What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5499889?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Turimaki Terei at Unit/Flat G01, 38 Rangitoto Road, Papatoetoe,

How much money was awarded in case 5499889?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5499889?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5499889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13637677-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5499889?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Turimaki Terei at Unit/Flat G01, 38 Rangitoto Road, Papatoetoe,

How much money was awarded in case 5499889?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5499889?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5499889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13637677-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat G01, 38 Rangitoto Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5499889 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Turimaki Terei at Unit/Flat G01, 38 Rangitoto Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that adequate service of the the notice of hearing has been completed and considered it reasonable to proceed with the hearing in the tenant’s absence.
The tenancy commenced on 4 June 2024. The tenant is the sole tenant and occupant of a one-bedroom apartment within a multi-unit complex in Papatoetoe, Auckland.
The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c)(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) on the basis that the tenant assaulted a neighbouring resident. In the alternative, the landlord seeks termination under section 56 for breach of section 40(2)(c) of the Act and clause 9 of the tenancy agreement, which require the tenant not to interfere with the peace, comfort, or privacy of neighbouring tenants.
The landlord relies principally on an incident that occurred on 4 March 2026. CCTV footage of that incident was produced and viewed. The landlord also relies on earlier complaints from neighbouring tenants in July 2025 concerning threatening and intimidating behaviour.
The landlord submits that the tenant’s conduct poses an ongoing risk to the safety and wellbeing of other residents, staff, and contractors, and that urgent termination is necessary.

Should the Tenancy Be Terminated?

Section 55(1)(c)(v) of the Act provides that, subject to section 55(2), the Tribunal must make an order terminating a tenancy if satisfied that the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises form part.
The word “shall” in section 55(1) makes termination mandatory once the statutory requirements are established, unless the limited discretion in section 55(2) applies.
The standard of proof is the civil standard, namely whether the facts are established on the balance of probabilities. The 4 March 2026 Incident
The landlord’s evidence was that on 4 March 2026, at approximately 2:55 pm, a tradesperson engaged by the landlord attended the complex to carry out work. The tenant obstructed the tradesperson from entering the building. The CCTV footage shows the tenant pushing the tradesperson away while the tradesperson stood outside the entrance.
A neighbouring resident then intervened to allow the tradesperson access to the complex. As the neighbour turned and walked away, the tenant struck him in the throat.
Police attended the scene and arrested the tenant.
The landlord produced CCTV footage of the incident. I have viewed that footage. I am satisfied that it accurately depicts the incident as described by the landlord. The footage clearly shows the tenant first pushing the tradesperson away and then deliberately making forceful physical contact with the neighbouring resident in a manner consistent with a punch to the throat area.
I accept the landlord’s evidence in full. In the absence of any contrary explanation from the tenant, and having viewed the CCTV footage, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant assaulted a neighbouring resident.
The neighbouring resident was plainly a neighbour of the premises and of the building of which the premises form part. Section 55(1)(c)(v) is therefore engaged. Does Section 55(2) Apply?
Section 55(2) provides that the Tribunal may decline to terminate 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 section 55 applies.
All three requirements must be satisfied before the Tribunal may decline termination.
An assault of this nature is not capable of being remedied. Once the conduct has occurred, it cannot be undone.
Further, I cannot be satisfied that similar conduct is unlikely to recur. The landlord produced evidence of earlier complaints from neighbouring tenants in July 2025. Those tenants reported repeated confrontations, including an allegation that the tenant threatened one of them with a spade. The neighbours were sufficiently distressed that they chose to terminate their own tenancy and leave the complex.
This evidence demonstrates that the 4 March 2026 assault was not an isolated incident. Rather, it forms part of a broader pattern of aggressive and intimidating behaviour affecting other residents.
In those circumstances, the statutory discretion in section 55(2) is not available. Alternative Ground Under Section 56
Given my finding under section 55, it is not strictly necessary to determine the alternative ground. However, had it been necessary to do so, I would also have been satisfied that the tenant breached section 40(2)(c) of the Act and clause 9 of the tenancy agreement by interfering with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of neighbouring tenants.
The conduct was serious and ongoing. The resulting fear caused at least one neighbouring household to vacate the complex. I would have concluded that the breach was of such a nature and extent that it would be inequitable to refuse termination under section 56. Conclusion
The tenant physically assaulted a neighbouring resident. Section 55(1)(c)(v) of the Act therefore applies. I am not satisfied that the discretion in section 55(2) is engaged.
The Act requires that the tenancy be terminated.
Given the seriousness of the conduct and the ongoing safety concerns for other residents, staff, and contractors, termination and possession should take effect promptly.

Order

The tenancy of Turimaki Terei at Unit/Flat G01, 38 Rangitoto Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that adequate service of the the notice of hearing has been completed and considered it reasonable to proceed with the hearing in the tenant’s absence.
The tenancy commenced on 4 June 2024. The tenant is the sole tenant and occupant of a one-bedroom apartment within a multi-unit complex in Papatoetoe, Auckland.
The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c)(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) on the basis that the tenant assaulted a neighbouring resident. In the alternative, the landlord seeks termination under section 56 for breach of section 40(2)(c) of the Act and clause 9 of the tenancy agreement, which require the tenant not to interfere with the peace, comfort, or privacy of neighbouring tenants.
The landlord relies principally on an incident that occurred on 4 March 2026. CCTV footage of that incident was produced and viewed. The landlord also relies on earlier complaints from neighbouring tenants in July 2025 concerning threatening and intimidating behaviour.
The landlord submits that the tenant’s conduct poses an ongoing risk to the safety and wellbeing of other residents, staff, and contractors, and that urgent termination is necessary.

Should the Tenancy Be Terminated?

Section 55(1)(c)(v) of the Act provides that, subject to section 55(2), the Tribunal must make an order terminating a tenancy if satisfied that the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises form part.
The word “shall” in section 55(1) makes termination mandatory once the statutory requirements are established, unless the limited discretion in section 55(2) applies.
The standard of proof is the civil standard, namely whether the facts are established on the balance of probabilities. The 4 March 2026 Incident
The landlord’s evidence was that on 4 March 2026, at approximately 2:55 pm, a tradesperson engaged by the landlord attended the complex to carry out work. The tenant obstructed the tradesperson from entering the building. The CCTV footage shows the tenant pushing the tradesperson away while the tradesperson stood outside the entrance.
A neighbouring resident then intervened to allow the tradesperson access to the complex. As the neighbour turned and walked away, the tenant struck him in the throat.
Police attended the scene and arrested the tenant.
The landlord produced CCTV footage of the incident. I have viewed that footage. I am satisfied that it accurately depicts the incident as described by the landlord. The footage clearly shows the tenant first pushing the tradesperson away and then deliberately making forceful physical contact with the neighbouring resident in a manner consistent with a punch to the throat area.
I accept the landlord’s evidence in full. In the absence of any contrary explanation from the tenant, and having viewed the CCTV footage, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant assaulted a neighbouring resident.
The neighbouring resident was plainly a neighbour of the premises and of the building of which the premises form part. Section 55(1)(c)(v) is therefore engaged. Does Section 55(2) Apply?
Section 55(2) provides that the Tribunal may decline to terminate 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 section 55 applies.
All three requirements must be satisfied before the Tribunal may decline termination.
An assault of this nature is not capable of being remedied. Once the conduct has occurred, it cannot be undone.
Further, I cannot be satisfied that similar conduct is unlikely to recur. The landlord produced evidence of earlier complaints from neighbouring tenants in July 2025. Those tenants reported repeated confrontations, including an allegation that the tenant threatened one of them with a spade. The neighbours were sufficiently distressed that they chose to terminate their own tenancy and leave the complex.
This evidence demonstrates that the 4 March 2026 assault was not an isolated incident. Rather, it forms part of a broader pattern of aggressive and intimidating behaviour affecting other residents.
In those circumstances, the statutory discretion in section 55(2) is not available. Alternative Ground Under Section 56
Given my finding under section 55, it is not strictly necessary to determine the alternative ground. However, had it been necessary to do so, I would also have been satisfied that the tenant breached section 40(2)(c) of the Act and clause 9 of the tenancy agreement by interfering with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of neighbouring tenants.
The conduct was serious and ongoing. The resulting fear caused at least one neighbouring household to vacate the complex. I would have concluded that the breach was of such a nature and extent that it would be inequitable to refuse termination under section 56. Conclusion
The tenant physically assaulted a neighbouring resident. Section 55(1)(c)(v) of the Act therefore applies. I am not satisfied that the discretion in section 55(2) is engaged.
The Act requires that the tenancy be terminated.
Given the seriousness of the conduct and the ongoing safety concerns for other residents, staff, and contractors, termination and possession should take effect promptly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5499889 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat G01, 38 Rangitoto Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5499889 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat G01, 38 Rangitoto Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tenancy Be Terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the Tenancy Be Terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions