How much money was awarded in case 5424881?

Ssession Is Granted To KāInga Ora–Ho…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5424881?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5424881?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13138122-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5424881?

Ssession Is Granted To KāInga Ora–Ho…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5424881?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5424881?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13138122-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5424881 — 14-day notice

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5424881 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of Person A’s name and identifying details, being the tenancy address.

The tenancy of AMANDA JANE RUCK at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59pm today.

The tenant is to pay the landlord $28.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The hearing was conducted on 16 February 2026 via telephone. A representative of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant also attended the hearing.

A Senior Housing Support Manager of the landlord attended the hearing as a witness for the landlord.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under sections 55(1), 55A and 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Relevant legal considerations:

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55(1)(c) of the RTA?

Section 55(1)(c) of the RTA provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault or to threaten to assault a neighbour of the premises.

The landlord says that the tenant threatened to kill a neighbour of the premises on 24 November 2025 and again on 11 December 2025. The landlord says that: a. On 24 November 2025, the tenant bent the window wiper of a vehicle owned by a family member of a neighbour and fellow tenant of the landlord (Person A) and threatened to kill Person A and Person A’s unborn child; and b. On 11 December 2025 the tenant abused Person A and threatened to kill her and her unborn child.

The landlord’s evidence to support above allegations are as follows: a. A statement from Person A signed by Person A stating: On 24 November 2025, at approximately 8:35pm, my neighbour has walked out of her house and has deliberately lifted and bent the back window wiper of the vehicle which belonged to a family member of ours. ... I then contacted the police, and my neighbour has walked up to me, swinging phone charger near my stomach (I am pregnant) and said she will “kill me and my unborn baby”. She then went back home then picked up what looked like a knife and while inside pointed this at us from the window. My mother-in- law and partner witnessed this incident and were also verbally threatened. b. A further statement from Person A which included: On 11 December 2025 at approximately 11.38am, my neighbour was yelling at me saying “fxxk off, I will kill you and your unborn child”. She was standing outside the front door of her own home, while looking across at me. c. An email from NZ Police to the landlord summarising the incident on 24 November 2025 referred to above and advising that the tenant has been charged with “threatens to kill” in relation to this incident. d. A video recording showing a female standing behind a parked vehicle on 24 November 2025 and appearing to tamper with the vehicle’s back windscreen wiper.

In addition to the above evidence, a Senior Housing Support Manager from the landlord attended the hearing as a witness. He said he knew the tenant and was her case manager. He said had viewed the video footage referred to in paragraph d) above and believed the person in the video to be the tenant. He also provided a signed statement which included: On 11 December 2025 at approximately 12:45, I visited my client, Amanda Rock, of unit 7 22 Broadbent St. to follow up on a complaint I had received. Amanda opened the door to me, but when I questioned her about an incident that had been reported, she said she had to go to the toilet and shut the door. I then visited Jessica of Unit 3 to discuss the reported incident. While I was at Unit 3, speaking with Jessica I heard yelling from Unit 7 and when I exited Unit 3, I saw Amanda staring in an intimidatory manner across to Unit 3, apparently unaware I was there when she realised it was me, she quickly retreated inside her own flat.

During the hearing the tenant initially said that she did not recall the incident on 24 November 2025 or on 11 December 2025. However, later in the hearing she admitted to bending the window wiper. The tenant said she did not know why she did this. The tenant maintained that she “could not recall” threatening to kill Person A.

Person A did not attend the hearing. The landlord said that she was not willing to do so because she is scared of the tenant. As noted by the Law Commission, evidence of the facts should be given “ ... by the person with immediate knowledge of those facts under oath, in court, and subject to cross-examination”. 1 There is good reason for this, when a person who has provided a statement but does not attend the hearing, the Tribunal does not have an opportunity to ask questions or challenge the witness on that evidence and the other party does not have an opportunity to cross examine the witness.

The allegations against the tenant are serious. The burden of proof is summarised at paragraphs 4 – 6 above. Where the allegations against a party are serious, or important matters at stake, it follows that the decision maker will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated. This is not to say that the party needs to establish their claim at any level greater than the balance of probabilities – they do not. As stated by the then president of the Court of Appeal, Justice Woodhouse, the Court of Appeal judgment in T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR 462: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it.

Section 4 of the Evidence Act 2006 (Evidence Act) defines hearsay as: ... a statement that— (a) was made by a person other than a witness; and (b) is offered in evidence at the proceeding to prove the truth of its contents.

Section 4 defines witness as “... a person who gives evidence and is able to be cross-examined in a proceeding”.

Person A was not able to be cross examined in the hearing. Therefore, her statements are hearsay.

Section 18 of the Evidence Act relates to the general admissibility of hearsay statements, and states: A hearsay statement is admissible in any proceeding if— 1 Law Commission - Te Aka Matua o te Ture The 2013 Review of the Evidence Act 2006 (NZLC R127, 2013). (a) the circumstances relating to the statement provide reasonable assurance that the statement is reliable; and (b)either— (i) the maker of the statement is unavailable as a witness; or (ii) the Judge considers that undue expense or delay would be caused if the maker of the statement were required to be a witness.

There is no evidence to suggest that Person A was not available to attend the hearing, and I am not satisfied that requiring Person A to give evidence would cause undue expense or delay. However, even in a case where a hearsay statement would not be admissible within section 18 of the Evidence Act, the Tribunal would still have a discretion to admit that evidence under section 97 of the RTA, which confirms that: Subject to section 89, the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law.

In Paul v Christchurch City Council [2012] RTHNZ 12, the District Court considered a situation where the Tribunal had accepted hearsay evidence on the basis that given the nature of the evidence, the neighbours would have been too scared to give the evidence at the hearing, supporting the Tribunal’s decision to accept that evidence. The District Court said that in circumstances where would be witnesses were too scared to give evidence: ... the Tribunal was entitled to receive this evidence but needed to be cautious about the weight being given to it.

A similar approach was confirmed in Kapi Adam Smith v Tauranga Community Housing Trust [2016] NZDC 16075, where Judge Ingram noted at paragraph 9 that given section 97 of the RTA, the Tribunal was not constrained within the Evidence Act limitations, noting that: I am aware that cases of this kind frequently involve the tenants who are unwilling to be identified because of fear of reprisals, and I am aware that it is a long standing and authoritatively approved practice of the Tribunal to receive hearsay evidence in these circumstances.

In the circumstances of this case, I am willing to accept Person A’s statement as evidence even though it is hearsay. I prefer the evidence in Person A’s statement to the tenant’s evidence for the following reasons: a. The tenant has admitted damaging the windscreen wiper of the vehicle. When asked why she did that the tenant said she was unsure. I consider it is more likely than not that the tenant bent the windscreen wiper because she had some level of animosity towards the Person A and/or Person A’s visitors; b. The tenant did not offer an alternative version of events to that contained in Person A’s statements or provide an unequivocal denial of the allegations against her. Her response to the allegations that she had threatened to kill Person A and her unborn child was that she “could not recall”; c. The evidence of the landlord’s witness was that he had seen the tenant acting in an intimidating manner towards Person A.

I am satisfied that the tenant did act in the manner alleged in Person A’s statements. Specifically, I am satisfied that on two separate occasions the tenant said to Person A that she would kill her and her unborn child.

In R v Meek [1981] NZLR 499(CA) the Court of Appeal held that: ... to threaten to assault means just what it says: it is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough. Even under the criminal law, there is no need to intend to act on the threat; Or to have the capacity to act on it; or that it be passed on to the person to whom the threat relates.

In Collins V Housing New Zealand Ltd [2024] NZAR 665, the High Court held: Under the criminal law, what does have to be proved is the intent that the threat be taken seriously by the person to whom it was made. How far that applies under this Act is another question. The intent of s.55 is to protect the classes of persons to whom it refers: the landlord, the landlord’s family or agents, and indeed other occupiers. In this context, the fact of a threat has to be enough.

I am satisfied that the words “I will kill you and your unborn child” amounted to a threat, within the meaning of section 55(1)(c) of the RTA. I also satisfied that this threat was directed at Person A, a neighbour of the premises.

Section 55(2) of the RTA provides that: The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies (but see also section 78A(3)(b)).

The nature of the breach is such that it cannot be remedied. Even if it could, there is no evidence that it has been remedied and I am not satisfied that it is unlikely the tenant will commit a further breach of this type. Therefore, it is not open to me to refuse to terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) of the RTA.

The tenancy is terminated in accordance with section 55(1) of the RTA.

As I have terminated the tenancy under section 55(1) of the RTA, it is not necessary for me to consider the landlord’s applications for termination under sections 55A and 56 of the RTA. The filing fee:

Section 109 of the RTA provides that where a party has been wholly successful in the application, I must award reimbursement of the filing fee. Suppression:

I consider it in in the public interest for Person A’s name and the tenant’s address (which is in close proximity to Person A’s address to be suppressed). This is because it is in the public’s interest for those who witness threatening and other types of anti-social behaviour to complain to their landlords and, ideally, give evidence in the Tribunal. I also consider it is in Person A’s interest for her name and details to be suppressed.

Person A’s name is suppressed in accordance with section 95A(4) of the RTA.

Order