What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5299895?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of BOB ALLEN MAKAEA at Unit/Flat 6, 6 Malam Street, Glen Eden,

How much money was awarded in case 5299895?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299895?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299895?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12164548-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5299895?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of BOB ALLEN MAKAEA at Unit/Flat 6, 6 Malam Street, Glen Eden,

How much money was awarded in case 5299895?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299895?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299895?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12164548-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 6 Malam Street, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5299895 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of BOB ALLEN MAKAEA at Unit/Flat 6, 6 Malam Street, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord seeking a termination of the tenancy on the grounds of a threat of assault or alternatively a breach of a neighbour’s quiet enjoyment.
Both parties appeared at the hearing today which was convened by telephone.

BACKGROUND

There is no dispute between the parties as to the key events in this case.
Mr Makaea’s tenancy with Kāinga Ora commenced in April 2022.
On 14 June 2025, Mr Makaea was visiting a neighbour, and Mr Makaea states they were drinking, and then an event occurred which resulted in Mr Makaea leaving but coming back to the neighbour’s property and pouring petrol on the floor, and making a threat to ignite it. The Police were called and Mr Makaea was arrested. The Police summary describes the event as follows: Police took Formal Written Statement from [the Neighbour who] stated she invited her associate MAKAEA, BOB ALLEN who lives at ... to have drinks at her address. Both [the Neighbour] and Bob has been drinking alcohol since 14:30hrs. They both became intoxicated. Bob began mentioning his gang relations. A verbal argument ensued between the two and [the Neighbour] told Bob to leave. Bob refused and accused [the Neighbour] of stealing his bag. Bob left the address briefly and returned with a Jerry can. Bob proceeded to pour petrol on the floor inside the house. He presented a lighter at [the Neighbour] and stated "I'm going to burn your house down unless you give me my bag." While Bob was in Police custody in the back of the Police vehicle, he became belligerent to Police and made threats to kill Police.
The Neighbour has provided a signed statement to the landlord, which is consistent with the above Police record, but provided more detail. The Neighbour states: On Saturday 14/06/2025, Bob called her and asked what she was doing. She stated that she was going to have an early dinner and a beer. He asked if he could come over and have some drinks. She said she was reluctant as she wanted an early night. He came over and once it got to around 7 pm, she asked him to leave so she could have his dinner. He left hesitatingly. Then he came back and started saying that she had his bag. She said no, and asked him to check at home, as he left with it. He left and then barged in the door with a gas canister and said she had his bag. He poured the gas in the living room and around the table and said. “I am going to burn your house down unless you give me my bag”. She got onto the phone with the police immediately. He was still in the house. Police arrived immediately and Bob ran out of the house and they caught him. They arrested him immediately. She stated.FENZ came and aired out the kitchen and took out the bedroom carpet and sheets as the vapour caught it. They also turned off her power.[The Neighbour] has laid charges...
The Neighbour also described the effect this event had on her including that she has not been able to sleep because of what happened, and she is scared because Mr Makaea lives only one house away.
Mr Makaea has subsequently provided a fulsome and I accept, sincere written apology which I have considered.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord seeks a termination of the tenancy under section 55 on the grounds of the event set out above, and that was associated with a threat to burn the house down. The landlord notes that the tenant has not disputed the event.
The landlord alternately seeks a termination under section 56 of the RTA, in relation to a breach not capable of remedy.
In conclusion, it was submitted that while this was a one off event, the effect of the tenants’ actions if a fire had occurred could have been severe.

TENANTS CASE

The tenant states that the event occurred at a time when he was drinking. Mr Makaea states that this event was out of character for him, and he believes that the neighbour must have put pills in his drink. Mr Makaea states that the behaviour toward Police related to the handcuffs being tight.
However, Mr Makaea states that he was very sorry for his actions, and he has extended an apology to the neighbour. Mr Makaea wishes to continue with his tenancy.
Mr Makaea notes that he is caring for his son who has health issues, and he wishes to continue in this tenancy.
Mr Makaea also notes that he has not had alcohol for some 40 days.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

