How much money was awarded in case 5414292?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5414292?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5414292?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12975633-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5414292?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5414292?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5414292?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12975633-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5414292 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5414292 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details,

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details, the names and identifying details of the landlord’s witnesses, and the tenancy address.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm on Friday 23 January 2026.

Reasons

Mr Van Gent, representing the landlord attended the hearing in-person. [The tenant/s], the tenant, did not attend the hearing. As the tenant had been served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of failure to perform tenant responsibilities, breach incapable of remedy and anti-social behaviour.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
The landlord said the tenant has breached their obligation under section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) by interfering with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
The landlord said further that the tenant has been involved in anti-social behaviour towards his neighbours over a period.
The landlord said they were first notified by neighbours of incidents involving the tenant in July 2025 when the tenant was said to be throwing rocks and stones at the neighbour’s property and was yelling at them. The landlord issued a section 40 RTA breach notice for disruptive behaviour to the tenant on 10 July 2025.
On 23 July 2025, the landlord said they received a complaint about the tenant letting out the air from the tyres of the neighbour’s car, where the police attended. The tenant apparently believed the neighbours were conspiring against him to have him evicted. The police did not take enforcement action then due to mental health issues experienced by the tenant.
Later on 23 July 2025, the neighbour complained further that the power had been disconnected at the power box, that despite there being no proof that the tenant did this, the neighbour was certain it was him.
Support services, including [Health service] and a brain injury association, were contacted by the neighbour and by the landlord for the tenant around this time.
On 29 August 2025, the landlord said the neighbours heard loud banging and a car part was found thrown towards a carport, then the neighbour’s camera was painted over. The police attended again and whilst the police were present, the tenant apparently threw human waste over the fence onto the neighbour’s vehicle. The tenant was arrested and charged with wilful damage. A trespass notice was issued. Later that night, the landlord said the neighbours report loud smashing noises from the tenant’s house.
On 30 August 2025 the tenant was observed standing at the boundary yelling, asking if anyone had broken into his house.
On 29 September 2025, a neighbour observed the tenant striking his own vehicle with an axe, whilst talking to the neighbour’s 9-year-old son who was in the back yard. The child became frightened and went indoors.
A first notice of anti-social behaviour was issued to the tenant dated 30 September 2025.
In October 2025, the tenant’s disruptive behaviour continued, with an incident caught on video on 14 October 2025 at 4am when the neighbour’s household was woken by the tenant’s continuous loud banging on his vehicle. This video was played during the hearing and confirmed this. Later the same day, there were loud electrical noises audible from the road and the neighbour recorded a video of the tenant running his tap (which was also played during the hearing), with a hose that was directed onto the neighbour’s property. An industrial vacuum was also running loudly, directed though the neighbour’s fence, which the neighbour said in her evidence ran day and night for a few days causing her lack of sleep also. The landlord said the tenant admitted to these incidents.
On 15 October 2025, the landlord conducted a property inspection and identified multiple holes in walls and doors at the tenant’s property, that they said had been caused by the tenant. They said the tenant admitted causing this damage. A 14-day notice requiring the tenant to remedy this was issued on 16 October 2025.
A second section 55A breach notice for anti-social behaviour was issued by the landlord on 15 October 2025.
Incidents by the tenant continued throughout October and November 2025, with the tenant said to be banging on a power box located near his house, when he was stopped by an off-duty police officer in the area, the tenant accusing the neighbour’s children of poisoning his dog with chocolate, which they denied and the tenant subsequently throwing something onto the roof of their garage, likely stones. There were further incidents alleged of stone throwing by the tenant at neighbours’ properties in November 2025.
The police confirmed in writing that, whilst in attendance from 16 October 2025 to 12 November 2025, they had noted that the tenant has been yelling, screaming and throwing items at neighbours’ homes and making threats with a hammer towards a neighbour’s son.
Two of the tenant’s neighbours were called to give evidence at the hearing by the landlord, [Witness 1] and [Witness 2].
[Witness 1] confirmed the incidents as described above, with the tenant trying to flood her house, painting over her cameras, axing his car whilst talking with her 9-year old son, the tenant throwing car parts at the wall between them, and a recent incident only 2 weeks before the hearing with her aunty who was visiting, when her aunty tried to ask the tenant politely to refrain from axing his vehicle until she left. She said the conversation became heated between her aunty and the tenant then, and her aunty left the following day due to the tenant’s lack of respect for her reasonable request that he refrain from his banging during her visit.
[Witness 1] said she has seen the tenant multiple times using tools, such as an axe, hammer, space and his push mower, to threaten and intimidate her, her family and others in the neighbourhood. She reported seeing the tenant threaten to throw a hammer at a neighbour turning their car around and, when the car left, she said the tenant threw the hammer onto the road.
She said the tenant’s ongoing anti-social behaviour, which she reported had been going on for well over a year, had impacted heavily on she and her son, that it had triggered her PTSD from other trauma, her son had to sleep with her as he was too scared to sleep in his own bed, which was on the side of the house nearest the tenant, that her son no longer went outside to play on his own or with friends because he was too scared of the tenant and that she now has to walk her son to school and past the tenant’s house as they are both too frightened of what the tenant might do next. She explained there are no longer able to do simple things in and around their own home, because of the tenant’s behaviour. She confirmed the tenant had been a good neighbour initially but had since deteriorated into this behaviour.
[Witness 2] said the tenant has thrown rocks, nails and a roasting pan at her house, that he let the air out of her car tyres and threw human waste onto her car, that she called the police, that the tenant splattered paint on the back of her car, that he ran an industrial vacuum loudly for a few days and nights, depriving her of sleep, that she has tried to ask for help from various agencies for the tenant, without success so far. She explained she has seen the tenant smash things up with an axe, hammer or spade and that the tenant used a hammer in a throwing motion towards her adult son in his car once about 3 months ago, and that he yelled abuse at her, calling her names. [Witness 2] said the tenant’s behaviour has been ongoing for more than a year, though she only called the landlord about it around July 2025.
[Witness 2] said she has had to pay to install a security camera due to the tenant and constantly checks it, she has turned down visits by her grandchildren at times when the tenant’s behaviour has escalated, has anxiety constantly and is jumpy about what the tenant will do next. She said she is reluctant to walk past the tenant’s house. She reported the tenant told her he had had an accident and had a brain injury. She also believed the tenant had mental health issues, given his behaviour and beliefs that the neighbours were all conspiring against him. She felt it was sad things had come to this.
The landlord said the breach is not capable of remedy because the noise and disruptive behaviour of the tenant has already occurred over time and has caused a deep distrust by the neighbours that his behaviour can change. The landlord further said the tenant’s behaviour is serious and now potentially dangerous. They said the tenant has declined offers from support agencies for assistance and has failed to attend meetings with the landlord’s staff to attempt to arrange support for him.
The landlord issued a 14-day notice dated 16 October 2025 for the tenant to repair all the holes and damage caused by him at the property. There was a note from the landlord in October 2025 to say the tenant was, at that time, still progressing with those repairs.
The landlord said it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, at paragraph 61, set out factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate this tenancy including: 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.
The tenancy began on 23 July 2024 and was, by all reports, relatively stable at the start. The landlord said the tenant initially lived with his mother, which was a positive factor. The witnesses gave evidence that the tenant’s behaviour deteriorated more than a year ago and since then has escalated, with regular and repeated disturbances and incidents which make them fear for their own and for their family’s safety.
The tenant has been warned by both the landlord and the police about his behaviour, but the anti-social behaviour has persisted after these warnings.
I find the history of the tenant’s breaches in his obligation to his neighbour’s peace, comfort and privacy, from the evidence provided, demonstrates it is highly unlikely the tenant would comply with his obligations in the future, especially as the landlord said the tenant will not engage with the assistance of any support agencies.
From the evidence provided, I find it likely that the repeated breaches were mostly deliberately committed by the tenant.
The landlord has liaised with the neighbours about the situation with the tenant, has attempted to arrange supports for the tenant and has said they will continue to try to work with the tenant and link him with support services, even should his tenancy be terminated.
The tenant’s behaviour has, from the evidence provided, appeared to have escalated over time from throwing stones at the neighbours’ properties to using multiple tools as weapons to threaten neighbours, using his axe on his own vehicle often and abusing and threatening the neighbours, who are really frightened of the tenant’s behaviour now. The neighbours are not able to live normal lives and use their property in peace, comfort and privacy due to the tenant’s ongoing behaviour. I find this to be a significant breach by the tenant.
In the circumstances and given the evidence of many and repeated disruptive, anti-social and dangerous behaviour by the tenant and the severe impact on the neighbours, I find termination is a proportionate response to the tenant’s breaches.
Therefore, the tenancy is terminated. Suppression
I have considered the issue of name suppression for the tenant, at the landlord’s request. Given the tenant’s brain injury and significant mental health issues, I find the tenant’s interests likely outweigh the public interest in publishing his name. I also find that the interests of the landlord’s two witnesses outweigh the public interest in publishing their names, for safety and other reason. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details, as well as the names and identifying details of the landlord’s two witnesses, and the tenancy address, are not to be published. See section 95A(4) RTA.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details, the names and identifying details of the landlord’s witnesses, and the tenancy address.

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm on Friday 23 January 2026.

Reasons

Mr Van Gent, representing the landlord attended the hearing in-person. [The tenant/s], the tenant, did not attend the hearing. As the tenant had been served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of failure to perform tenant responsibilities, breach incapable of remedy and anti-social behaviour.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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.

The landlord said the tenant has breached their obligation under section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) by interfering with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.

The landlord said further that the tenant has been involved in anti-social behaviour towards his neighbours over a period.

The landlord said they were first notified by neighbours of incidents involving the tenant in July 2025 when the tenant was said to be throwing rocks and stones at the neighbour’s property and was yelling at them. The landlord issued a section 40 RTA breach notice for disruptive behaviour to the tenant on 10 July 2025.

On 23 July 2025, the landlord said they received a complaint about the tenant letting out the air from the tyres of the neighbour’s car, where the police attended. The tenant apparently believed the neighbours were conspiring against him to have him evicted. The police did not take enforcement action then due to mental health issues experienced by the tenant.

Later on 23 July 2025, the neighbour complained further that the power had been disconnected at the power box, that despite there being no proof that the tenant did this, the neighbour was certain it was him.

Support services, including [Health service] and a brain injury association, were contacted by the neighbour and by the landlord for the tenant around this time.

On 29 August 2025, the landlord said the neighbours heard loud banging and a car part was found thrown towards a carport, then the neighbour’s camera was painted over. The police attended again and whilst the police were present, the tenant apparently threw human waste over the fence onto the neighbour’s vehicle. The tenant was arrested and charged with wilful damage. A trespass notice was issued. Later that night, the landlord said the neighbours report loud smashing noises from the tenant’s house.

On 30 August 2025 the tenant was observed standing at the boundary yelling, asking if anyone had broken into his house.

On 29 September 2025, a neighbour observed the tenant striking his own vehicle with an axe, whilst talking to the neighbour’s 9-year-old son who was in the back yard. The child became frightened and went indoors.

A first notice of anti-social behaviour was issued to the tenant dated 30 September 2025.

In October 2025, the tenant’s disruptive behaviour continued, with an incident caught on video on 14 October 2025 at 4am when the neighbour’s household was woken by the tenant’s continuous loud banging on his vehicle. This video was played during the hearing and confirmed this. Later the same day, there were loud electrical noises audible from the road and the neighbour recorded a video of the tenant running his tap (which was also played during the hearing), with a hose that was directed onto the neighbour’s property. An industrial vacuum was also running loudly, directed though the neighbour’s fence, which the neighbour said in her evidence ran day and night for a few days causing her lack of sleep also. The landlord said the tenant admitted to these incidents.

On 15 October 2025, the landlord conducted a property inspection and identified multiple holes in walls and doors at the tenant’s property, that they said had been caused by the tenant. They said the tenant admitted causing this damage. A 14-day notice requiring the tenant to remedy this was issued on 16 October 2025.

A second section 55A breach notice for anti-social behaviour was issued by the landlord on 15 October 2025.

Incidents by the tenant continued throughout October and November 2025, with the tenant said to be banging on a power box located near his house, when he was stopped by an off-duty police officer in the area, the tenant accusing the neighbour’s children of poisoning his dog with chocolate, which they denied and the tenant subsequently throwing something onto the roof of their garage, likely stones. There were further incidents alleged of stone throwing by the tenant at neighbours’ properties in November 2025.

The police confirmed in writing that, whilst in attendance from 16 October 2025 to 12 November 2025, they had noted that the tenant has been yelling, screaming and throwing items at neighbours’ homes and making threats with a hammer towards a neighbour’s son.

Two of the tenant’s neighbours were called to give evidence at the hearing by the landlord, [Witness 1] and [Witness 2].

[Witness 1] confirmed the incidents as described above, with the tenant trying to flood her house, painting over her cameras, axing his car whilst talking with her 9-year old son, the tenant throwing car parts at the wall between them, and a recent incident only 2 weeks before the hearing with her aunty who was visiting, when her aunty tried to ask the tenant politely to refrain from axing his vehicle until she left. She said the conversation became heated between her aunty and the tenant then, and her aunty left the following day due to the tenant’s lack of respect for her reasonable request that he refrain from his banging during her visit.

[Witness 1] said she has seen the tenant multiple times using tools, such as an axe, hammer, space and his push mower, to threaten and intimidate her, her family and others in the neighbourhood. She reported seeing the tenant threaten to throw a hammer at a neighbour turning their car around and, when the car left, she said the tenant threw the hammer onto the road.

She said the tenant’s ongoing anti-social behaviour, which she reported had been going on for well over a year, had impacted heavily on she and her son, that it had triggered her PTSD from other trauma, her son had to sleep with her as he was too scared to sleep in his own bed, which was on the side of the house nearest the tenant, that her son no longer went outside to play on his own or with friends because he was too scared of the tenant and that she now has to walk her son to school and past the tenant’s house as they are both too frightened of what the tenant might do next. She explained there are no longer able to do simple things in and around their own home, because of the tenant’s behaviour. She confirmed the tenant had been a good neighbour initially but had since deteriorated into this behaviour.

[Witness 2] said the tenant has thrown rocks, nails and a roasting pan at her house, that he let the air out of her car tyres and threw human waste onto her car, that she called the police, that the tenant splattered paint on the back of her car, that he ran an industrial vacuum loudly for a few days and nights, depriving her of sleep, that she has tried to ask for help from various agencies for the tenant, without success so far. She explained she has seen the tenant smash things up with an axe, hammer or spade and that the tenant used a hammer in a throwing motion towards her adult son in his car once about 3 months ago, and that he yelled abuse at her, calling her names. [Witness 2] said the tenant’s behaviour has been ongoing for more than a year, though she only called the landlord about it around July 2025.

[Witness 2] said she has had to pay to install a security camera due to the tenant and constantly checks it, she has turned down visits by her grandchildren at times when the tenant’s behaviour has escalated, has anxiety constantly and is jumpy about what the tenant will do next. She said she is reluctant to walk past the tenant’s house. She reported the tenant told her he had had an accident and had a brain injury. She also believed the tenant had mental health issues, given his behaviour and beliefs that the neighbours were all conspiring against him. She felt it was sad things had come to this.

The landlord said the breach is not capable of remedy because the noise and disruptive behaviour of the tenant has already occurred over time and has caused a deep distrust by the neighbours that his behaviour can change. The landlord further said the tenant’s behaviour is serious and now potentially dangerous. They said the tenant has declined offers from support agencies for assistance and has failed to attend meetings with the landlord’s staff to attempt to arrange support for him.

The landlord issued a 14-day notice dated 16 October 2025 for the tenant to repair all the holes and damage caused by him at the property. There was a note from the landlord in October 2025 to say the tenant was, at that time, still progressing with those repairs.

The landlord said it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

The District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, at paragraph 61, set out factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate this tenancy including: 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.

The tenancy began on 23 July 2024 and was, by all reports, relatively stable at the start. The landlord said the tenant initially lived with his mother, which was a positive factor. The witnesses gave evidence that the tenant’s behaviour deteriorated more than a year ago and since then has escalated, with regular and repeated disturbances and incidents which make them fear for their own and for their family’s safety.

The tenant has been warned by both the landlord and the police about his behaviour, but the anti-social behaviour has persisted after these warnings.

I find the history of the tenant’s breaches in his obligation to his neighbour’s peace, comfort and privacy, from the evidence provided, demonstrates it is highly unlikely the tenant would comply with his obligations in the future, especially as the landlord said the tenant will not engage with the assistance of any support agencies.

From the evidence provided, I find it likely that the repeated breaches were mostly deliberately committed by the tenant.

The landlord has liaised with the neighbours about the situation with the tenant, has attempted to arrange supports for the tenant and has said they will continue to try to work with the tenant and link him with support services, even should his tenancy be terminated.

The tenant’s behaviour has, from the evidence provided, appeared to have escalated over time from throwing stones at the neighbours’ properties to using multiple tools as weapons to threaten neighbours, using his axe on his own vehicle often and abusing and threatening the neighbours, who are really frightened of the tenant’s behaviour now. The neighbours are not able to live normal lives and use their property in peace, comfort and privacy due to the tenant’s ongoing behaviour. I find this to be a significant breach by the tenant.

In the circumstances and given the evidence of many and repeated disruptive, anti-social and dangerous behaviour by the tenant and the severe impact on the neighbours, I find termination is a proportionate response to the tenant’s breaches.

Therefore, the tenancy is terminated. Suppression

I have considered the issue of name suppression for the tenant, at the landlord’s request. Given the tenant’s brain injury and significant mental health issues, I find the tenant’s interests likely outweigh the public interest in publishing his name. I also find that the interests of the landlord’s two witnesses outweigh the public interest in publishing their names, for safety and other reason. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details, as well as the names and identifying details of the landlord’s two witnesses, and the tenancy address, are not to be published. See section 95A(4) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5414292 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5414292 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions