assault their assigned housing support manager. The matter was first listed for hearing on 10 June 2025. Both parties appeared. However, there was insufficient time to hear all the evidence, and the matter was adjourned part heard and rescheduled for hearing on 18 July 2025. [The landlord’s representative] has appeared for the landlord. The tenant also appeared.
The landlord claims that during a phone call with a housing team leader on 12 March 2024, the tenant threatened to assault their housing support manager, stating, “I will waste her”. In an email sent to the housing support manager on the same date that the tenant had written, “I’m sorry but I don’t like you and with my head injury your safety would be a concern.” Finally, during a visit by staff on or about 17 March 2024 to deliver a breach notice regarding the alleged threats, that the tenant had again stated that the housing support manager’s safety was at risk due to the tenant’s post-traumatic stress disorder.
The landlord argues that these three incidents amount to a threat to assault an agent of the landlord and seek immediate termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).
The tenant denies intending to threaten to assault the housing support manager. The tenant suffers from a post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), anxiety, and depression. Medical evidence has been produced confirming these conditions. The tenant states that their intention was to warn the landlord that the housing support manager was a trigger for their PTSD and should be replaced. Law
Under section 55(1)(c)(iii) of the Act, the Tribunal must terminate a tenancy where it is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault and agent of the landlord.
Assault is not defined in the Act.
Section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 defines assault as follows: Assault means the act of intentionally applying 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 , present ability to effect his purpose ; and to assault has a corresponding meaning.
Where the alleged assault consists of a verbal threat, it must be established that: • The person accused did or said something that amounted to a threat to apply force to the complainant, and • The person accused intended to threaten the complainant (that is, the defendant was serious (it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that he intended to carry out their threat), and • The person accused had the present ability to carry out the threat, or caused the complainant to believe that they did. (see R v Kerr [1988] NZLR 270 (CA))
In matters before the Tribunal, the onus is on the landlord to establish each of the above elements on the balance of probabilities. All of the elements must be proven.
Under section 55(2) of the Act the Tribunal may decline to terminate under 55(1)(c)(iii) if, and only if, it is satisfied that (where capable): •the breach has been remedied. •the landlord has been compensated for any loss; and •it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the kind.
In McLeod v Housing New Zealand Ltd, High Court Auckland AP50 – SW01, 16 July 2001, the Court considered that the discretion in 55(2) is only available to the Tribunal if all three limbs were satisfied.
However, in Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court Christchurch, CIV – 2004 – 409 – 717, 2 July 2004, the Court held that if the breach was one that could not be remedied, such as an assault, then the first limb of the test could be set aside, and the Tribunal could go on to consider the two remaining limbs in 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. Evidence
The Tribunal has heard from [the team leader], who stated that on 12 March 2025 he had been tasked with calling the tenant in relation to concerns they had raised via the call centre about the tenancy. [The team leader] stated that the tenant was aggrieved that they had been served with a breach notice for cleaning by their housing case manager and demanded that the manager be replaced. [The team leader] stated he advised the tenant that this was not a sufficient reason to replace the housing support manager, to which the tenant replied that if she saw the housing case manager again “I will waste her.”
The tenant states that on 11 March 2025, they called the landlord’s call centre to request a change of housing case manager. The tenant explained that, as a young person, they had suffered a serious assault resulting in post-traumatic stress and a mood disorder. The tenant stated that there was a personality clash between themselves and the current housing support manager, and they were extremely concerned that this was triggering their PTSD.
The tenant described two prior incidents, one as a teenager and another as a young adult where they had been triggered and suffered dissociative episodes, which had resulted in them “losing control and lashing out.” The tenant explained that they received ACC weekly compensation, had received some counselling, took prescribed medication, and that they understood and could usually identify situations or events that could be triggers. However, this was the first time that a person, rather than a particular situation or event had acted as a trigger. They stated that they found this concerning, and they had raised it with their ACC navigator. The tenant also stated that they had suffered a mild stroke which had affected their memory and cognitive functioning.
The tenant explained that the only way they felt able to deal with the matter was to request that the housing case manager be replaced, and noted they had no similar issue with the previous housing case manager. The tenant stated that despite explaining this to [the team leader], the tenant claims that he “scoffed and laughed” and said, “that’s not happening.” The tenant stated in frustration they responded, “If the trigger explodes, it’s a serious safety concern. It can’t be brushed off - I will end up wasting her.”
The tenant states that following the first hearing on 10 June 2025 they asked the landlord to disclose the call they had made to the call centre on 11 March 2025, along with a copy of the email that would have been sent by the call centre to [the team leader], setting out the reasons for the contact. Unfortunately, the tenant mistakenly sent the request to their housing support manager, who as a result of the call to [the team leader], had stepped aside on or about 12 March 2025, instead of the local service manager.
[The landlord’s representative] was aware of the disclosure request. While calls made to the call centre are recorded, those made by the agents of the landlord to tenants are not.
[The team leader] denied scoffing or laughing at the tenant and stated that the tenant had not mentioned their post-traumatic stress disorder during the conversation.
[The support manager] stated she had been the tenant’s housing support manager. She stated that on or about 24 January 2025, following an inspection, they had visited and left pinned to the front door of the property a 14-day breach notice for failing maintain the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. There was no evidence of any issues between the pair during the inspection, and no threats had been made.
On 12 March 2024, she received an email from the tenant stating: “Awesome so no like for the 20th times what did the bloody letter say? I told u I never received it. I also request my housing manager be changed back 2 noami, I’m sorry but I don’t like you and with my head injury your safety would be a concern”.
[The support manager] stated that she was concerned, as she believed the threats had been made to three different people, [the team leader] on 12 March 2025, and two other housing support managers who had attended on 17 March 2025.
[The support manager] stated that she had stood down as the tenant’s housing support manager since 12 March 2025 and had had no further dealings with the tenant.
[The senior service manager] stated she is the senior service manager and the supervises all of the landlord’s witnesses. While not directly involved, she had provided oversight. She stated that in early April 2025 she had a conversation with the tenant about the complaint, which she described as “robust”.
[The senior service manager] stated that during the conversation the tenant had referred to [the team leader] as an “arrogant fuck,” and had also said, “she’s a fucken trigger for me.” [The senior service manager] believed that these comments supported the view that the threats had likely been made as alleged. [The senior service manager] confirmed that she was aware that the tenant received ACC support but was not aware of any counselling, therapy, or other treatment. [The senior service manager] expressed concern that while the immediate issue had been addressed; with the housing case manager stepping aside, the broader issue remained unresolved.
[The senior service manager] stated that the landlord had made referrals to another social housing service provider who offers support services for sustaining tenancies, but that the tenant had failed to engage. The tenant stated that she had spoken with the referred organisation but were advised that it could not assist.
[The housing support manager] stated that he and another Housing Support Manager attended the property on 17 March 2025 to deliver a breach notice dated 13 March 2025, relating to the phone call with [the team leader] on 12 March 2025. He stated that the tenant denied threatening [the support manager] but described her as being on a “power trip,” and stated that due to their suffering PTSD, [the support manager]’s safety was at risk if she kept visiting. [The housing support manager] stated he believed that this statement constituted a threat.
The tenant has produced a letter from their doctor dated 10 June 2025 which states: “I am the GP [ for tenant]. This letter serves to confirm that she has a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, PTSD, and Nervous Shock. This severely affects her socialising. When she experiences a trigger, she goes into a fight/ flight mode. She tries to avoid potential conflict. All this are confirmed on a report from ACC.”
The tenant stated that things between herself and [the support manager] had “not been right.” As she could not remove herself from being the tenant, the only way she felt able to deal with the matter was to request that, [the support manager], the trigger, be removed. Decision
Each case will be determined on its facts. Whether the tenant did or said something that amounted to a threat to apply force to the housing support manager, and intended to threaten the housing support manager, requires an objective assessment of the evidence.
I am not satisfied that the tenant’s statement amounts to a threat to assault. The context in which the statements were made is important. The tenant suffers from a diagnosed mental disorder and is clearly concerned for the housing support managers safety should they suffer a relapse. The statements are, as the tenant claims, an explanation as to what may occur if the matter is not addressed. I am therefore not satisfied that the statements amount to a threat to apply force but were instead conditional statements based on a hypothetical future event, which the tenant has reasonably, and responsibly sought to avoid.
Having witnessed the tenant give evidence, I am satisfied that in expressing their concerns, they have become frustrated at what they perceived to be a lack of understanding on the part of the landlord concerning the seriousness of the matter. In my view, this has then been a factor in the landlord misconstruing the tenant’s statements as a threat when they were not.
Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenant intended to threaten the housing support manager.
The claim for termination is dismissed.
The Tribunal encourages the tenant to continue to seek assistance of suitably qualified medical professionals to better understand these triggers, so that a repeat of this situation may be avoided in the future. Name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been wholly successful in these proceedings, seeks and is granted name suppression.
The Tribunal also orders suppression of the names and details of the witnesses in this matter, including [the landlord’s representative].

Tenancy Tribunal case 5262905 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5262905 — 14-day notice

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