What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5233711?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Laura-Ann Te-Wai Powell at Unit/Flat Unit 8, 4 Cambourne Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5233711?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5233711?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5233711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11901548-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5233711?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Laura-Ann Te-Wai Powell at Unit/Flat Unit 8, 4 Cambourne Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5233711?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5233711?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5233711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11901548-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 8, 4 Cambourne Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5233711 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Laura-Ann Te-Wai Powell at Unit/Flat Unit 8, 4 Cambourne Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at 11.59pm on 18 June 2025.

Reasons

The landlord, represented by Ms Grey, attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. The start of the hearing was delayed, and the matter was called for a second time. The tenant still did not attend. As the tenant has been notified, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
This is a periodic tenancy which began on 25 February 2021. The premises is a one-bedroom unit, located on the second level of a three-storey building with multiple flats. Other tenants of the landlord reside in the housing complex.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy under two separate grounds under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA): a. Section 55(1)(c): on the basis that the tenant has threatened to assault a neighbour of the premises. b. Section 56: breach by the tenant of her responsibilities under Section 40(2)(c) not to interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the landlord’s other tenants and her other neighbours. Application under Section 55
Section 55 of the RTA sets out various grounds for termination for either non- payment of rent, damage, or assault. A tenancy must be terminated under section 55(1)(c) if the Tribunal is satisfied that: (c) the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons: (i) the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family: (ii) the owner of the premises or any member of the owner’s family: (iii) any agent of the landlord: (iv) any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part: (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
An assault includes an act or gesture to apply force to another person if the other person believes, on reasonable grounds, that the tenant has a present ability to give effect to his or her purpose 1 . A threat of assault is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force and does not require an intention or capacity to act on the threat, and does not require the threat to be passed onto the person to whom the threat related. 2
The landlord refers to an event on 21 February 2025, where the tenant threatened to assault another tenant living in the apartment block. The details of this incident were recorded in a letter written to the tenant on 17 March 2025, giving notice of the tenant’s anti-social behaviour. The tenant is alleged to have smashed the front door of the neighbour’s unit with a brick, shouted at the neighbour and made verbal threats. Another neighbour was at the unit, and witnessed the event. Following this, the tenant threw heavy objects from the balcony of her unit, which fell into the neighbour’s front courtyard. The police were called, and a report was filed. However, no charges were laid.
The landlord provided witness statements from the neighbours involved and CCTV camera footage of the events. 1 Grey v Housing Corp of New Zealand DC Auckland CIV-2010-004-218, 5 May 2010, as noted in Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand by S Benson at 7.16.5, pg 201 2 Collins v Housing New Zealand [2004] NZAR 665 (HC) at [29]
In this case, there have been two witness statements, but no direct oral evidence from the neighbours involved. Overall, because of the serious nature of the alleged conduct, and noting that criminal proceedings were not pursued, further and more detailed evidence is required before the Tribunal can make such a finding. Therefore, on the available evidence, the grounds for termination under this provision have not been established.
However, I consider the grounds for termination under section 56 has been met, as set out below. Application under section 56
The landlord has also applied under section 56 of the RTA for termination of the tenancy for breaches by the tenant of her obligations. The landlord states the tenant has been in breach of section 40(2)(c) which reads:
Tenants responsibilities (2) The tenant shall not— ......(c) 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, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
Under section 56(1) of the RTA, 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.
Where the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
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 of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone. However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
In this case, I am satisfied that the grounds for termination under section 56 of the RTA are met. The landlord has provided evidence of the two events, and its effect on the neighbours. Both neighbours have provided a detailed account of the incidents. There is also video evidence in support, along with the incident report filed with the police. The landlord has also provided detailed reasoning in its submissions.
The landlord has explained that it made multiple attempts to contact the tenant, and discuss its concerns. However, the tenant has not attended either of the meetings. The landlord detailed the steps taken following the complaints received by the affected neighbour. This neighbour had described the event as a violent invasion of her personal space and security, noting that the force used in the attempt to break down the door could have resulted in serious injury. The witness to this event had described the verbal abuse from the tenant and the threats made. When objects were being thrown from the balcony, including a glass pane, crate, and plastic chair, this was another incident that further endangered the residents.
The landlord submits that, given the severity of the tenant’s actions, and her failure to comply with multiple requests for engagement, termination was sought. The threat to one neighbour had caused significant stress, and the violent nature of her behaviour posed a significant risk to the safety of other residents and the landlord’s staff. The landlord noted that the continued lack of communication and cooperation with support services made it difficult to mitigate these risks. The peace and comfort of others in the complex had been broken, and the only option was the termination of the tenancy to ensure the peace, comfort, safety, and well- being of all involved.
Based on the evidence and submissions, I am satisfied that the landlord has shown that the tenant has been in breach of her obligations.
The ending of a tenancy has significant implications for a tenant and is a measure that is not taken lightly. Based on the evidence before me, I consider that the grounds for termination under section 56 are met and, due to the nature and extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, this tenancy is terminated.
The landlord has indicated that it would be reasonable for this tenancy to be terminated in three weeks, to give the tenant time to arrange alternative accommodation. With the landlord’s consent, this tenancy is to come to an end at 11.59pm on 18 June 2025.
While successful, the landlord does not seek the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5233711 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 8, 4 Cambourne Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5233711 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 8, 4 Cambourne Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland

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