What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356857 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of the

How much money was awarded in case 5356857?

Hi Community Housing Trust, At 11.59…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356857?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356857?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12624499-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356857 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of the

How much money was awarded in case 5356857?

Hi Community Housing Trust, At 11.59…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356857?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356857?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12624499-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356857 — 14-day notice

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356857. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
hi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Tuesday 28 October 2025. 3. Kelly Kahukiwa to pay Ōtautahi Community Housing T	$28.00		hi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Tuesday 28 October 2025. 3. Kelly Kahukiwa to pay Ōtautahi Community Housing T

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of the tenant victim and the witnesses in this case and the address of the tenancy premises.
The tenancy of Kelly Kahukiwa at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Tuesday 28 October 2025.
Kelly Kahukiwa to pay Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust $28.00 immediately being reimbursement of the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

The landlord’s representatives attended the hearing, The tenant did not attend. I am satisfied that the tenant knew of the hearing. He contacted the landlord by phone today and supplied his new phone number. The registrar called him on that number and on the other number recorded as his contact number. All calls went to voice mail.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy agreement and under the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 1 .
The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy based on a threat of assault by the tenant and/or his associates against a neighbour 2 .

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach, where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate 3 .
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The tenant breached his obligations by causing or permitting (or both) an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of another of the landlord’s tenants in the use of the premises or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of other persons residing in the neighbourhood.
The Tribunal heard evidence from 3 witnesses (names suppressed) concerning an incident on 24 September 2025 at around 7pm when Mr Kahukiwa and his associates, some wearing gang patches, threatened another tenant requiring him to pay them a tax.
The threatened tenant was so frightened he left the premises immediately because Mr Kahukiwa said he and his associates would return and require payment. They took the tenant’s watch. The threatened tenant still has not returned to the premises. 1 Section 40(2)(c) RTA 2 Section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA 3 Section 56(1) RTA
Later that evening Mr Kahukiwa and his associates returned and broke into the tenant’s premises causing significant damage to doors and a wall. They then removed (stole) the tenant’s goods. The police were called.
This incident was so serious that it alone justifies the termination of the tenancy. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
Separately, given the threat made to the tenant by Mr Kahukiwa, the tenancy could be terminated under section 55(1)(c) RTA. The witness evidence establishes that Mr Kahukiwa and/or his associates made a threat of assault; either the tenant would pay him/them a tax or there would be violent consequences. The later forced entry and damage and theft of property reinforces the threat earlier made.
In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd 4 the Court addressed what constitutes a threat of assault. The Court said: To “threaten to assault” means just what it says: it is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough. Even under the criminal law, there is no need to intend to act on the threat, or to have the capacity to act on it...
From the evidence given by the witnesses as to what occurred on 24 September, and the voice recording of the call the affected tenant made to the landlord, I find that Mr Kahukiwa and/or his associates threatened to assault the tenant.
Even if the landlord had not succeeded on its first ground for termination, it would have succeeded under this ground. Result
The tenancy is terminated. Possession is granted to Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust at 11.59pm tonight, 28 October 2025.
Because Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust has been successful I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression.
The landlord did not seek name suppression but sought suppression of the names and identifying details of all the witnesses, including the tenant who was 4 [2004] NZAR 665 threatened with assault and whose peace, comfort, or privacy was interfered with by Mr Kahukiwa and/or his associates.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the witnesses’ names and identifying details 5 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356857. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
hi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Tuesday 28 October 2025. 3. Kelly Kahukiwa to pay Ōtautahi Community Housing T	$28.00		hi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Tuesday 28 October 2025. 3. Kelly Kahukiwa to pay Ōtautahi Community Housing T

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of the tenant victim and the witnesses in this case and the address of the tenancy premises.
The tenancy of Kelly Kahukiwa at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Tuesday 28 October 2025.
Kelly Kahukiwa to pay Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust $28.00 immediately being reimbursement of the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

The landlord’s representatives attended the hearing, The tenant did not attend. I am satisfied that the tenant knew of the hearing. He contacted the landlord by phone today and supplied his new phone number. The registrar called him on that number and on the other number recorded as his contact number. All calls went to voice mail.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy agreement and under the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 1 .
The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy based on a threat of assault by the tenant and/or his associates against a neighbour 2 .

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach, where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate 3 .
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The tenant breached his obligations by causing or permitting (or both) an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of another of the landlord’s tenants in the use of the premises or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of other persons residing in the neighbourhood.
The Tribunal heard evidence from 3 witnesses (names suppressed) concerning an incident on 24 September 2025 at around 7pm when Mr Kahukiwa and his associates, some wearing gang patches, threatened another tenant requiring him to pay them a tax.
The threatened tenant was so frightened he left the premises immediately because Mr Kahukiwa said he and his associates would return and require payment. They took the tenant’s watch. The threatened tenant still has not returned to the premises. 1 Section 40(2)(c) RTA 2 Section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA 3 Section 56(1) RTA
Later that evening Mr Kahukiwa and his associates returned and broke into the tenant’s premises causing significant damage to doors and a wall. They then removed (stole) the tenant’s goods. The police were called.
This incident was so serious that it alone justifies the termination of the tenancy. It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
Separately, given the threat made to the tenant by Mr Kahukiwa, the tenancy could be terminated under section 55(1)(c) RTA. The witness evidence establishes that Mr Kahukiwa and/or his associates made a threat of assault; either the tenant would pay him/them a tax or there would be violent consequences. The later forced entry and damage and theft of property reinforces the threat earlier made.
In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd 4 the Court addressed what constitutes a threat of assault. The Court said: To “threaten to assault” means just what it says: it is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough. Even under the criminal law, there is no need to intend to act on the threat, or to have the capacity to act on it...
From the evidence given by the witnesses as to what occurred on 24 September, and the voice recording of the call the affected tenant made to the landlord, I find that Mr Kahukiwa and/or his associates threatened to assault the tenant.
Even if the landlord had not succeeded on its first ground for termination, it would have succeeded under this ground. Result
The tenancy is terminated. Possession is granted to Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust at 11.59pm tonight, 28 October 2025.
Because Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust has been successful I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression.
The landlord did not seek name suppression but sought suppression of the names and identifying details of all the witnesses, including the tenant who was 4 [2004] NZAR 665 threatened with assault and whose peace, comfort, or privacy was interfered with by Mr Kahukiwa and/or his associates.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the witnesses’ names and identifying details 5 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356857 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356857 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions