What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5520192 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 8, 95 Maitland Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5520192?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5520192?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5520192?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13876517-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5520192 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 8, 95 Maitland Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5520192?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5520192?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5520192?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13876517-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 8, 95 Maitland Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin Tenancy Tribunal Case 5520192 — Rent arrears

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 8, 95 Maitland Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $228.57 immediately, being rent arrears to 9 July 2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link or by telephone. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given. The landlord’s representative 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)(iii) and (iv) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and s.56(1) RTA to terminate the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] occupies a unit in a multi-unit complex operated by Kainga Ora complex. The tenancy commenced on 27 March 2025.
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 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
The landlord’s evidence was provided by way of written and signed statements from four witnesses.
At about 3pm on Sunday 17 May 2026, Mr Geange and an accomplice went to the neighbouring tenancy at 6/95 Maitland Street, Dunedin. They knocked at the door, and the door was opened by Mr B, the complainant, who is an occupier of that address.
Mr Geange and his accomplice confronted Mr B, accusing him of stealing items belonging to them. Mr B advised them he did not know what they were talking about. Mr B then turned his head away and was hit in the head, causing him to fall to the ground. While on the ground Mr B saw a boot being kicked towards him. Mr B raised his left arm and was kicked in the arm, resulting in a bruise. Whilst Mr B was on the ground Mr Geange and his accomplice then stepped over him and entered the property without invitation or permission. They entered a bedroom and began rifling through possessions belonging to Mr B, looking for possessions that they alleged Mr B had stolen from them. Mr B was unable to say whether it was Mr Geange or his accomplice who hit him.
The tenant of the property, Mr M, who is the adult nephew of Mr B, was in the lounge at the time of the assault. Mr M heard a commotion and then saw two people enter the bedroom. He then could hear voices and recognised the voice of Mr Geange. Mr M did not intervene.
Mr Geange is responsible for his own actions or the actions of anyone at the premises that he has permitted to assault or threaten. Whilst it is unclear whether the assault was carried out by Mr Geange or his accomplice, that is not of significance as I consider them both to be responsible.
A second incident occurred which Kainga Ora allege involved Mr Geange. Signed witness statements were provided by the complainant and a witness.
At about 1:45pm on 19 May 2026 two contractors, Mr M and Mr H, as agents of the landlord, were visiting a tenancy unrelated to the tenancy of Mr Geange, at the complex of 95 Maitland Street, Dunedin.
When they arrived, they saw who they say was Mr Geange, pacing up and down the footpath that allows access to the units at the complex. Mr Geange was swearing loudly to himself and had had his fists clenched aggressively.
The two contractors entered the tenancy they were visiting and were in it for about 10 minutes. As they left the tenancy, and tried to walk past him to return to their vehicle, Mr Geange stopped Mr M, demanding “what the fuck are you doing here?” Mr M responded that they were completing work for a neighbour, to which Mr Geange responded, “I don’t give a fuck, this is my property and I don’t fucking want you here.”
As Mr Geange said this, he aggressively stepped towards Mr M, causing Mr M to believe he was about to be assaulted. Due to Mr Geange’s aggressiveness, tone and posture, Mr M saw Mr Geange’s gesture of stepping towards him as a threat to assault, and because the proximity provided Mr Geange the ability to effect that purpose, he stepped backwards, and continued to do so, to avoid this.
Mr M and Mr H retreated to their vehicles so as to drive away. As Mr H drove away, Mr Geange approached and kicked the wheel of Mr H’s vehicle.
Mr Geange’s behaviour was entirely unprovoked, and the incident left the two contractors shaken.
Whilst I accept the evidence of the two contractors without question, I consider that the issue of identity has not been addressed fully by the landlord. Mr Geange was not known to either of the two contractors. In their statements the issue of identity is addressed as follows “. “I have not seen this male before but believe he lives at Unit 10/95 Maitland Street after speaking with another tenant”.(Mr H). “I have not seen this male before but believe he lives at Unit 7/95 Maitland Street after speaking with another tenant of 10 /95 Maitland St.”(Mr M).
Mr Geange does not live at either Unit 7 or Unit 10. The claim under s.55(1)(iii) RTA is dismissed as I am not satisfied on the evidence that it is more likely than not that the person involved was Mr Geange. Termination The law
The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(iv) 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:... (iv) any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute 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 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 or his accomplice assaulted Mr B, an occupier of the premises .
The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of s. 55(1)(c)(iv) 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 Mr B. 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)(iv) 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 (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 makes 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 I have already found in favour of the landlord under s.55(1)(c)(iv) RTA I am not required to consider the alternative application by the landlord.
The landlord seeks an order for rent arrears and has provided rent records in support showing rent arrears of $228.57 owing as of the end of the tenancy. parties attended the hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5520192 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 8, 95 Maitland Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5520192 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 8, 95 Maitland Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin

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