ANALYSIS

The landlord seeks an order terminating Mr Makaea’s tenancy on the basis of the events set out above, where the tenant poured petrol inside his neighbour’s house.
I begin by noting that there is no dispute between the parties that the event with the petrol occurred.
Mr Makaea stated at the hearing today, that he believes his actions had been out of character for him, and he suspects that his Neighbour had drugged his drink. It is difficult to know what to make of that allocation, because it is not recorded earlier in the other written material on the file, and I have received no evidence that credibly suggests Mr Makaea was drugged, as opposed to having simply been intoxicated. On balance there is insufficient evidence for me to accept this is a case of drink spiking.
The landlord has applied to terminate the tenancy on the basis of two provisions under the RTA, that is sections 55, and 56. Both of those provisions are termination provisions, and if they are established, the end result is the same - the Tenancy comes to an end. Section 55
Again section 55 of the RTA is a termination provision. This provision confirms that the Tribunal “shall” terminate the tenancy when certain circumstances arise, including when: (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)... (v)any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
In my assessment, the facts of this case would fall within the above provision. I consider that what has been described, would amount to Mr Makaea having threatened to assault his neighbour. Based on the circumstances described by the Neighbour, it must have been the reasonable inference that Mr Makaea was looking to set fire to the building at a time when the Neighbour was in it.
Justice Keane commented in Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court, 2004 CIV -409-717 Christchurch, 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 to, or be passed on to, the person to whom the threat relates. He also said that under the criminal law what must be proved is the intent that the threat be taken seriously by the person to whom it is made. How far that applies under the RTA is another question. However, the intent of section 55(1)(c) is to protect the classes of persons referred to such as the. In this context, the fact of a threat is enough.
I note that in this case it is plain that the neighbour has been significantly affected by what has occurred, as it has affected her sleep, and caused her to be scared living in her own home.
There is some limited discretion for the Tribunal to decline to order termination under section 55(2), but that would require that the breach has been remedied, the landlord compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and that it would be unlikely further breaches would occur.
In this case I am not convinced that the breach has been remedied. I have received no evidence from the Neighbour which would show that things have been made right by her. Further there is no evidence that any loss for the landlord has been compensated. I also do not have any evidence from an appropriate professional which shows that this event would be unlikely to arise in the future if a similar situation arose again. Therefore I could not exercise my limited statutory discretion to decline to order a termination of the tenancy.
I find that the criteria in section 55 have been established, and the result is that I must order termination of the tenancy. Section 56
However, in case I was wrong in my assessment of section 55, I have also considered whether the Tenancy should be terminated under section 56. Section 56 of the RTA is also a general termination provision. Section 56 allows the Tribunal to order a termination of the tenancy when: a. There has been a breach of an obligation under the tenancy agreement or RTA; and b. If the breach is capable of remedy, I notice has been given requiring the other party to remedy the breach within 14 days, and the party fails to do so; and c. The breach is of such a nature, or such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
Taking those considerations into account I am satisfied that there has been a breach of the tenant’s obligations under the RTA. The RTA prohibits a tenant from breaching the quiet enjoyment of their neighbours, and in particular section 40(2)(c) requires 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, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
There is no doubt that Mr Makaea’s actions have breached the Neighbours reasonable peace and comfort in her use of her premises.
While there will be occasions where a breach of quiet enjoyment could be remedied, this is not one of those, given the seriousness of the event, and the impact it has had on the tenant.
The question then become whether the breach is of such a nature or such an extent that it would make it inequitable not to terminate the tenancy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe), the Court needed to consider the extent of section 56(1)(c), the Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant in considering the inequitability consideration. There were seven factors in that case, which I will now consider: a. The history of the tenancy. There is no evidence before me that there is an adverse history in this tenancy, other than this single event. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. That is not relevant, because this is a single event. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. As noted above, I have no professional evidence on this factor. I note also that Mr Makaea seems to be shifting the blame for the situation to the Neighbour, but suggesting that she spiked his drink. That does not give confidence that Mr Makaea has owned the event, and is working toward avoiding factors that may cause it to occur again in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. The breach was deliberate. e. The conduct of the landlord. There are no adverse behaviours of the landlord here. The landlord has acted swiftly and entirely appropriately in the circumstances. f. The gravity of the breach. The gravity of the breach stands out in this case. The presenting risk was close to extreme. Mr Makaea had poured the petrol out into the dwelling, and he had a lighter and was making threats with it. There was also a risk of a fire arising from other ignition sources such as the units electrical system. The gravity of the breach is very high. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. Unfortunately for Mr Makaea, given the seriousness of the single breach, a termination would be proportionate.
For the reasons set out above, I conclude that a termination of the tenancy would be required following consideration of section 56 of the RTA also.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299895 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 6, 6 Malam Street, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299895 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 6, 6 Malam Street, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CASE

TENANTS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CASE

TENANTS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions