What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5518369 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 24, 432 Great North Road, Grey

How much money was awarded in case 5518369?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5518369?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5518369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13804554-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5518369 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 24, 432 Great North Road, Grey

How much money was awarded in case 5518369?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5518369?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5518369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13804554-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 24, 432 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5518369 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 24, 432 Great North Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely.
The landlord’s representative attended the hearing.
The tenant attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord relies on section 55(1)(c)(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and s.56 (1) RTA to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant occupies a one-bedroom unit in a Kainga Ora complex. The tenancy commenced on 16 June 2023. Her neighbours in the adjoining properties are also Kainga Ora tenants.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Where an allegation is particularly 5518369 2 serious, and in particular involving criminal offending as is the case here, the Tribunal requires evidence of a sufficiently high standard to meet the burden. The District Court in Clarke v Housing New Zealand CIV 2008-006-000033 have confirmed however that the Tribunal should proceed to hear an application even when a matter is pending in the criminal court and cannot make the decision conditional on the outcome of criminal proceedings. Landlord’s evidence
Neighbours of the tenant reported that on the night of 15 May 2026, the tenant was yelling and screaming profanities, making threats, and smashing windows inside her tenancy. This behaviour continued into the early hours of the following morning.
At approximately 2:00am on 16 May 2026, a neighbour left their residence to investigate the disturbance and to request that the tenant lower the noise. The tenant was then observed exiting her tenancy while holding a large knife and advancing toward the neighbouring tenant, while also screaming “I’ll fucking stab you.” The neighbour retreated into his flat to retrieve his phone and to contact the Police. The neighbour says that he returned to the scene with a stick. Miss Lane then approached the neighbour’s vehicle and stabbed the front tyre with the knife she was carrying.
The neighbour’s evidence was supported by another neighbour who provided a written statement.
Police attended the scene within approximately 5 - 10 minutes and apprehended the tenant. A police report confirms the incident, and current charges include, threatening to kill, do grievous bodily harm (stabbing/cutting weapon) and wilful damage. She is currently remanded in custody.
The tenant’s evidence was that she had been subject to threats and abuse by the neighbour previously. She accepted that she had not been taking her medication and that she had been having a psychotic episode. She says that the neighbour approached her first and that he was carrying a steel waratah. She accepts that she was a carrying a knife and that she damaged the tenant’s car tyre by puncturing it with her knife.
Where there is a conflict as to the evidence, I prefer the evidence of the neighbour over that of the tenant, who accepts that she was struggling with her mental health at the time. Termination The law 5518369 3
The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for assault. It reads: (1) Subject to subsection (2) of this act, on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that – … (c) the tenant has caused, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons:… (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitutes a part.… (2) The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) of this section 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))].
“Assault” is defined in section 2(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 as: [T]he act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has the present ability to effect his purpose.
In R v Meek [1981] 1 NZLR 499 (CA) the Court discussed what is meant by “threatened to assault” and considered 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.”
See also Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd [2004] NZAR 665, at [29] – [30], where the High Court, quoting the above dicta, added: “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. But how far that applies under this Act is another question. The intent of s55 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.” https://anzlaw.thomsonreuters.com/Link/Document/FullText?refType=N2&serNum=1981194293&pubNum=0004800&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&ppcid=d40f3723279d4f768057ed44771294a1&contextData=(sc.Category) 5518369 4
In Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court Christchurch, CIV- 2004 – 409 – 717, 2 July 2004, his Honour Judge Keane accepted that an assault, or threat of assault, once made could not be remedied. His Honour however, formed the view that the discretion under section 55(2) RTA remained, regardless of whether the breach was capable of remedy or not. The High Court held that if the breach could not be remedied, then the issue could be set aside and the Tribunal go on to consider the two remaining factors under s. 55(2) RTA, namely whether the landlord had been compensated for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely that the tenant would commit any further breach. Analysis
Based on the evidence presented by the landlord, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant threatened to assault her neighbour and caused damage to the neighbour’s car. The threat is aggravated by the fact that the tenant was carrying a knife at the time
The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of s. 55(1)(c)(v) RTA are established.
The next issue I must determine is whether this is an appropriate case to exercise my jurisdiction not to terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The breach is not capable of remedy and the landlord is not able to be financially compensated. Therefore, the only remaining factor I must consider is whether it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.
I regard the threatened assault that took place as extremely serious and it has had a significant impact on the tenant’s neighbour. Evidence provided by the landlord shows that there has been a pattern of behaviour involving the tenant over the term of the tenancy. I am not satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the same kind in the future.
The landlord has proven their claim under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA and I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The tenancy is terminated. Section 56
Section 56 of the RTA allows Kāinga Ora to apply for termination of a tenancy, and the Tribunal to make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that – (a) The tenant has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement or the tenant’s obligations under the RTA; and 5518369 5 (b) The tenant has failed to remedy the breach after being issued a 14-day notice to remedy the breach (not applicable where the breach is not capable of remedy); and (c) The breach is of such a nature or such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
Kainga Ora is making an application under section 56 of the RTA to terminate the tenancy as a result of the tenant breaching her obligations under section 40(2)(c) of the RTA as well as breaching the terms of her Tenancy Agreement.
Section 40(2)(c) RTA states that the tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants. The Tenancy Agreement also states, “you need to ….respect the peace, comfort and privacy of your neighbours.”
The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has breached her obligations by interfering, with the neighbours’ peace, comfort and privacy by acting in an intimidating, aggressive, and threatening manner towards her neighbours.
The tenant’s neighbours have expressed considerable alarm and distress over the tenant’s behaviour. These continuous and repeated breaches are ongoing and impacting on the right to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of other Kāinga Ora tenants in the neighbourhood. It would be inequitable of the Tribunal to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5518369 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 24, 432 Great North Road, Grey Lynn,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5518369 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 24, 432 Great North Road, Grey Lynn,

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