What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5324680 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 49 Portman Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5324680?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5324680?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5324680?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12582085-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5324680 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 49 Portman Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5324680?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5324680?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5324680?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12582085-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 6, 49 Portman Road, Mount Wellington, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5324680 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 49 Portman Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities Karen Thomson-Wise, immediately, being 19 October 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. An interpreter was present for Mr Aziz.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy.
By way of background, the tenancy commenced on 9 December 2020.
The Landlord has applied to terminate the periodic tenancy on two separate grounds: a)That Mr Aziz has threatened to assault the Landlord; and b) The tenancy has caused hardship for the Landlord
The Landlord relies on section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows termination where a tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault the landlord, a member of the landlord’s family, or permitted another person to do so.
The Landlord submitted that on 15 October 2024, Mr Aziz made threats during a phone call to a call centre staff member. Mr Aziz had called regarding a decision of the Senior Housing support Manager namely Matthew. A recording was provided to the Tribunal in which Mr Aziz stated: a) “Matthew, he trying to destroy my life — I can destroy his future as well.” b) “I can wait outside the office until I see him taking his car and go to his home to know where he lives and start to do whatever I can do for him.” c) “I might just do it to him and then just kill myself, maybe. I’m not sure what I gonna do.”
These statements were interpreted by the Landlord as serious and implicit threats of violence. A Section 55A anti-social behaviour notice was issued immediately to Mr Aziz by the Landlord. The call centre staff member reported the matter to Police and management. The Landlord submitted that the threat could not be remedied under section 55(2), and Mr Aziz had not apologised or shown remorse for his behaviour.
Further concerning behaviour from Mr Aziz followed: a) On 18 July 2025, Mr Aziz interacted with an employee, Ms Prasad at the Landlords office and she alleged he spoke aggressively towards her which she found very intimidating. Police were present in an unrelated matter and intervened, escorting him from the premises where they subsequently issued a trespass notice. Ms Prasad gave evidence at the hearing confirming this incident and also stated that on 21 July 2025, Mr Aziz sent her a text message with a screenshot of her Facebook profile with the message “nice photo”. This was alarming for her because she had used social media to maintain connections with her friends and family. Mr Aziz intruding on her personal life left her feeling more unsafe. b) Another employee of the Landlord, Ms Ballantine gave evidence that on 18 July 2025, Mr Aziz waited outside the office in his car around
00pm, then followed Ms Ballantine in her vehicle as she was being driven home. Ms Ballantine submitted the incident caused her significant stress and concern for her personal safety and wellbeing. She described his behaviour as intimidating and inappropriate, particularly with it occurring outside of work hours. c) Ms Ballantine also gave evidence that at the previous hearing on 3 October 2025, after the proceedings ended, Mr Aziz approached herself, Ms Prasad and another employee whilst they were sitting in one of the court meeting rooms. He opened the door and said, “I will see you.” Ms Ballantine said it was said in a threatening manner because he had a frightening facial expression when he said it.
During the hearing, Mr Aziz confirmed he made the phone statements on 18 July 2025 regarding ‘Matthew’, but he said he did not intend to harm anyone. He denied following Ms Ballantine, claiming he was parked across the road and could not identify her from that far. He said he was driving home that day. He said he would often park in the carpark across from the Landlord’s office as he was an uber driver. He also questioned Ms Ballantine’s ability to see him following her in the car as her seat was reclined back. He admitted to sending the text to Ms Prasad, stating he wanted to understand why he was asked to leave the office and why his concerns had not been addressed. Mr Aziz also stated that when he went to speak to the Landlords employees at the previous court hearing on 3 October 2025, it was because he knew them and wanted to say goodbye.
Under section 55B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord may also terminate a tenancy if: a) They would suffer greater hardship than the tenant if the tenancy continued, and b) Because of the hardship, it would be unreasonable to require the Landlord to continue the tenancy. The Tribunal must consider the impact of termination on the tenant in deciding whether it would be unreasonable to require
The Landlord submitted that Mr Aziz’s conduct had caused significant emotional, operational, and financial strain on the Landlord. Staff had to be protected with increased security measures, incurring extra costs. Staff reported high anxiety levels and fear of being followed or harassed outside of work.
Mr Aziz told the Tribunal he was willing to end the tenancy if that would satisfy the Landlord. He did not provide any evidence of hardship he would suffer if evicted. The Landlord indicated a willingness to assist Mr Aziz in securing alternative accommodation through the Ministry of Social Development or transitional housing services.
Mr Aziz acknowledged his interactions with the Landlord except following Ms Ballantine in her car. He admitted he had been under severe personal stress due to threats made against his family overseas at the time. He stated that he had sought medical help in the past but he did not appear to demonstrate insight into how his behaviour and how his comments impacted the Landlord’s employees.
In considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the grounds for termination are met and that Mr Aziz made threatening statements towards the Landlord. He did not seem to realise the seriousness of his conduct, repeating similar remarks during the hearing. As a result of his behaviour, several staff members experienced genuine fear and distress both in the workplace and outside of it.
I am also satisfied that the Landlord will suffer greater hardship continuing the tenancy because of the impact of his behaviour to their staff, including ongoing safety concerns and financial burdens related to security. Mr Aziz intimidating behaviour has encroached on their personal lives. I accept Mr Aziz was aggressive when he spoke with Ms Prasad given the police had to intervene. I question his evidence regarding the following of Ms Ballantine where he stated he was driving home but then turned around to return to the car park from the Landlord’s office. I find it difficult to understand why he would say he was driving home then turn around and return to the carpark across the road from the Landlord. I do not accept that Mr Aziz was merely saying goodbye to the Landlords employees at the previous hearing because he went out of his way to go to the meeting room, open the door and say goodbye. He would have been aware, they were present to request the end of his tenancy. I am persuaded by Ms Ballantine’s evidence of his intimidating facial gestures when he said “I will see you”. Furthermore, Mr Aziz did not seem to show any awareness about the inappropriateness of much of his actions towards the staff outside of the workplace or within the social media space.
While I acknowledge it may be difficult for Mr Aziz to find new accommodation, he has stated he is an uber driver so he still has the financial means to reside elsewhere and the Landlord has offered to assist with this process. The balance of hardship clearly favours the Landlord, who should not be required to continue managing a tenancy in such conditions. Mr Aziz behaviour has affected multiple employees of the Landlord and he does not appear to fully understand the consequences of his actions which means they are at risk of his threatening behaviour continuing.
The tenancy is terminated immediately.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 49 Portman Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities Karen Thomson-Wise, immediately, being 19 October 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. An interpreter was present for Mr Aziz.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy.
By way of background, the tenancy commenced on 9 December 2020.
The Landlord has applied to terminate the periodic tenancy on two separate grounds: a)That Mr Aziz has threatened to assault the Landlord; and b) The tenancy has caused hardship for the Landlord
The Landlord relies on section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which allows termination where a tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault the landlord, a member of the landlord’s family, or permitted another person to do so.
The Landlord submitted that on 15 October 2024, Mr Aziz made threats during a phone call to a call centre staff member. Mr Aziz had called regarding a decision of the Senior Housing support Manager namely Matthew. A recording was provided to the Tribunal in which Mr Aziz stated: a) “Matthew, he trying to destroy my life — I can destroy his future as well.” b) “I can wait outside the office until I see him taking his car and go to his home to know where he lives and start to do whatever I can do for him.” c) “I might just do it to him and then just kill myself, maybe. I’m not sure what I gonna do.”
These statements were interpreted by the Landlord as serious and implicit threats of violence. A Section 55A anti-social behaviour notice was issued immediately to Mr Aziz by the Landlord. The call centre staff member reported the matter to Police and management. The Landlord submitted that the threat could not be remedied under section 55(2), and Mr Aziz had not apologised or shown remorse for his behaviour.
Further concerning behaviour from Mr Aziz followed: a) On 18 July 2025, Mr Aziz interacted with an employee, Ms Prasad at the Landlords office and she alleged he spoke aggressively towards her which she found very intimidating. Police were present in an unrelated matter and intervened, escorting him from the premises where they subsequently issued a trespass notice. Ms Prasad gave evidence at the hearing confirming this incident and also stated that on 21 July 2025, Mr Aziz sent her a text message with a screenshot of her Facebook profile with the message “nice photo”. This was alarming for her because she had used social media to maintain connections with her friends and family. Mr Aziz intruding on her personal life left her feeling more unsafe. b) Another employee of the Landlord, Ms Ballantine gave evidence that on 18 July 2025, Mr Aziz waited outside the office in his car around
00pm, then followed Ms Ballantine in her vehicle as she was being driven home. Ms Ballantine submitted the incident caused her significant stress and concern for her personal safety and wellbeing. She described his behaviour as intimidating and inappropriate, particularly with it occurring outside of work hours. c) Ms Ballantine also gave evidence that at the previous hearing on 3 October 2025, after the proceedings ended, Mr Aziz approached herself, Ms Prasad and another employee whilst they were sitting in one of the court meeting rooms. He opened the door and said, “I will see you.” Ms Ballantine said it was said in a threatening manner because he had a frightening facial expression when he said it.
During the hearing, Mr Aziz confirmed he made the phone statements on 18 July 2025 regarding ‘Matthew’, but he said he did not intend to harm anyone. He denied following Ms Ballantine, claiming he was parked across the road and could not identify her from that far. He said he was driving home that day. He said he would often park in the carpark across from the Landlord’s office as he was an uber driver. He also questioned Ms Ballantine’s ability to see him following her in the car as her seat was reclined back. He admitted to sending the text to Ms Prasad, stating he wanted to understand why he was asked to leave the office and why his concerns had not been addressed. Mr Aziz also stated that when he went to speak to the Landlords employees at the previous court hearing on 3 October 2025, it was because he knew them and wanted to say goodbye.
Under section 55B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord may also terminate a tenancy if: a) They would suffer greater hardship than the tenant if the tenancy continued, and b) Because of the hardship, it would be unreasonable to require the Landlord to continue the tenancy. The Tribunal must consider the impact of termination on the tenant in deciding whether it would be unreasonable to require
The Landlord submitted that Mr Aziz’s conduct had caused significant emotional, operational, and financial strain on the Landlord. Staff had to be protected with increased security measures, incurring extra costs. Staff reported high anxiety levels and fear of being followed or harassed outside of work.
Mr Aziz told the Tribunal he was willing to end the tenancy if that would satisfy the Landlord. He did not provide any evidence of hardship he would suffer if evicted. The Landlord indicated a willingness to assist Mr Aziz in securing alternative accommodation through the Ministry of Social Development or transitional housing services.
Mr Aziz acknowledged his interactions with the Landlord except following Ms Ballantine in her car. He admitted he had been under severe personal stress due to threats made against his family overseas at the time. He stated that he had sought medical help in the past but he did not appear to demonstrate insight into how his behaviour and how his comments impacted the Landlord’s employees.
In considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the grounds for termination are met and that Mr Aziz made threatening statements towards the Landlord. He did not seem to realise the seriousness of his conduct, repeating similar remarks during the hearing. As a result of his behaviour, several staff members experienced genuine fear and distress both in the workplace and outside of it.
I am also satisfied that the Landlord will suffer greater hardship continuing the tenancy because of the impact of his behaviour to their staff, including ongoing safety concerns and financial burdens related to security. Mr Aziz intimidating behaviour has encroached on their personal lives. I accept Mr Aziz was aggressive when he spoke with Ms Prasad given the police had to intervene. I question his evidence regarding the following of Ms Ballantine where he stated he was driving home but then turned around to return to the car park from the Landlord’s office. I find it difficult to understand why he would say he was driving home then turn around and return to the carpark across the road from the Landlord. I do not accept that Mr Aziz was merely saying goodbye to the Landlords employees at the previous hearing because he went out of his way to go to the meeting room, open the door and say goodbye. He would have been aware, they were present to request the end of his tenancy. I am persuaded by Ms Ballantine’s evidence of his intimidating facial gestures when he said “I will see you”. Furthermore, Mr Aziz did not seem to show any awareness about the inappropriateness of much of his actions towards the staff outside of the workplace or within the social media space.
While I acknowledge it may be difficult for Mr Aziz to find new accommodation, he has stated he is an uber driver so he still has the financial means to reside elsewhere and the Landlord has offered to assist with this process. The balance of hardship clearly favours the Landlord, who should not be required to continue managing a tenancy in such conditions. Mr Aziz behaviour has affected multiple employees of the Landlord and he does not appear to fully understand the consequences of his actions which means they are at risk of his threatening behaviour continuing.
The tenancy is terminated immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5324680 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 49 Portman Road, Mount Wellington,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5324680 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 49 Portman Road, Mount Wellington,

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