What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5191915?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Caroline Anahera Hawke at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 22 Waipuna Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5191915?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191915?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191915?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11644508-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5191915?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Caroline Anahera Hawke at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 22 Waipuna Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5191915?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5191915?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5191915?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11644508-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 22 Waipuna Road, Mount Wellington, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5191915 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Caroline Anahera Hawke at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 22 Waipuna Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060 is terminated and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 5 pm Monday 7 April 2025.

Reasons

Both parties together with the tenant’s partner, Aaron Giles (“Aaron”), attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that: a. Aaron assaulted a neighbour. See section 55(1)(c)(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). b. The tenant is in breach of the RTA because the tenant and Aaron have breached the tenant’s obligation under section 40(2)(c) RTA by causing or permitting interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of a person residing in the neighbourhood. See section 56(1) RTA. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be decided.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts, videos and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
Section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the landlord’s application with this requirement in mind. Claim for assault: the evidence
The landlord provided evidence in the form of a written statement from the neighbour who claimed to have been assaulted (“Ad”) and from another neighbour (“S”). In addition, both Ad and S gave evidence by telephone regarding the incident as follows: a. When Ad was going to visit a neighbour around 6.30 pm on 24 February 2025, the tenant came out of her property and started to abuse Ad by yelling and swearing. Aaron then rushed over to Ad yelling and swearing in her face and gesturing that he was going to punch her, before pushing her over so that she fell back into a fence and onto the ground. b. Ad provided photographs of her injuries and advised that she suffered grazing and bruising to her elbow, leg, arm and chest. c. S, who lives at the rear of the tenant’s property, gave evidence at the hearing that she heard yelling from the tenant and Aaron. One of the neighbours called out “Please come help us. He’s trying to kill us.” S and her husband took their dog out and walked past the front of the tenant’s property and saw Aaron swing a punch close to Ad’s face before he shoved Ad in the chest causing her to fall to the ground. S then telephoned the police. S explained that Ad was very scared and shaking. S said she herself was “very scared and terrified”. d. The police were called and Aaron has been charged with male assaults a female.
Aaron gave the following evidence regarding this incident: a. He did not touch Ad. He believes she fell over on her own when he charged at her and “gave her a fright”. b. He believes Ad was drunk or high on methamphetamine. c. The bruises in the photographs pre-dated her fall because he saw them before this incident. d. The tenant, who was present at the incident, confirms his version of events. Claim for breach of quiet enjoyment: the evidence
The landlord provided the following evidence: a. The evidence in relation to the alleged assault detailed above. Neither Aaron nor the tenant denied the verbal and intimidatory abuse directed at Ad, only that he assaulted her. b. S’s written statement and verbal evidence before the Tribunal: i. August 2024 Aaron yelled at and abused her son “throwing racist insults and threatening to harm my dog. ii. “Since that moment, the erratic abuse, threats of physical harm, and threats to kill my family, have continued to this current date.” iii. 18 August 2024 Aaron was yelling “’curry munchers’ and swore further. He demanded that we put our dog down or he would kill our dog.” This will be referred to as Incident #1. iv. On 20 October 2024 Aaron yelled and swore at S and her daughter calling them “Bollywood sluts and bitches” and insisted that we go back to Pakistan. He yelled out that this is his country, and we need to go back to Pakistan. He yelled out that “New Zealand belongs to him; we are just immigrants. He demanded that we stop washing our car because its bothering him, he said that if we continue he would murder us.” The tenant “was in the background supporting him, she was also swearing at us.” v. On 21 October 2024 at around 1 am Aaron “shouted and screamed, threatened to harm us, and confronted [S’s husband] in our driveway, hitting him hard on the chest and daring my husband and son-in-law to engage in a fair fight on the street... This event took place between 3 am and 4 am.” vi. On the same day around 7.30 am “Aaron emerged in the backyard [and] burst out angrily, swearing and insisting that we go back to Bangladesh/Pakistan. Aaron frequently abuses us, he emerged with a large piece of wood, challenging my husband to a fight.” vii. The events of 20 and 21 October 2024, 4 and 6 November 2024 will be referred to as Incident #2. viii. On Sunday 1 December 2024 “we heard our neighbours making noises and swearing using foul language... He stood outside his home, observing our yard and making such remarks as “You Indians stink!” “You bastards filthy Indians, you decay and smell like urine, damn idiots, screw you!” “...Our entire family has been enduring this disruptive behaviour for over 6 months now.” ix. “In the past two months (January and February 2025) Police have visited at least 6 times following up on [the tenant] and Aaron’s continued verbal abuse, threat to harm, threats to kill.” x. On Tuesday 14 January 2025 three police officers visited S and her family for a welfare check and to follow up on the latest complaint regarding Aaron being abusive and threatening towards her and her family. Following the police visit Aaron came out into his back yard and “targeted us once again saying “Oh you fucken bitch, you pulled out my plants”. Aaron accused us of stealing his cannabis plant and continued to swear at us.” This was supported by video evidence of the incident. This will be referred to as Incident #3. xi. On 16 January 2025 around 6.55 am Aaron yelled abuse at S’s house including “Mark my words fucken Indians, very soon I will be on your doorsteps and you’re gonna have no choice, you won’t escape or hide... Mark my words – you guys are gone.” xii. Aaron had threatened S and her family that he had a gun. On Saturday 1 February 2025 at about 6.45 pm Aaron called out “Hey lady. I have the gun.” He then presented a water gun at S’s husband over the fence and fired it at them. After abusing S and her husband for some minutes he moved into his property and pulled down his pants to expose his bottom to S. This will be referred to as Incident #4 and is supported by video evidence of the incident. c. The landlord issued notices to the tenant under section 55A RTA as follows: i. Letter 2 September 2024 in relation to Incident #1 described in the notice as: “On the morning of Sunday the 18 th of August 2024 at around 8.15 am, Mr Aaron Giles was heard behaving aggressively by swearing, shouting insults, and making threats towards your neighbour at [address]. Mr Aaron Giles is heard yelling and at one point calling the neighbours “Curry-munchers” and to “put your dog’s down.” ii. Letter 6 November 2024 in relation to Incident #2 described in the notice as:
“On 20 October 2024 at approximately 7.00 am. Your partner Aaron Giles reacted to the noise [from a water blaster] yelling and swearing at [S and her daughter] calling out “Bollywood slut” and continued with the loud screaming.”
On 21 st October 2022 at approximately 7.30 am. Aaron Giles was shouting at the neighbour saying the lights from their house was getting into their bedroom, the neighbour shouted back to shut your curtains. Aaron screamed back saying “fuck off to Pakistan”. When the neighbour responded that he is not from Pakistan and is from Fiji, Aaron screamed back “fuck off to hell” before retreating inside the house and returning with a large stick waving towards your neighbour’s house saying “I’ll show you where to go”.
On 4 th November 2024 between 2.42 am and 2.47 am. Aaron Giles started screaming and swearing ath the neighbour shouting “you fucken crack head, you woke us up, fucken cunt, disrespectful curry munchers fuck off back to Bangladesh. Come over here I am going to fucken smash you up”.
On 6 th November 2024 at a meeting with the landlord “Aaron made accusations that the Manager was biased, and made threats to shred her. The meeting had to be terminated due to Aaron’s aggressive behaviour.” iii. Letter 17 January 2025 in relation to Incident #3 described in the notice as: On 14 January 2025 at approximately 6.31 pm Aaron “confronted your neighbour, accusing them of taking his cannabis plant, and repeatedly swearing at them. When [Aaron] saw that his cannabis plant was missing, he started shouting “I know who, yeah I can see you, you fucken cunt.” When the neighbour responded, “did you see us removing it?” Aaron respinded “Fuck you, it was you”. The neighbour responded that it wasn’t them, however Aaron continued with the verbal abuse.” iv. Letter 14 February 2025 in relation to Incident #4 described in the notice as: On Saturday 1 February 2025 at approximately 6.45 pm Aaron “was in the backyard and shouted to your neighbour to “shut the fuck up with all the gun shit” Mr Giles then pointed a water gun at the neighbour and squirted water towards her and said “squirting your arse, that’s all. Send that to Kainga Ora I don’t give a fuck, because you’re just a fucken swag”. Mr Giles then said “film all you fucken want, here I’ll give you something to film”. He proceeded to pull down his pants exposing his naked bottom, and said “here you go film that bitch”. v. The tenant has not challenged any of the notices which each contained the required information about applying to the Tribunal to challenge the notice.
Aaron responded to S’s evidence as follows: a. Incident #1: He did not recall threatening to kill S’s dog. He believed that they were abusing the dog and he was telling them to stop. b. Incident #2: He accepted S’s evidence, acknowledged that he was in the wrong and apologised. He believes that his behaviour was caused by sleep deprivation. c. Incident #3: He accepted S’s evidence and acknowledged that she did not take his cannabis plant and apologised. d. Incident #4: He does not have a gun and was showing S and her family that the water gun and a nerf gun were the only guns he owns. He denied ever threatening them. He apologised for his behaviour. Claim for assault: discussion and decision
The allegation of assault is supported by the victim’s written statement and her attending the hearing to give evidence. It was clearly distressing for her to do so. Her evidence was clear, detailed and unequivocal.
The victim’s testimony was supported by the independent, eye-witness evidence of S who gave both a written statement and evidence at the hearing consistent with the victim’s account. Her evidence was also clear, detailed and unequivocal.
On the other hand, the tenant supported Aaron’s version of events. As she participated in the barrage of abuse directed by them both at Ad, this is to be expected. Neither denied verbally abusing Ad or that Aaron rushed at her and frightened her.
The allegation against the tenant’s partner is serious and the burden of proof is on the landlord to persuade the Tribunal that the assault took place. The parties’ evidence is evenly balanced. Ad and S have given evidence that the assault occurred. Aaron and the tenant have given evidence that the assault did not occur. In the face of Aaron and the tenant’s denial, it is not possible on the evidence before it for the Tribunal to determine that it is more likely than not that the assault took place. However, the undisputed evidence that the tenant and Aaron verbally abused Ad and that Aaron rushed at her with the intention of scaring her contributes to the Tribunal’s decision in relation to the claim for termination based on Aaron’s breaches of the neighbours’ quiet enjoyment.
The landlord’s claim for termination based on Aaron assaulting Ad is dismissed.
This does not mean that the Tribunal does not believe Ad or S’s evidence, or the evidence of Aaron and the tenant regarding the assault, only that the Tribunal cannot be persuaded on the evidence before it that the assault was more likely than not. Claim for breaches: discussion and decision
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone. The breaches of the tenant’s neighbours’ quiet enjoyment were not capable of being remedied.
Most of the behaviour complained of was that of the tenant’s partner, Aaron, who lives at the property with the tenant. Section 41(1) RTA provides that the tenant is responsible for anything done by anyone who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act constitutes a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.
The breaches were serious and the landlord has repeatedly warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach.
The District Court in Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation DC Porirua CIV-2010-091-110, 28 June 2010 considered that the following were relevant factors in considering a decision under section 56 RTA: a. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. b. Whether the breach was within or beyond the tenant’s control. c. Whether the breach involved an immoral or illegal use of the property. d. Whether a tenant has made or will make good the breach of the covenant and is able and willing to fulfil his obligations in the future. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The personal circumstances of the tenant. g. The financial position of the tenant. h. The gravity of the breach. i. Whether a breach has caused lasting damage to a landlord. j. Whether considering the nature of the breach, it is proportionate to evict the tenant.
In this case the Tribunal has considered these factors as follows: a. The breaches by Aaron were repeated, persistent and over a period of six months. They were intentional. The clear risk of having the tenancy terminated, clearly articulated in the four notices of anti-social behaviour and in the landlord’s attempts to meet with him, have not persuaded Aaron to modify his behaviour. The tenant has shown no inclination to desist from this behaviour and has persisted in it over a period of at least six months. Through his actions Aaron has wilfully and knowingly jeopardised his family’s continued occupation of their home. b. The racial abuse and the repeated threats are especially repugnant and are to be condemned by the Tribunal. The numerous threats to kill S and her family are particularly serious and could have been grounds for termination under section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA. Many of the threats and abuse have been directed at vulnerable women. The breaches are of the most serious nature. The Tribunal has been unable to find that the tenant physically assaulted Ad, but he and the tenant accepted that they yelled abuse at her and that “Aaron charged at her and gave her a fright.” There is ample evidence that Aaron and the tenant have abused, threatened and bullied Ad, S and S’s family. c. The landlord has repeatedly warned the tenant about the breaches by issuing four formal notices for anti-social behaviour which have been unchallenged by the tenant. It has also tried to engage with the tenant about Aaron’s behaviour but he has not co-operated. There is nothing in the landlord’s conduct which would make it inequitable for the Tribunal to grant its application. d. Aaron accepts two of the incidents. Another of the incidents involving the water gun, abuse and Aaron exposing his buttocks to S are on video. The other video evidence in relation to the abuse Aaron projected at S over the missing cannabis plant is clear and unequivocal. The Tribunal accepts this evidence of what occurred during these instances. These four incidents were not isolated incidents. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of S regarding the nasty, threatening, racist abuse they have endured for over six months which was largely not disputed by Aaron or the tenant during the hearing. e. The Tribunal accepts Ad and S’s evidence of the significant and traumatic impact Aaron’s behaviour has had upon their lives and their occupation of their homes. Both reported feeling unsafe, having difficulty sleeping and being too afraid to go outside their dwellings. S gave evidence that she and her family each feel “terrified” of Aaron, that she “lived in fear for the safety of my family” and that his behaviour towards her and her family “made her feel helpless” and so sick so that she had to take two days off work. f. The tenant and Aaron live at the property with their young children, one of whom has been hospitalised. Termination of the tenancy will mean that they will need to find emergency accommodation. Aaron made it clear during the hearing that they are not financially well off and advised that he had ADHD and Asperger’s. g. Termination is not a disproportionate response to behaviour of this nature and duration. The tenant’s neighbours are entitled to their peace and quiet enjoyment and to be relieved from Aaron’s behaviour. Both Ad and S gave evidence of their being harassed and, on occasion, terrorised by Aaron’s deliberate behaviour and the seriously detrimental effect it has had on their lives. Termination is a necessary and urgent response given the scale and nature of Aaron’s behaviour.
Considering these factors, it would be inequitable to refuse the landlord’s application for termination. No one should be subjected to abuse of this nature and this level and the Tribunal needs to protect the victims of such abuse by terminating the tenancy so that the neighbours do not have to live in the vicinity of a person who has so consistently and repeatedly disregarded the complaints of his victims and the repeated warnings of the landlord.
The Tribunal is persuaded on the evidence before it to terminate the tenancy because of the repeated breaches of the quiet enjoyment of the neighbours. Given the nature of those breaches, it is important that the tenancy be terminated in the shortest reasonable time required for the tenant to vacate the property and an order is made accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191915 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 22 Waipuna Road, Mount Wellington,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5191915 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 22 Waipuna Road, Mount Wellington,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions