What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5413932 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5413932?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5413932?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5413932?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12966054-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5413932 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5413932?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5413932?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5413932?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12966054-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Shirley Day Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5413932 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 5 Shirley Day Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 is terminated and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities at 5 pm Sunday 18 January 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations under section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Background
The landlord provided video evidence of an incident on 23 October 2025 when the tenant attacked a neighbouring tenant’s car with a metal bar, smashing the windscreen and lights before returning to smash the rear window and damage a number of panels.
The tenant confirmed that he had attacked the car, expressed his sincere remorse and advised that he had apologised to his neighbour for his behaviour. He also advised that he wished to make payment of reparations to his neighbour for the damage he caused.
The tenant advised that he is a schizophrenic and that he had stopped taking his medication at the time of the incident and was driven to take the violent steps he did because of voices in his head. He read a letter from a registered psychiatrist confirming that the tenant was not taking medication at the time and that his actions were consistent with the mental health issues he was suffering from at the time.
He confirmed that he was now taking his medication, understood its importance and believes that he will not cause any further problems.

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. 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 of 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 landlord issued a notice of anti-social behaviour on 3 November 2025 in relation to the incident on 23 October 2025.
The evidence establishes and the tenant confirms that he breached his obligations under section 40(2)(c) RTA. His violent attack on his neighbour’s vehicle caused a serious breach of the neighbour and his family’s peace and comfort.
The breach is not capable of remedy. The violent acts he committed cannot be undone.
District Court and Tribunal decisions have confirmed that the following factors require consideration in making a decision under section 56 RTA: a. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. b. Whether the breach was within or beyond the tenant’s control. c. Whether the breach involved an immoral or illegal use of the property. d. The past history of the tenancy. e. Whether a tenant has made or will make good the breach of the covenant and is able and willing to fulfil his obligations in the future. f. The conduct of the landlord. g. The personal circumstances of the tenant. h. The financial position of the tenant. i. The gravity of the breach. j. Whether a breach has caused lasting damage to a landlord. k. Whether considering the nature of the breach, it is proportionate to evict the tenant.
For the following reasons it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy: a. The attack was intentional, even though the tenant was suffering from a delusion. The tenant had chosen not to take the medication which he knows he needs to avoid such episodes. b. The attack was a criminal act for which the tenant is facing a police charge. c. The breach was serious. The neighbour provided the Tribunal with a statement describing the significant impact of the attack on himself and his family. He states: “This incident has had a profound and distressing impact on myself and my family... my family and I have suffered severe emotional stress. My children were deeply frightened by the incident and continue to feel unsafe and anxious. They have been emotionally affected and are scared that something similar could happen again. My wife, who is currently pregnant, has also been extremely distressed by this event, and the stress has had a serious impact on her wellbeing... I would like to emphasise that this incident was not only an act of property damage but an act of violence that has left lasting emotional and psychological effects on my family, particularly my children and my pregnant wife. We no longer feel safe, and our sense of security has been severely shaken.” d. The landlord explained at the hearing that the tenant’s unit is one of 18 in this complex and that this attack has left the complex “fractured”. Clearly the tenant’s behaviour has had an impact on this wider community and not just on his neighbour and his family. e. The landlord has an obligation to the tenants of the other 17 units to protect them and keep them safe from harm. Given the tenant’s medical issues, it believes it is not able to provide the necessary environment or skills for the tenant’s ongoing management. The landlord advised that it would support the tenant in finding accommodation that is more suitable to his mental health needs. f. The landlord has issued two prior anti-social behaviour notices on 6 July 2024 and 20 March 2025. g. The tenant’s financial position is not strong. Termination of his tenancy will necessarily have a negative impact on him and his finances. h. Termination is a proportionate response to a violent outburst such as this.
The tenant is to be commended for attending the hearing, apologising to his neighbour and recognising his illness. However, the seriousness of his behaviour requires that his tenancy be terminated so that the remaining tenants can enjoy their tenancies without fear of any recurrence of the tenant’s behaviour.
Because of the issues regarding the tenant’s mental health, it is appropriate to exercise the discretion in section 95A(4) RTA and order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 5 Shirley Day Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 is terminated and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities at 5 pm Sunday 18 January 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations under section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Background
The landlord provided video evidence of an incident on 23 October 2025 when the tenant attacked a neighbouring tenant’s car with a metal bar, smashing the windscreen and lights before returning to smash the rear window and damage a number of panels.
The tenant confirmed that he had attacked the car, expressed his sincere remorse and advised that he had apologised to his neighbour for his behaviour. He also advised that he wished to make payment of reparations to his neighbour for the damage he caused.
The tenant advised that he is a schizophrenic and that he had stopped taking his medication at the time of the incident and was driven to take the violent steps he did because of voices in his head. He read a letter from a registered psychiatrist confirming that the tenant was not taking medication at the time and that his actions were consistent with the mental health issues he was suffering from at the time.
He confirmed that he was now taking his medication, understood its importance and believes that he will not cause any further problems.

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. 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 of 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 landlord issued a notice of anti-social behaviour on 3 November 2025 in relation to the incident on 23 October 2025.
The evidence establishes and the tenant confirms that he breached his obligations under section 40(2)(c) RTA. His violent attack on his neighbour’s vehicle caused a serious breach of the neighbour and his family’s peace and comfort.
The breach is not capable of remedy. The violent acts he committed cannot be undone.
District Court and Tribunal decisions have confirmed that the following factors require consideration in making a decision under section 56 RTA: a. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. b. Whether the breach was within or beyond the tenant’s control. c. Whether the breach involved an immoral or illegal use of the property. d. The past history of the tenancy. e. Whether a tenant has made or will make good the breach of the covenant and is able and willing to fulfil his obligations in the future. f. The conduct of the landlord. g. The personal circumstances of the tenant. h. The financial position of the tenant. i. The gravity of the breach. j. Whether a breach has caused lasting damage to a landlord. k. Whether considering the nature of the breach, it is proportionate to evict the tenant.
For the following reasons it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy: a. The attack was intentional, even though the tenant was suffering from a delusion. The tenant had chosen not to take the medication which he knows he needs to avoid such episodes. b. The attack was a criminal act for which the tenant is facing a police charge. c. The breach was serious. The neighbour provided the Tribunal with a statement describing the significant impact of the attack on himself and his family. He states: “This incident has had a profound and distressing impact on myself and my family... my family and I have suffered severe emotional stress. My children were deeply frightened by the incident and continue to feel unsafe and anxious. They have been emotionally affected and are scared that something similar could happen again. My wife, who is currently pregnant, has also been extremely distressed by this event, and the stress has had a serious impact on her wellbeing... I would like to emphasise that this incident was not only an act of property damage but an act of violence that has left lasting emotional and psychological effects on my family, particularly my children and my pregnant wife. We no longer feel safe, and our sense of security has been severely shaken.” d. The landlord explained at the hearing that the tenant’s unit is one of 18 in this complex and that this attack has left the complex “fractured”. Clearly the tenant’s behaviour has had an impact on this wider community and not just on his neighbour and his family. e. The landlord has an obligation to the tenants of the other 17 units to protect them and keep them safe from harm. Given the tenant’s medical issues, it believes it is not able to provide the necessary environment or skills for the tenant’s ongoing management. The landlord advised that it would support the tenant in finding accommodation that is more suitable to his mental health needs. f. The landlord has issued two prior anti-social behaviour notices on 6 July 2024 and 20 March 2025. g. The tenant’s financial position is not strong. Termination of his tenancy will necessarily have a negative impact on him and his finances. h. Termination is a proportionate response to a violent outburst such as this.
The tenant is to be commended for attending the hearing, apologising to his neighbour and recognising his illness. However, the seriousness of his behaviour requires that his tenancy be terminated so that the remaining tenants can enjoy their tenancies without fear of any recurrence of the tenant’s behaviour.
Because of the issues regarding the tenant’s mental health, it is appropriate to exercise the discretion in section 95A(4) RTA and order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5413932 — Tenancy dispute at 5 Shirley Day Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5413932 — Tenancy dispute at 5 Shirley Day Lane, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions