What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5241712?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5241712?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241712?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241712?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12298276-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5241712?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5241712?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5241712?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5241712?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12298276-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 6, 7 Riversdale Rd, Avondale, Akl 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5241712 — Harassment

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 21 August 2025.

Wayne Kai-aruna entered into a tenancy with Kainga Ora Homes and Communities for unit 6, 7 Riversdale Rd, Avondale, Auckland on 8 September 2006. He has been living in the property for 19 years without issue, but claims he has experienced difficulties with a neighbouring tenant since July 2024. The neighbouring tenant is also a tenant of Kainga Ora Homes and Communities’. Mr Kai-aruna claims the neighbouring tenant has intimidated and harassed him since they first moved into the neighbouring property in July 2024. Mr Kai-aruna claims Kainga Ora Homes and Communities have not done enough to manage the new tenant’s behaviour, which has affected Mr Kai-aruna’s quiet enjoyment.

The issues I must determine are: a. To what standard must Mr Kai-aruna prove his claim? b. Has the neighbouring tenant breached Mr Kai-aruna’s quiet enjoyment? c. Has Kainga Ora Homes and Communities taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the neighbouring tenant does not interfere with Mr Kai-aruna’s quiet enjoyment?

To what standard mu Mr Kai-aruna prove his claim?

As the applicant, Mr Kai-aruna must prove his claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that he must establish that what he is claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Has the neighbouring tenant breached Mr Kai-aruna’s quiet enjoyment? The law

Section 45(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that a landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises. Evidence and submissions of the parties

Mr Kai-aruna claims that the neighbouring tenant has engaged in intimidating, threatening and disruptive behaviour. For example, Mr Kai-aruna claims the neighbouring tenant has: a. Purposefully set his dog on Mr Kai-aruna and recalled it at the last minute before it can attack. b. Yelled at his dog not to go near Mr Kai-aruna in case it catches aids. c. Threatened Mr Kai-aruna by stating “I’ll come to your house and I’ll damage you.” d. Sworn at Mr Kai-aruna and called him a “F*****g c**t”. e. Wrongly accused Mr Kai-aruna of entering his premises and placing a chair in his garage. Mr Kai-arun claims Mr Ashby swore at and threatened him, before chucking the chair onto Mr Kai-aruna’s property. f. Thrown a handful of rocks at the roof of Mr Kai-aruna’s premises. g. Thrown a piece of marble approximately the 6.5cm x 6.5cm in size at Mr Kai-aruna and his friend. h. Attempted to run Mr Kai-aruna over.

All of these alleged incidences and more have been reported to the Police and Kainga Ora.

No criminal charges have been laid against the neighbouring tenant.

Kainga Ora issued the neighbouring tenant with a formal breach notice on 18 October 2024 under section 40(2)(c) RTA. Other than this, Kainga Ora have not taken any formal action.

Kainga Ora claim they have investigated Mr Kai-aruna’s complaints, but the neighbouring tenant denies they have acted in the way alleged. Kainga Ora claim they have reminded the neighbouring tenant of the importance of being a good neighbour and being respectful however, in the absence of any additional evidence supporting Mr Kai-aruna’s claims, they do not feel able to take any formal action.

Kainga Ora have approved Mr Kai-aruna’s request for a transfer and are actively looking for another property for him. Mr Kai-aruna has declined two properties offered. Mr Kai-aruna wants a garage but is only eligible for one- bedroom dwellings, which do not usually have garages. Analysis

Mr Kai-aruna submitted numerous copies of Police reports and complaints he has made about encounters with the neighbouring tenant. The number of reports and complaints tends to suggest there is some credibility to Mr Kai- aruna’s claims, otherwise why would he go to such trouble if it was not true? On the other hand, I must consider the fact that the neighbouring tenant denies acting in the way alleged and no further evidence supporting Mr Kai-aruna’s claims has been provided.

Mr Kai-aruna says his family, friends and at least one neighbour have witnessed the neighbouring tenant’s behaviour however, no witnesses attended the hearing to give evidence. No written statements or affidavits from any witnesses were submitted either.

Mr Kai-aruna claims he has passed on the names and contact details of potential witnesses to Kainga Ora and they have failed to follow up. Kainga Ora deny this and no written evidence was submitted by Mr Kai-aruna confirming he has passed on these details.

Kainga Ora gave evidence that the neighbouring tenant has been a tenant with them for 20 years since 2005. With the exception of one disagreement with a former neighbour in 2020 about parking, Kainga Ora claim they have not received any complaints about them. This suggests that the neighbouring tenant does not have a propensity to act in the way claimed by Mr Kai-aruna and reinforces the need for there to be additional evidence supporting Mr Kai- aruna’s claims.

None of the complaints to Police have resulted in charges being laid against the neighbouring tenant.

In these circumstances, I consider something more is needed than just the bare assertion by Mr Kai-aruna that the neighbouring tenant has acted in the way alleged. The absence of any corroborating evidence means I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the neighbouring tenant has breached Mr Kai-aruna’s quiet enjoyment in the ways alleged. Has Kainga Ora Homes and Communities taken all reasonable steps to ensure the neighbouring tenant does not interfere with Mr Kai-aruna’s quiet enjoyment?

Kainga Ora issued the neighbouring tenant with a formal breach notice on 18 October 2024. It is understandable why they have declined to take any further formal action. The lack of evidence corroborating Mr Kai-aruna’s version of events limits what Kainga Ora can do. This is because Kainga Ora owe the neighbouring tenant a duty not to breach their quiet enjoyment. If Kainga Ora issue the neighbouring tenant further breach notices in circumstances where there is insufficient evidence to support Mr Kai-aruna’s claims, they risk breaching this duty.

The reasonableness of Kainga Ora’s actions must be weighed against the strength of the evidence supporting Mr Kai-aruna’s claims. In this case, it is not very strong. Kainga Ora have discussed Mr Kai-aruna’s complaints with the neighbouring tenant, reminded them of their obligation to behave in a neighbourly manner and issued them with one formal breach notice. I find this to be a reasonable response in the circumstances. Conclusion

Mr Kai-aruna has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the neighbouring tenant has breached his quiet enjoyment or that Kainga Ora have failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the neighbouring tenant does not breach Mr Kai-aruna’s quiet enjoyment.

For these reasons, the application is dismissed. Filing fee

Mr Kai-aruna has not been wholly or substantially successful in his claim. Therefore, I do not order Kainga Ora to reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 21 August 2025.

To what standard mu Mr Kai-aruna prove his claim?

All of these alleged incidences and more have been reported to the Police and Kainga Ora.

No criminal charges have been laid against the neighbouring tenant.

Kainga Ora issued the neighbouring tenant with a formal breach notice on 18 October 2024 under section 40(2)(c) RTA. Other than this, Kainga Ora have not taken any formal action.

None of the complaints to Police have resulted in charges being laid against the neighbouring tenant.

For these reasons, the application is dismissed. Filing fee

Mr Kai-aruna has not been wholly or substantially successful in his claim. Therefore, I do not order Kainga Ora to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5241712 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 7 Riversdale Rd, Avondale, Akl 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5241712 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Unit 6, 7 Riversdale Rd, Avondale, Akl 1026

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

To what standard mu Mr Kai-aruna prove his claim?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

To what standard mu Mr Kai-aruna prove his claim?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions