What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465522 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 41 Compton Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt

How much money was awarded in case 5465522?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465522?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465522?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13789282-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465522 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 41 Compton Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt

How much money was awarded in case 5465522?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465522?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465522?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13789282-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

41 Compton Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5465522 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 41 Compton Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.

Reasons

The landlord’s representative attended the hearing. The teant had made no appearance at the scheduled time. I delayed the start of the hearing for approximately half an hour to allow for lateness and had the Case Manager call both the tenant’s number and his support person. Neither call was answered. I satisfied my elf that the tenant had been correctly served with the notice of hearing and decided to proceed in his absence.
This is the second hearing of this matter. The tenant made no appearance at the first telephone hearing conducted by Adjudicator Koller. A rehearing was granted and an in-person hearing was scheduled to allow for the tenant’s medical issues.
The background of this matter is: a. The tenancy began on 6 September 2023. The tenancy is a stand alone house in close proximity to a number of other Kainga Ora residences. 5465522 2 b. Across the road from the tenancy is a vacant site on which further residences have been under construction since late 2025. c. The tenant has taken exception to the workmen and the work being done on the vacant site. Incident records, call recordings, witness statements, and video footage taken by an neighbouring tenant, show that the behaviour since February 2026 has included: i. Racist abuse of trades and project staff; ii. Threats of violence; iii. Damage to trades vehicles; iv. Lying down and blocking the entrance way; v. An attempt to strike a Project manager with a waratah; and vi. Rubbing blood from a cut on his own head on the Project Manager’s face. d. The Police became involved on several occasions and the behaviour led to Kainga Ora employing a security guard on the site. However the behaviour continued. e. On 11 February 2026 the tenant was trespassed from the work-site. f. On 6 March 2026, the landlord issued a notice under s55A on the tenant, relating to the incident involving the Project Manager referred to above. g. On 8 March 2026, the tenant made verbal threats and abused contractors. h. On 18 March 2026, the landlord issued an s55A notice relating to the 8 March 2026 incidents. i. On 13 March 2026, the tenant threatened trades with a waratah, damaged a trade’s vehicle, threatened trades, and assaulted the security guard. j. On 9 April 2026, the landlord issued an s55A notice relating to the events on 13 March 2026.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant’s actions were: a. anti-social behaviour, and three s55A notices have been issued in a 90 day period; and b. assault against agents of the landlord; which are breaches incapable of remedy. S55A
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: 5465522 3 a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
The evidence provided by the landlord shows a continuing pattern of serious behaviour which has put others at risk, has been disturbing to neighbours and has caused harm to others and damage to property. The notices were correctly served and meet the requirements of s55A. Assault
S55(1)(c) allows the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy where the tenant has assaulted or has threatened to assault an agent of the landlord. In this incident there have been two actual assaults on the Project Manager and the security guard, and numerous threats of assault against other trades working on the site. I am satisfied that the evidence supports a conclusion that the assaults occurred on the balance of probabilities.
The Project Manager was employed by the landlord to carry out the construction of new housing units, and so was acting for the landlord to this extent. The security guard was employed by the landlord to manage the tenant’s interactions with the trades and others on site. I am satisfied that they were both agents of the landlord for the purposes of the RTA.
S55(2) allows the Tribunal the discretion to let the tenancy continue where it is satisfied that the breach may be remedied, and it is unlikely that further breaches will continue. 5465522 4
In Collins v Housing New Zealand1 the High Court considered how the Tribunal should exercise its discretion when the breach was a threat to assault: A threat once made, or an assault once committed, cannot be remedied. But I am loathe to conclude that, once the Tribunal finds as a fact a threat or an assault, the discretion becomes spent. That could mean that a technical assault, or words in haste, could pre- empt the Tribunal from considering the two remaining issues s 55(2) presents, which are of equal significance. I prefer the interpretation that, if the breach cannot be remedied, that issue is to be set to one side and the Tribunal is to consider the two remaining issues. There may well be cases where the Tribunal concludes, despite the fact of breach, the landlord can be compensated for any loss, and there is unlikely to be any further breach. The Tribunal might then well be justified in deciding to refuse to make the otherwise mandatory order.
In this case there is no issue of compensation before me, however, I need to consider whether the tenant is likely to make further threats or commit further assaults. Given the ongoing nature of the behaviour, the fact that police interventions and notices from the landlord did not prevent further behaviours, I cannot conclude that it is unlikely that further breaches will occur.
The tenancy is terminated immediately.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 41 Compton Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.

Reasons

The landlord’s representative attended the hearing. The teant had made no appearance at the scheduled time. I delayed the start of the hearing for approximately half an hour to allow for lateness and had the Case Manager call both the tenant’s number and his support person. Neither call was answered. I satisfied my elf that the tenant had been correctly served with the notice of hearing and decided to proceed in his absence.
This is the second hearing of this matter. The tenant made no appearance at the first telephone hearing conducted by Adjudicator Koller. A rehearing was granted and an in-person hearing was scheduled to allow for the tenant’s medical issues.
The background of this matter is: a. The tenancy began on 6 September 2023. The tenancy is a stand alone house in close proximity to a number of other Kainga Ora residences. 5465522 2 b. Across the road from the tenancy is a vacant site on which further residences have been under construction since late 2025. c. The tenant has taken exception to the workmen and the work being done on the vacant site. Incident records, call recordings, witness statements, and video footage taken by an neighbouring tenant, show that the behaviour since February 2026 has included: i. Racist abuse of trades and project staff; ii. Threats of violence; iii. Damage to trades vehicles; iv. Lying down and blocking the entrance way; v. An attempt to strike a Project manager with a waratah; and vi. Rubbing blood from a cut on his own head on the Project Manager’s face. d. The Police became involved on several occasions and the behaviour led to Kainga Ora employing a security guard on the site. However the behaviour continued. e. On 11 February 2026 the tenant was trespassed from the work-site. f. On 6 March 2026, the landlord issued a notice under s55A on the tenant, relating to the incident involving the Project Manager referred to above. g. On 8 March 2026, the tenant made verbal threats and abused contractors. h. On 18 March 2026, the landlord issued an s55A notice relating to the 8 March 2026 incidents. i. On 13 March 2026, the tenant threatened trades with a waratah, damaged a trade’s vehicle, threatened trades, and assaulted the security guard. j. On 9 April 2026, the landlord issued an s55A notice relating to the events on 13 March 2026.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant’s actions were: a. anti-social behaviour, and three s55A notices have been issued in a 90 day period; and b. assault against agents of the landlord; which are breaches incapable of remedy. S55A
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: 5465522 3 a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
The evidence provided by the landlord shows a continuing pattern of serious behaviour which has put others at risk, has been disturbing to neighbours and has caused harm to others and damage to property. The notices were correctly served and meet the requirements of s55A. Assault
S55(1)(c) allows the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy where the tenant has assaulted or has threatened to assault an agent of the landlord. In this incident there have been two actual assaults on the Project Manager and the security guard, and numerous threats of assault against other trades working on the site. I am satisfied that the evidence supports a conclusion that the assaults occurred on the balance of probabilities.
The Project Manager was employed by the landlord to carry out the construction of new housing units, and so was acting for the landlord to this extent. The security guard was employed by the landlord to manage the tenant’s interactions with the trades and others on site. I am satisfied that they were both agents of the landlord for the purposes of the RTA.
S55(2) allows the Tribunal the discretion to let the tenancy continue where it is satisfied that the breach may be remedied, and it is unlikely that further breaches will continue. 5465522 4
In Collins v Housing New Zealand1 the High Court considered how the Tribunal should exercise its discretion when the breach was a threat to assault: A threat once made, or an assault once committed, cannot be remedied. But I am loathe to conclude that, once the Tribunal finds as a fact a threat or an assault, the discretion becomes spent. That could mean that a technical assault, or words in haste, could pre- empt the Tribunal from considering the two remaining issues s 55(2) presents, which are of equal significance. I prefer the interpretation that, if the breach cannot be remedied, that issue is to be set to one side and the Tribunal is to consider the two remaining issues. There may well be cases where the Tribunal concludes, despite the fact of breach, the landlord can be compensated for any loss, and there is unlikely to be any further breach. The Tribunal might then well be justified in deciding to refuse to make the otherwise mandatory order.
In this case there is no issue of compensation before me, however, I need to consider whether the tenant is likely to make further threats or commit further assaults. Given the ongoing nature of the behaviour, the fact that police interventions and notices from the landlord did not prevent further behaviours, I cannot conclude that it is unlikely that further breaches will occur.
The tenancy is terminated immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465522 — 14-day notice at 41 Compton Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465522 — 14-day notice at 41 Compton Crescent, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011

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