What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5366164 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 14B Celadon Place, Wiri, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5366164?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366164?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366164?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12631932-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5366164 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 14B Celadon Place, Wiri, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 5366164?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366164?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366164?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12631932-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14B Celadon Place, Wiri, Auckland 2104 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5366164 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 14B Celadon Place, Wiri, Auckland 2104 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 5 pm Friday 7 November 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the following grounds: a. The tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault a neighbour of the premises. See section 55(1)(c)(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). b. The tenant has breached her obligations under the RTA and the tenancy agreement by breaching the neighbour’s right to reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. See section 40(2)(c) RTA and clause 9 of the tenancy agreement. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is more likely than not. Each of the landlord’s claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
It is for a party to provide their evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) RTA.
It is intended that this order be as concise as possible to convey the essential facts, the law and the Tribunal’s reason for its decisions. The landlord’s evidence
The landlord provided the following evidence: a. The landlord issued a Notice of Anti-social Behaviour on 30 July 2025 (the ASB) in relation to the following incident: “On 28 July at approximately 1.30 pm, Kainga Ora received a complaint from a neighbour who advised that there was a verbal altercation between you and the neighbour which took place in your driveway and his backyard. The neighbour advised that you yelled at him and called him a “F**king rapist” and threatened him stating “I’m gonna get a gun and shoot you. I’m going to get my brother to shoot you. He’s a Head Hunter.” The police were called and attended the property. The neighbour stated that this incident caused hum to fear for his safety.” b. The tenant has not challenged this notice by application to the Tribunal as advised in the ASB. c. “On 2 September 2025, around 3PM, the neighbour (N) and his son were working on his car outside his property. N was sitting in the driver’s seat, with one leg in the car and the other leg outside the car. He could hear an argument between Ms Tatana and her male visitor. Completely unprovoked, Ms Tatana approached N’s car, swearing. She then tried to punch him while he was in his car and then slammed the car door onto N’s leg. As N tried to open the car door to get out of the car, pushing Ms Tatana back, she tried to hit him again. Ms Tatana then walked away. N tells Ms Tatana he is reporting the incident to the Police. N’s son, who was seated in the front passenger seat, witnessed the incident. Police attended and as a result of the incident, Ms Tatana was arrested. Police Reference for the incident is PO63626814. Police have confirmed that Ms Tatana is currently before the courts for this incident.” d. An incident report prepared by the landlord on the morning of 16 September 2025 which confirms that the tenant was “Arrested again Monday 8 September at approx. 3.45 pm for swearing again at [N].” e. “Ms Tatana’s verbal abuse has not been limited to her neighbour. Police have indicated they have been subjected to Ms Tatana’s verbal abuse and offensive behaviour when attending the property, calling a police sergeant “you coconut fuck”. f. “Ms Tatana is known to the Police for making frivolous reports regarding N. There are 30 occurrences of abuse and trespass involving Ms Tatana and N. According to the Police, the claims have not been substantiated with evidence and believes Ms Tatana is the antagonist when making reports against N. The police have also indicated they have witnessed Ms Tatana triggers neighbours with her behaviour. Ms Tatana is known to verbally abuse N calling him “rapist”, “predator”, “paedophile” and does so in front of his school-aged children.” g. The landlord has investigated the tenant’s claims against N but has dismissed them as her video evidence did not support her claims.
The tenant’s neighbour N gave evidence to the Tribunal through an interpreter as follows: a. On 28 May 2025 the tenant sprayed water from her hose at him and tried to get her dog to attack him. He took refuge inside. b. On 8 July 2025 N was outside cleaning some pots. The tenant came out of her property shouting about the noise N was making. She called him a rapist and said “I’m going to call my brother, a head man in the Head Hunters, and he will come down and burn down your house and shoot you.” This was reported to the landlord who issued the ASB notice. c. On 2 September 2025 he was working on his car at his property. He was in the driver’s seat with one leg in the car and one outside with the door open. His son was in the passenger seat. He felt someone push the car door against his leg, squashing it. The tenant was standing beside the door and was trying to push it shut on his leg. She threw punches at him which he was able to avoid from inside the car. He pushed the door open and the tenant walked away. He told her that he was going to call the police and she yelled at him: “You’re a f**cking coconut. You have to go back to your country.” She also called him a rapist. The police came and arrested her the same day and then came to his property and gave him the police file number. d. The tenant abuses him and his two sons three or four times a week. They are scared to go outside their property, even to hang out the washing. The abuse involves swearing and racial abuse. This began in February 2025 and has been escalating. e. He and his sons are scared living at the property and cannot get any peace from the tenant. The tenant’s response
The tenant refused to be in the hearing while N gave his evidence. She therefore removed herself during this part of the hearing but was telephoned once his evidence was complete and rejoined the hearing.
The tenant responded to the allegations as follows: a. She was not at the property at the time of the incident on 2 September 2025 and denied any involvement. b. She was arrested on that date for resisting arrest, not assaulting N. c. She denies verbally abusing N. N has called her names and watches her and her guests constantly. She said that she has been “tormented” by N and has reported his behaviour to the landlord but they have done nothing. d. She denies the incident on 8 July 2025 and did nothing about it because she feels unsupported by the landlord. Much of her contribution to the hearing was complaints about the landlord and N. e. She does not feel safe in her property and wants to be moved. She is in the process of obtaining a restraining order against N. f. She claimed to have videos and photographs of other incidents involving N but has not supplied them to the Tribunal for the hearing. Discussion and decision
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant assaulted her neighbour N for the following reasons: a. Having denied being present at the assault, she inconsistently acknowledged that she had been arrested at the property for resisting arrest. The Tribunal can presume that the tenant was resisting arrest for the assault on N. b. N’s verbal evidence given at the hearing was consistent, clear and plausible. His evidence was supported by and consistent with the incident report prepared by the landlord on 16 September 2025. He did not exaggerate or embellish his claims and presented as a truthful witness. c. The tenant has not challenged the ASB notice. It is evidence that the tenant has threatened to assault N. It also evidence of the tenant’s propensity towards violence directed at N. d. She repeatedly evaded direct questions about the specific incidents. Instead, she made many accusations against the landlord and N. e. In summary, there is a consistency in N’s evidence and that of the landlord that is lacking in the tenant’s evidence. The landlord’s evidence is therefore more credible and persuasive than the tenant’s denials.
The Tribunal declines to exercise its discretion under section 55(2) RTA because the evidence and history of the relationship between the tenant and N make it very unlikely that the tenant will not commit further similar breaches.
For these reasons, the tenancy is to be terminated on the grounds that the tenant both assaulted N on 2 September 2025 and threatened to assault N on 30 July 2025.
It is not therefore necessary to consider the landlord’s claim under section 56 RTA.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the following grounds: a. The tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault a neighbour of the premises. See section 55(1)(c)(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). b. The tenant has breached her obligations under the RTA and the tenancy agreement by breaching the neighbour’s right to reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy. See section 40(2)(c) RTA and clause 9 of the tenancy agreement. Standard of proof and evidence

In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is more likely than not. Each of the landlord’s claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.

The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.

While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.

It is for a party to provide their evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.

The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) RTA.

It is intended that this order be as concise as possible to convey the essential facts, the law and the Tribunal’s reason for its decisions. The landlord’s evidence

The landlord provided the following evidence: a. The landlord issued a Notice of Anti-social Behaviour on 30 July 2025 (the ASB) in relation to the following incident: “On 28 July at approximately 1.30 pm, Kainga Ora received a complaint from a neighbour who advised that there was a verbal altercation between you and the neighbour which took place in your driveway and his backyard. The neighbour advised that you yelled at him and called him a “F**king rapist” and threatened him stating “I’m gonna get a gun and shoot you. I’m going to get my brother to shoot you. He’s a Head Hunter.” The police were called and attended the property. The neighbour stated that this incident caused hum to fear for his safety.” b. The tenant has not challenged this notice by application to the Tribunal as advised in the ASB. c. “On 2 September 2025, around 3PM, the neighbour (N) and his son were working on his car outside his property. N was sitting in the driver’s seat, with one leg in the car and the other leg outside the car. He could hear an argument between Ms Tatana and her male visitor. Completely unprovoked, Ms Tatana approached N’s car, swearing. She then tried to punch him while he was in his car and then slammed the car door onto N’s leg. As N tried to open the car door to get out of the car, pushing Ms Tatana back, she tried to hit him again. Ms Tatana then walked away. N tells Ms Tatana he is reporting the incident to the Police. N’s son, who was seated in the front passenger seat, witnessed the incident. Police attended and as a result of the incident, Ms Tatana was arrested. Police Reference for the incident is PO63626814. Police have confirmed that Ms Tatana is currently before the courts for this incident.” d. An incident report prepared by the landlord on the morning of 16 September 2025 which confirms that the tenant was “Arrested again Monday 8 September at approx. 3.45 pm for swearing again at [N].” e. “Ms Tatana’s verbal abuse has not been limited to her neighbour. Police have indicated they have been subjected to Ms Tatana’s verbal abuse and offensive behaviour when attending the property, calling a police sergeant “you coconut fuck”. f. “Ms Tatana is known to the Police for making frivolous reports regarding N. There are 30 occurrences of abuse and trespass involving Ms Tatana and N. According to the Police, the claims have not been substantiated with evidence and believes Ms Tatana is the antagonist when making reports against N. The police have also indicated they have witnessed Ms Tatana triggers neighbours with her behaviour. Ms Tatana is known to verbally abuse N calling him “rapist”, “predator”, “paedophile” and does so in front of his school-aged children.” g. The landlord has investigated the tenant’s claims against N but has dismissed them as her video evidence did not support her claims.

The tenant’s neighbour N gave evidence to the Tribunal through an interpreter as follows: a. On 28 May 2025 the tenant sprayed water from her hose at him and tried to get her dog to attack him. He took refuge inside. b. On 8 July 2025 N was outside cleaning some pots. The tenant came out of her property shouting about the noise N was making. She called him a rapist and said “I’m going to call my brother, a head man in the Head Hunters, and he will come down and burn down your house and shoot you.” This was reported to the landlord who issued the ASB notice. c. On 2 September 2025 he was working on his car at his property. He was in the driver’s seat with one leg in the car and one outside with the door open. His son was in the passenger seat. He felt someone push the car door against his leg, squashing it. The tenant was standing beside the door and was trying to push it shut on his leg. She threw punches at him which he was able to avoid from inside the car. He pushed the door open and the tenant walked away. He told her that he was going to call the police and she yelled at him: “You’re a f**cking coconut. You have to go back to your country.” She also called him a rapist. The police came and arrested her the same day and then came to his property and gave him the police file number. d. The tenant abuses him and his two sons three or four times a week. They are scared to go outside their property, even to hang out the washing. The abuse involves swearing and racial abuse. This began in February 2025 and has been escalating. e. He and his sons are scared living at the property and cannot get any peace from the tenant. The tenant’s response

The tenant refused to be in the hearing while N gave his evidence. She therefore removed herself during this part of the hearing but was telephoned once his evidence was complete and rejoined the hearing.

The tenant responded to the allegations as follows: a. She was not at the property at the time of the incident on 2 September 2025 and denied any involvement. b. She was arrested on that date for resisting arrest, not assaulting N. c. She denies verbally abusing N. N has called her names and watches her and her guests constantly. She said that she has been “tormented” by N and has reported his behaviour to the landlord but they have done nothing. d. She denies the incident on 8 July 2025 and did nothing about it because she feels unsupported by the landlord. Much of her contribution to the hearing was complaints about the landlord and N. e. She does not feel safe in her property and wants to be moved. She is in the process of obtaining a restraining order against N. f. She claimed to have videos and photographs of other incidents involving N but has not supplied them to the Tribunal for the hearing. Discussion and decision

On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant assaulted her neighbour N for the following reasons: a. Having denied being present at the assault, she inconsistently acknowledged that she had been arrested at the property for resisting arrest. The Tribunal can presume that the tenant was resisting arrest for the assault on N. b. N’s verbal evidence given at the hearing was consistent, clear and plausible. His evidence was supported by and consistent with the incident report prepared by the landlord on 16 September 2025. He did not exaggerate or embellish his claims and presented as a truthful witness. c. The tenant has not challenged the ASB notice. It is evidence that the tenant has threatened to assault N. It also evidence of the tenant’s propensity towards violence directed at N. d. She repeatedly evaded direct questions about the specific incidents. Instead, she made many accusations against the landlord and N. e. In summary, there is a consistency in N’s evidence and that of the landlord that is lacking in the tenant’s evidence. The landlord’s evidence is therefore more credible and persuasive than the tenant’s denials.

The Tribunal declines to exercise its discretion under section 55(2) RTA because the evidence and history of the relationship between the tenant and N make it very unlikely that the tenant will not commit further similar breaches.

For these reasons, the tenancy is to be terminated on the grounds that the tenant both assaulted N on 2 September 2025 and threatened to assault N on 30 July 2025.

It is not therefore necessary to consider the landlord’s claim under section 56 RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366164 — 14-day notice at 14B Celadon Place, Wiri, Auckland 2104

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366164 — 14-day notice at 14B Celadon Place, Wiri, Auckland 2104

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions