What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5451339?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Darcel Honey Boell at Unit/Flat Unit 920, 139B Greys Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 5451339?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5451339?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5451339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13313340-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5451339?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Darcel Honey Boell at Unit/Flat Unit 920, 139B Greys Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 5451339?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5451339?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5451339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13313340-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 920, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5451339 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Darcel Honey Boell at Unit/Flat Unit 920, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely.
The landlord’s representative attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. The tenant is in custody. Corrections staff confirmed that the tenant had received documentation relating to the hearing and that they would facilitate the tenant’s attendance if she wished to be involved.
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 (v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and s.56 (1) RTA to terminate the tenancy.
The tenancy is of a studio unit in a multi-level apartment complex. There are 276 apartments. The tenancy commenced on 23 October 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 provided video evidence of all the incidents complained of.
On 9 February 2026 at approximately 2:10pm, Kāinga Ora staff heard yelling and a physical commotion at the main entrance of the apartment complex.
Upon attending, staff observed the tenant physically assaulting another tenant (“R”) from the complex. The tenant delivered repeated punches to his face while shouting profanity and claiming he owed her fifty dollars. A member of the public attempted to intervene while accompanied by a young child as well as staff who attempted to separate both tenants. The tenant became more aggressive, physically resisting attempts to be restrained.
A Kāinga Ora staff member was bitten on the arm by the tenant whilst attempting to de-escalate the situation.
The tenant then pursued R into the complex, where her behaviour continued. Another staff member, was also pushed amid the commotion while trying to create space and protect R from the tenant. The tenant began kicking the door to the Kahui Tu Kaha office (an inhouse service provider), attempting to force it open and damaged the glass. The tenant continued to scream and escalate the situation, despite multiple attempts by staff and other witnesses to calm her down.
Police were contacted and the tenant was arrested without further issue. Termination The law
The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(iii) and (v) 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:... (iii) any agent of the landlord; (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitutes 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 not only assaulted R by punching and slapping him many times but also bit the KO staff member when he tried to intervene to calm matters. The video evidence suggests that both R and the staff showed a great deal of patience in attempting to de-escalate the situation. The staff members are to be commended for their actions. The staff member who was bitten received medical treatment but thankfully the bite did not become infected.
The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of s. 55(1)(c)(iii) and (v) 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 assaults that took place as extremely serious and unprovoked. Evidence provided by the landlord shows that there has been a pattern of behaviour involving the tenant over the brief term of the tenancy. The tenancy has only lasted a matter of months and the tenant’s violent behaviour seems to be escalating. Anti-social behaviour notices have previously been issued. 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)(iii) and (v) 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 making an application under section 56 RTA to terminate the tenancy for breaches of the tenant’s obligations under section 40(2)(c) of the RTA as well as breaching clause 9 of her Tenancy Agreement.
Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA states 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. Clause 9 of her Tenancy Agreement also states “you need to respect the peace, comfort and privacy of your neighbours.”
As well as the assault incident on 9 February 2026, there have been other recorded instances where the tenant has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of other residents.
Two incidents occurred on 19 November 2025 involving the tenant and R. One in the communal computer room and the other on the footpath at the front of the complex where both a physical and verbal altercation had taken place. Despite multiple attempts by staff to de-escalate, the tenant continued to approach R and cause disturbances to staff and other residents. The tenant advised staff that it was because she did not have any alcohol. A section 40(2)(c) notice was issued for this incident.
On 31 January 2026 at around 12:31am, staff heard a loud commotion coming from the computer room. CCTV was monitored and the tenant was seen acting erratically, throwing her handbag against the wall and being involved in a heated verbal altercation with R. This turned into a physical altercation with the tenant advancing towards R. As R tried to leave the room, the tenant pushed him, pulled on his shirt and blocked the exit. Staff tried to de-escalate the situation, however, the tenant told them to “fuck off.”
Shortly after, both parties were seen exiting the computer room and entering the lifts where the tenant was observed pushing and pulling R. Staff were able to separate both residents before the tenant finally left the building urging staff to contact the police and to end her tenancy.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has breached her obligations by Interfering with the neighbours’ peace, comfort and privacy by acting in an intimidating, aggressive, and threatening manner towards R.
These continuous and repeated breaches are ongoing and impacting on the right to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of other Kāinga Ora tenants in the complex. It would be inequitable of the Tribunal to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5451339 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 920, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5451339 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Unit 920, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

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