What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5409508 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 9, 78 Mount Smart Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5409508?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5409508?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5409508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12906664-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5409508 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 9, 78 Mount Smart Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5409508?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5409508?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5409508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12906664-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 9, 78 Mount Smart Road, Onehunga, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5409508 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 9, 78 Mount Smart Road, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 am on Tuesday 6 January 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 22 December 2025. A representative of Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities (‘KO”) attended the hearing.
Ms Craddock is the tenant of a two-bedroom property with her tenancy commencing on 7 September 2022. Prior to this she was a tenant in another KO property. The tenant resides at the premises with her adult son Jayden.
The tenanted premises form part of a 39-unit multi-level apartment complex. All tenants of the complex are KO tenants.
KO is seeking to terminate the tenancy on the grounds: •Jayden has breached the neighbour’s peace, comfort and privacy in the use of the 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 tenant is responsible for anything done by any other person who is in the premises with the tenants permission, if the act would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act of the tenant (s.41(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
The Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not, that the events outlined occurred. 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) of the 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 Ms Craddock has breached this obligation. •On Friday 19 September 2025 a complaint was received by the landlord about loud music and heavy bass reverberating into the unit below the tenants, accompanied by persistent stomping. A senior housing support manager visited the tenant’s unit and confirmed that loud music was clearly audible from the corridor outside the unit. Jayden answered the door and the housing support manager asked him to reduce the volume and advised that the tenant would be invited to a meeting at the office to discuss the incident. It was subsequently reported that the loud music continued into the following day, causing further significant disruption and distress to neighbouring residents and interfering with their quiet enjoyment of the premises. •Evidence was given by the tenant of the unit directly below the tenant’s unit .The tenant, Mr A said that on Sunday 21 September 2025 the noise and music was ongoing. Mr A said that he went to the front door of the tenants unit. He knocked on the door. The door was answered by Jayden. Mr A politely asked for the music to be turned down. Jayden responded by swearing at Mr A and saying “ Who wants to die right now cuzzy? ”The landlord provided a video confirming what was said and done at that time. Of substantial concern was that the tenant had a knife in his hand. •Mr A left and returned to his unit. Within a minute or so of his return, Mr A saw a glass vase or bottle smash on his balcony of his unit, nearly hitting a family member. •The Police were called and Jayden was arrested. He faces charges of threatening to kill and possession of an offensive weapon • Mr A and his family have now left the complex as they no longer feel safe. • The landlord explained that other tenants had also complained about Jayden’s conduct but were not prepared to give evidence. Little weight if any can be put on that evidence as the witnesses did not attend the hearing or sign a written statement.
It is important to note for the record that none of the behaviours complained are those of the tenant. Tenant’s evidence
Jayden did not attend the hearing, but Ms Craddock said that Jayden accepted what had occurred and intended to plead guilty to the charges.
The tenant said that Jayden was frightened of Mr A and had acted out of a sense of fear. She said that Jayden was under a great deal of stress at the time but was eager to try and improve matters in his life once he is able to get this matter behind him.
The tenant said that she only had two sons in her family and was not prepared to ask Jayden to leave the premises. The tenant apologised for Jayden's behaviour and his lack of respect.

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

I find given the nature of the breaches and the nature, frequency and escalation 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 was evidence of Jayden being involved in previous fighting at the complex in January 2024.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

The District Court set out the various factors that can be considered in making this decision 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 period of the tenancy, it is clear there have been numerous breaches that have escalated in nature. There have been ongoing incidents and complaints of loud music. I do accept that some of the complaints about noise from other tenants from simply walking in the unit above, are the result of the limited sound proofing between the units.
The incidents were serious in nature. The tenant held a knife in the first incident and I consider it more likely than not that the vase thrown, was also thrown by Jayden. It was only a matter of luck that there were no injuries. Both actions were deliberate.
There has been involvement with the tenant’s son by KO and it employees and the Police. It appears unlikely the tenant will comply with her obligations in the future. She is not prepared to have her son move out. That is of course a matter for her. The behaviours are causing considerable distress and worry to the neighbours, and I find that termination of the tenancy is an appropriate response to this application. Termination of the tenancy is not a disproportionate response to the incidents.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the application for suppression of the tenant’s name is dismissed.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 9, 78 Mount Smart Road, Onehunga, Auckland 1061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 am on Tuesday 6 January 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 22 December 2025. A representative of Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities (‘KO”) attended the hearing.
Ms Craddock is the tenant of a two-bedroom property with her tenancy commencing on 7 September 2022. Prior to this she was a tenant in another KO property. The tenant resides at the premises with her adult son Jayden.
The tenanted premises form part of a 39-unit multi-level apartment complex. All tenants of the complex are KO tenants.
KO is seeking to terminate the tenancy on the grounds: •Jayden has breached the neighbour’s peace, comfort and privacy in the use of the 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 tenant is responsible for anything done by any other person who is in the premises with the tenants permission, if the act would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act of the tenant (s.41(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)
The Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not, that the events outlined occurred. 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) of the 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 Ms Craddock has breached this obligation. •On Friday 19 September 2025 a complaint was received by the landlord about loud music and heavy bass reverberating into the unit below the tenants, accompanied by persistent stomping. A senior housing support manager visited the tenant’s unit and confirmed that loud music was clearly audible from the corridor outside the unit. Jayden answered the door and the housing support manager asked him to reduce the volume and advised that the tenant would be invited to a meeting at the office to discuss the incident. It was subsequently reported that the loud music continued into the following day, causing further significant disruption and distress to neighbouring residents and interfering with their quiet enjoyment of the premises. •Evidence was given by the tenant of the unit directly below the tenant’s unit .The tenant, Mr A said that on Sunday 21 September 2025 the noise and music was ongoing. Mr A said that he went to the front door of the tenants unit. He knocked on the door. The door was answered by Jayden. Mr A politely asked for the music to be turned down. Jayden responded by swearing at Mr A and saying “ Who wants to die right now cuzzy? ”The landlord provided a video confirming what was said and done at that time. Of substantial concern was that the tenant had a knife in his hand. •Mr A left and returned to his unit. Within a minute or so of his return, Mr A saw a glass vase or bottle smash on his balcony of his unit, nearly hitting a family member. •The Police were called and Jayden was arrested. He faces charges of threatening to kill and possession of an offensive weapon • Mr A and his family have now left the complex as they no longer feel safe. • The landlord explained that other tenants had also complained about Jayden’s conduct but were not prepared to give evidence. Little weight if any can be put on that evidence as the witnesses did not attend the hearing or sign a written statement.
It is important to note for the record that none of the behaviours complained are those of the tenant. Tenant’s evidence
Jayden did not attend the hearing, but Ms Craddock said that Jayden accepted what had occurred and intended to plead guilty to the charges.
The tenant said that Jayden was frightened of Mr A and had acted out of a sense of fear. She said that Jayden was under a great deal of stress at the time but was eager to try and improve matters in his life once he is able to get this matter behind him.
The tenant said that she only had two sons in her family and was not prepared to ask Jayden to leave the premises. The tenant apologised for Jayden's behaviour and his lack of respect.

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

I find given the nature of the breaches and the nature, frequency and escalation 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 was evidence of Jayden being involved in previous fighting at the complex in January 2024.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

The District Court set out the various factors that can be considered in making this decision 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 period of the tenancy, it is clear there have been numerous breaches that have escalated in nature. There have been ongoing incidents and complaints of loud music. I do accept that some of the complaints about noise from other tenants from simply walking in the unit above, are the result of the limited sound proofing between the units.
The incidents were serious in nature. The tenant held a knife in the first incident and I consider it more likely than not that the vase thrown, was also thrown by Jayden. It was only a matter of luck that there were no injuries. Both actions were deliberate.
There has been involvement with the tenant’s son by KO and it employees and the Police. It appears unlikely the tenant will comply with her obligations in the future. She is not prepared to have her son move out. That is of course a matter for her. The behaviours are causing considerable distress and worry to the neighbours, and I find that termination of the tenancy is an appropriate response to this application. Termination of the tenancy is not a disproportionate response to the incidents.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the application for suppression of the tenant’s name is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5409508 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 9, 78 Mount Smart Road, Onehunga, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5409508 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 9, 78 Mount Smart Road, Onehunga, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions