What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5365781 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 12 Amundsen Grove,

How much money was awarded in case 5365781?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5365781?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5365781?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12689069-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5365781 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 12 Amundsen Grove,

How much money was awarded in case 5365781?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5365781?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5365781?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12689069-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Amundsen Grove, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5365781 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 12 Amundsen Grove, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.

Reasons

A representative of Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities (‘KO”) and the tenant attended the remote hearing, conducted by phone.
Mr Lewis is the sole resident of the premises with his tenancy commencing on 7 November 2022. Prior to this he was a tenant in another KO property.
KO is seeking to terminate Mr Lewis’s tenancy on 2 grounds: • Mr Lewis threatened to assault, KO staff and neighbours of the premise during a phone call; and •Mr Lewis has breached his neighbour’s peace, comfort and privacy in the use of their premises and the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable for the Tribunal to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that it is more likely than not, that the events outlined occurred. Threat of assault
Section 55 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: (1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— ... (c) the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons: (iii) any agent of the landlord. (v) any neighbour of the premises, or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
Section 55(2) RTA provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy in certain circumstances, but in particular where they are satisfied the tenant is unlikely to commit another breach of its kind.
The landlord’s evidence was that the tenant called the KO call centre on 29 August 2025 and said; “I could possibly lose my house because of this new lady that has been assigned to be my Housing Support Manager......if yous try take my house off me, I can guarantee you that someone’s going to die, I don’t know whether it’s going to be a whole family or just an individual. Not only that but ah you know, I could probably just go next door and just take his house straight away, and just move in there, how does that sound”(sic)
This conversation was recorded by the KO customer service centre staff and was played at the hearing. While Mr Lewis did not state who he was going to die, KO staff took the threat seriously and as a result, KO’s Hutt Valley offices went into lock down and the Police were contacted to report the incident. Mr Lewis was arrested by the Police as a result of these threats and has been trespassed from both Kāinga Ora offices in the Hutt Valley. Following the threat, KO put in place a “geofence” – A no go notice for his property. KO had a security guard at each Hutt office the following week and put in place safety protocols for their staff, so they were not able to stand directly outside the office.
In his evidence, Mr. Lewis accepted that he had made the telephone call. He said that he had been frustrated with other KO tenant neighbours who he said were dealing in drugs, had damaged his premises and had stolen his medication from inside the house. Somewhat tellingly, Mr. Lewis said that he now accepted that it was unacceptable to talk to people in this manner. He see that it had not been his intention to threaten KO staff or his neighbours during the course of this telephone call.
In R v Meek [1981] 1 NZLR 499 the Court of Appeal discussed what is meant by “threatened to assault” and considered that: “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; or that it be passed on to the person to whom the threat relates.”
The words used by Mr. Lewis during the course of the telephone conversation with the KO call centre were clearly an expression of his intent to do harm to another person by the use of serious force. They were serious threats. As indicated in Meek, the fact of the threat is sufficient. There is no need to intend to act on that threat or to have the capacity to act on it. The threat does not have to be passed on to the person to whom the threat relates.
The evidence provided by way of the recording of the telephone conversation is such that I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mr Lewis did threaten to assault KO staff and his neighbours. In light of the evidence presented by KO, I am not satisfied that it is unlikely that Mr Lewis will commit another act of this kind (see Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd HC Christchurch CIV-2004- 409-717, 2 July 2004). On this basis, the tenancy is terminated (s.55(2) RTA). Breach of tenant obligations
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. See section 56(1) RTA.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly 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.
Section 40(2)(c) RTA states that a tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants. KO Evidence
KO claim Mr Lewis has breached this obligation by playing loud music on numerous occasions. Mr Lewis is on the local council’s list of offenders for whom they will attend in the event that one complaint is received (normally they require two or more complaints). KO’s evidence of the complaints is as follows; Issue: 25 February 2025 Breach letter issued for disturbing the neighbour’s comfort by playing loud bass music. Issue: 31 March 2025 at 9:28pm Noise control was called and attended the property of Mr Lewis due to excessive loud music coming from inside the property. Noise control deemed the music to be excessive, and Mr Lewis was issued a notice. Issue: 26 May 2025 at 4:15am Noise control was called and attended the property of Mr Lewis due to excessive loud music coming from inside the property. Noise control deemed the music to be excessive, and Mr Lewis was issued an abatement and a fine of $750.00. KO issued a s. 55A notice 12 June 2025. Issue 8 July 2025 at approximately 11:00am Mr Lewis was outside his house yelling loudly. When a neighbour approached to ask what was going on Mr Lewis said, “Go back to George St” and made a threating statement about killing his dogs. This caused distress to the neighbour. Issue: 8 July 2025 at approximately 11:07pm Noise control was called and deemed the noise to be excessive and issued an infringement notice and fine of $750.00 Issue: 20 August 2025 at approximately 2:19pm Mr Lewis took a portable speaker outside and was blasting loud bass music. Issue: 21 August 2025 at approximately 6:30am Mr Lewis was striking the metal rails at the front porch. This caused distress to the neighbours and breached their quite enjoyment. Issue: 25 August 2024 at 19:41 Noise control was called and issued an excessive noise notice, when the officers were leaving Mr Lewis verbally abused them. KO sent a s.55A RTA notice on 1 September 2025 to Mr Lewis regarding the issues on 20, 21 and 25th August. Issue: 19 September 2025 at approximately 5:33pm Mr Lewis was playing excessively loud bass music from his property. Noise control attended and confirmed the noise level as excessively high despite it occurring during the day. Mr Lewis was issued another infringement notice. Mr Lewis refused to accept the notice and it was left in his letter box.
Mr Lewis has been issued with four abatements notice so far this year, and at least three have also attracted a fine of $750 each.
Mr. Lewis said in the evidence that he enjoyed music. On the one occasion when he had a speaker outside, he said he had been carrying out gardening at the premises.
KO also referred to incidents involving a neighbour’s dogs being released. I do not consider the evidence provided by KO to have been sufficient to support that allegation and I have not taken it into account in reaching a decision in this matter.

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

I find, given the nature of the breaches as to noise and more importantly the frequency of them that they are breaches that are not capable of remedy. Additional evidence
In addition to the events outlined above that have interfered with the neighbours’ quiet enjoyment, there has been an additional event.
Most recently on 4 November 2025, a glass bowl was thrown by Mr Lewis at a car leaving his premises. The bowl smashed with the glass shards causing some damage to cars parked close by.
The District Court set out the various factors to be considered in making a decision regarding termination in Huff v Central City Property Management Ltd [2020] NZDC 19229: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
During the relatively short period of the current tenancy, it is clear there have been numerous breaches. Between 28 August 2024 and 28 August 2025, KO has received 50 noise complaints relating to Mr Lewis’ property. Despite the warnings and infringement notices, the tenant continues to breach his obligations. This history would indicate that it appears unlikely the tenant will comply with his obligations in the future. The behaviours are no doubt causing considerable distress and worry to the neighbours and I find that termination of the tenancy is an appropriate response to this application.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5365781 — 14-day notice at 12 Amundsen Grove, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5365781 — 14-day notice at 12 Amundsen Grove, Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt 5019

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions