What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5404631 about?

The tribunal order states: This order has been amended and reissued on 7 January 2025 for redaction of

How much money was awarded in case 5404631?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404631?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404631?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12937323-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5404631 about?

The tribunal order states: This order has been amended and reissued on 7 January 2025 for redaction of

How much money was awarded in case 5404631?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404631?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404631?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12937323-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19 Mabel Howard Place, Avonside, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5404631 — 14-day notice

Order

This order has been amended and reissued on 7 January 2025 for redaction of the names of the landlord’s employees referred to in the

Reasons

below.

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 19 Mabel Howard Place, Avonside, Christchurch 8061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 10.30am on Tuesday 23 December 2025.
[The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $28 being the filing fee immediately.
This order may be enforced immediately. Reasons:
The hearing was conducted by video conference. Only the landlord’s representatives attended. The tenant did not join the conference and a call to her mobile telephone number at the time of the hearing went straight to voicemail. I therefore proceeded with the hearing in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has assaulted and threatened to assault the landlord’s agents and that she has used the premises for an unlawful purpose. Relevant Law
Section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault certain persons including any agent of the landlord.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Act provides that the tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for any unlawful purpose.
Section 56 of the Act provides that the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the other party has committed a breach of the Act, or of the tenancy agreement. Where the breach is not capable of remedy, no breach notice is required but the Tribunal must be satisfied that the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. Background
The tenant occupies a unit in a social housing complex. She has been the tenant of the unit since January 2021.
On 3 December 2025, the landlord sent the tenant a letter giving her notice that on 10 December between 10am and 10.45am the writer, one of the landlord’s Tenancy Advisors, [redacted], would attend at the premises to undertake methamphetamine (meth) testing. The notice carried a request that the tenant not be present for the testing, or if she insisted on being present, that other people were not present. It stated that there would be two of the landlord’s employees present as well as the tester.
The note was added because the landlord had some concerns about illegal activity at the premises and the behaviour of a person who was frequently at the premises. Employees of the landlord had seen what appeared to be unlawful drug dealing from the premises and the frequent visitor had warned another employee of the landlord to leave the complex because she was parked near the premises facing them. She had observed what appeared to drug dealing from the premises.
Two employees of the landlord, [redacted], attended at the premises on 10am on 10 December. They were accompanied by a meth tester.
They knocked on both the front and back doors but there was no response. They did not use their master key to gain entry because there were two dogs inside the premises barking. They did not want to enter the premises with the dogs unrestrained.
They had noticed a person riding away from the premises on a bicycle and they recognised him as someone who had been seen at the premises and had possibly stayed there. [Redacted] caught up with him and asked him if he would come back to the premises and take the dogs outside. He agreed and he came back and removed the dogs.
[Redacted] and the tester then entered the premises and spoke with the tenant. She was there with another person who appeared to be her partner. I will call him the partner. They agreed to leave the premises and wait outside while the testing took place.
[Redacted] was aware from previous visits to the premises by the landlord’s staff that there could be an air rifle, and a baseball bat modified into a spiked mace on the premises. The modification consisted of nails and screws put through the end of the bat in the style of a medieval battle weapon. They had been reported to the Police.
He could see a mace behind the TV, and he moved it a short distance onto a mattress that was on the lounge floor. He believed that it would be safer to have it in plain sight and to have control over it while the testing was being undertaken. This is when things turned violent. The Assault and Threats to Assault
It seems that the tenant saw [redacted] move the mace and she decided to enter the premises. She accused him of trying to steal it. He and [redacted] tried to explain that it was moved for their safety, but her mood became increasingly elevated until she shoulder-charged [redacted] out of the way and went to grab the mace. She said, “I’m going to use this on you”.
I should mention here that when [redacted] arrived at the premises, he turned his mobile telephone on to record video and sound. He did so to protect himself and his colleagues against any allegation of improper behaviour that the tenant might make. The tenant’s words just quoted can be heard clearly on the recording.
[Redacted] could see that he and his colleagues could be in extreme danger from the tenant if she had control of the mace. He then went to grab hold of the mace himself and there was a struggle between him and the tenant for control of it. He eventually obtained control of the mace. Unsurprisingly, he and the others decided that it was best to leave the premises at that point.
As they left, they were confronted by the partner outside. He was holding a plank of wood with nails coming out the end of it and he threatened, successively, [Redacted]. Thankfully, they were able to talk the partner out of attacking them and after securing the mace in their car, they all left.
[Redacted] called the Police who arrived a short time later. They arrested the tenant and her partner. The tenant has been charged with possession of synthetic cannabis and meth, possession of an offensive weapon and the assault on [redacted]. The partner has been charged with possession of an offensive weapon and threatening [redacted]. Discussion and Decision
A am satisfied from the evidence presented by the landlord that the tenant has assaulted and threatened to assault an agent of the landlord, namely [redacted].
In my view there is a good case to be made that she has permitted her partner to threaten to assault both [redacted] but there is no need for me to make a finding about that.
For the assault and threat to [redacted] alone, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy.
I note that this must have been an extremely frightening experience for [redacted] and for the meth tester who was present. I commend [redacted] for their actions and presence of mind which avoided what could have been a far worse outcome.
I am also satisfied that it is likely that the tenant has been dealing drugs unlawfully from the premises.
That is a breach of the Act for using the premises for an unlawful purpose and it is not capable of remedy. Once premises have been used in that way, there is stigma attached to them that cannot be removed.
Given the seriousness of the unlawfulness and the persistence of it, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
For these reasons I have terminated the tenancy and given immediate possession of the premises to the landlord. I have also awarded the filing fee.
There was no discussion of exemplary damages. The landlord is free to make another application in that respect. Suppression
The landlord sought name suppression after the hearing. I have amended and reissued this order redacting the names of the landlord’s employees to mitigate the risk to them from their being identified in this order. I do not accept that the landlord should not be identified or that this order should not be published. The public interest and the principle of open justice outweigh any remaining risk to the safety of the landlord’s employees.

Order

This order has been amended and reissued on 7 January 2025 for redaction of the names of the landlord’s employees referred to in the

Reasons

below.

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 19 Mabel Howard Place, Avonside, Christchurch 8061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 10.30am on Tuesday 23 December 2025.
[The tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $28 being the filing fee immediately.
This order may be enforced immediately. Reasons:
The hearing was conducted by video conference. Only the landlord’s representatives attended. The tenant did not join the conference and a call to her mobile telephone number at the time of the hearing went straight to voicemail. I therefore proceeded with the hearing in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has assaulted and threatened to assault the landlord’s agents and that she has used the premises for an unlawful purpose. Relevant Law
Section 55(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault certain persons including any agent of the landlord.
Section 40(2)(b) of the Act provides that the tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for any unlawful purpose.
Section 56 of the Act provides that the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the other party has committed a breach of the Act, or of the tenancy agreement. Where the breach is not capable of remedy, no breach notice is required but the Tribunal must be satisfied that the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. Background
The tenant occupies a unit in a social housing complex. She has been the tenant of the unit since January 2021.
On 3 December 2025, the landlord sent the tenant a letter giving her notice that on 10 December between 10am and 10.45am the writer, one of the landlord’s Tenancy Advisors, [redacted], would attend at the premises to undertake methamphetamine (meth) testing. The notice carried a request that the tenant not be present for the testing, or if she insisted on being present, that other people were not present. It stated that there would be two of the landlord’s employees present as well as the tester.
The note was added because the landlord had some concerns about illegal activity at the premises and the behaviour of a person who was frequently at the premises. Employees of the landlord had seen what appeared to be unlawful drug dealing from the premises and the frequent visitor had warned another employee of the landlord to leave the complex because she was parked near the premises facing them. She had observed what appeared to drug dealing from the premises.
Two employees of the landlord, [redacted], attended at the premises on 10am on 10 December. They were accompanied by a meth tester.
They knocked on both the front and back doors but there was no response. They did not use their master key to gain entry because there were two dogs inside the premises barking. They did not want to enter the premises with the dogs unrestrained.
They had noticed a person riding away from the premises on a bicycle and they recognised him as someone who had been seen at the premises and had possibly stayed there. [Redacted] caught up with him and asked him if he would come back to the premises and take the dogs outside. He agreed and he came back and removed the dogs.
[Redacted] and the tester then entered the premises and spoke with the tenant. She was there with another person who appeared to be her partner. I will call him the partner. They agreed to leave the premises and wait outside while the testing took place.
[Redacted] was aware from previous visits to the premises by the landlord’s staff that there could be an air rifle, and a baseball bat modified into a spiked mace on the premises. The modification consisted of nails and screws put through the end of the bat in the style of a medieval battle weapon. They had been reported to the Police.
He could see a mace behind the TV, and he moved it a short distance onto a mattress that was on the lounge floor. He believed that it would be safer to have it in plain sight and to have control over it while the testing was being undertaken. This is when things turned violent. The Assault and Threats to Assault
It seems that the tenant saw [redacted] move the mace and she decided to enter the premises. She accused him of trying to steal it. He and [redacted] tried to explain that it was moved for their safety, but her mood became increasingly elevated until she shoulder-charged [redacted] out of the way and went to grab the mace. She said, “I’m going to use this on you”.
I should mention here that when [redacted] arrived at the premises, he turned his mobile telephone on to record video and sound. He did so to protect himself and his colleagues against any allegation of improper behaviour that the tenant might make. The tenant’s words just quoted can be heard clearly on the recording.
[Redacted] could see that he and his colleagues could be in extreme danger from the tenant if she had control of the mace. He then went to grab hold of the mace himself and there was a struggle between him and the tenant for control of it. He eventually obtained control of the mace. Unsurprisingly, he and the others decided that it was best to leave the premises at that point.
As they left, they were confronted by the partner outside. He was holding a plank of wood with nails coming out the end of it and he threatened, successively, [Redacted]. Thankfully, they were able to talk the partner out of attacking them and after securing the mace in their car, they all left.
[Redacted] called the Police who arrived a short time later. They arrested the tenant and her partner. The tenant has been charged with possession of synthetic cannabis and meth, possession of an offensive weapon and the assault on [redacted]. The partner has been charged with possession of an offensive weapon and threatening [redacted]. Discussion and Decision
A am satisfied from the evidence presented by the landlord that the tenant has assaulted and threatened to assault an agent of the landlord, namely [redacted].
In my view there is a good case to be made that she has permitted her partner to threaten to assault both [redacted] but there is no need for me to make a finding about that.
For the assault and threat to [redacted] alone, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy.
I note that this must have been an extremely frightening experience for [redacted] and for the meth tester who was present. I commend [redacted] for their actions and presence of mind which avoided what could have been a far worse outcome.
I am also satisfied that it is likely that the tenant has been dealing drugs unlawfully from the premises.
That is a breach of the Act for using the premises for an unlawful purpose and it is not capable of remedy. Once premises have been used in that way, there is stigma attached to them that cannot be removed.
Given the seriousness of the unlawfulness and the persistence of it, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
For these reasons I have terminated the tenancy and given immediate possession of the premises to the landlord. I have also awarded the filing fee.
There was no discussion of exemplary damages. The landlord is free to make another application in that respect. Suppression
The landlord sought name suppression after the hearing. I have amended and reissued this order redacting the names of the landlord’s employees to mitigate the risk to them from their being identified in this order. I do not accept that the landlord should not be identified or that this order should not be published. The public interest and the principle of open justice outweigh any remaining risk to the safety of the landlord’s employees.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5404631 — 14-day notice at 19 Mabel Howard Place, Avonside, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5404631 — 14-day notice at 19 Mabel Howard Place, Avonside, Christchurch 8061

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