What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5472152?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Phillip John Treen at 669F Richardson Road, Mount Roskill,

How much money was awarded in case 5472152?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5472152?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5472152?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13383753-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5472152?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Phillip John Treen at 669F Richardson Road, Mount Roskill,

How much money was awarded in case 5472152?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5472152?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5472152?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13383753-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

669F Richardson Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5472152 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Phillip John Treen at 669F Richardson Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities immediately.
This order may be enforced immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by video conference. The landlord’s representative attended. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has assaulted a neighbour of the premises, the tenant has committed a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and the tenancy agreement and that it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy.
The premises are a unit is a small social housing development. The landlord relies on assaults of two of the other tenants in the development. One of the tenants who was assaulted gave evidence and a visitor who witnessed the assault on the other tenant also gave evidence. Relevant Law
Section 55(1)(c) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy where the tenant assaults a neighbour of the premises. The Tribunal may refuse to make an order if the breach has been remedied, the landlord has been compensated for the breach and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the kind to which the section applies.
Section 56 of the Act provides that where there has been a breach by the tenant, Tribunal may terminate the tenancy if it determines that due to the nature and extent of the breach it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Evidence
The first witness gave evidence about an incident she witnessed on 22 September 2025. She arrived in her car and saw the tenant hitting another tenant, who was on the ground, with a stick. The other tenant was using his arm to try to protect himself. She sounded her car horn and got out of her car and told the tenant to stop. The tenant did stop but then advanced towards her in an intimidating manner. The witness stood her ground, and the tenant then left the scene.
The witness described the tenant’s assault of the other tenant as horrific. The other tenant was not able to fight back and if he had not protected himself with his arm, the blows would have struck his head. His arm was badly injured by the attack, and he was taken to hospital.
The witness said that the tenant was both younger and stronger than the other tenant. The landlord said that the tenant, at 61 years of age, is the youngest tenant in the development. The other tenant is aged 72.
A Police report records the tenant as the victim of the incident. The landlord said that it is characteristic of this type of incident involving the tenant that he calls the Police. Whatever or whoever provoked this incident, beating a person with a stick while they are defenceless on the ground is unjustifiable.
The second incident was on 16 January 2026 and the other tenant who was the victim in that incident gave evidence with the help of an interpreter.
The other tenant said that he had come to check on his vegetable patch and he found the tenant using drugs and some of his vegetables had been uprooted. He asked the tenant what he was doing. The tenant then picked up a shovel and began hitting the other tenant with it. The other tenant, who is aged 83, asked the tenant to stop and let him get up so that they could fight without the weapon. The tenant carried on hitting him.
When the attack stopped, the tenant went home where he was found by his wife and daughter. They called the Police and Ambulance. The Police came and subsequently charged the tenant. The tenant said that the Police later told him that the tenant was convicted and served time in prison. Decision
I accept the evidence of the two witnesses unreservedly. One of the witnesses said that she saw the tenant loading a trailer with his belongings and it appeared that he was vacating the premises. He did not attend the hearing today to defend the application and it appears that he has seen the writing on the wall and accepted that he cannot remain living in the premises.
The tenant’s two attacks of the other tenants plainly engage s55(1)(c) of the Act. They cannot be remedied or compensated and there is no reason to think that the tenant would be unlikely to commit similar acts in the future.
It follows that I must terminate the tenancy.
I would also have terminated the tenancy under s56. Given the nature and extent of the breaches of both the Act and the tenancy agreement (the tenant must not interfere with the peace, comfort or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants), it would be inequitable (unfair) not to terminate the tenancy.
I end by thanking the witnesses who were resolute in their actions and by giving evidence today. I have not named them in this order to protect their privacy.

Order

The tenancy of Phillip John Treen at 669F Richardson Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities immediately.
This order may be enforced immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by video conference. The landlord’s representative attended. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has assaulted a neighbour of the premises, the tenant has committed a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and the tenancy agreement and that it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy.
The premises are a unit is a small social housing development. The landlord relies on assaults of two of the other tenants in the development. One of the tenants who was assaulted gave evidence and a visitor who witnessed the assault on the other tenant also gave evidence. Relevant Law
Section 55(1)(c) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy where the tenant assaults a neighbour of the premises. The Tribunal may refuse to make an order if the breach has been remedied, the landlord has been compensated for the breach and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of the kind to which the section applies.
Section 56 of the Act provides that where there has been a breach by the tenant, Tribunal may terminate the tenancy if it determines that due to the nature and extent of the breach it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Evidence
The first witness gave evidence about an incident she witnessed on 22 September 2025. She arrived in her car and saw the tenant hitting another tenant, who was on the ground, with a stick. The other tenant was using his arm to try to protect himself. She sounded her car horn and got out of her car and told the tenant to stop. The tenant did stop but then advanced towards her in an intimidating manner. The witness stood her ground, and the tenant then left the scene.
The witness described the tenant’s assault of the other tenant as horrific. The other tenant was not able to fight back and if he had not protected himself with his arm, the blows would have struck his head. His arm was badly injured by the attack, and he was taken to hospital.
The witness said that the tenant was both younger and stronger than the other tenant. The landlord said that the tenant, at 61 years of age, is the youngest tenant in the development. The other tenant is aged 72.
A Police report records the tenant as the victim of the incident. The landlord said that it is characteristic of this type of incident involving the tenant that he calls the Police. Whatever or whoever provoked this incident, beating a person with a stick while they are defenceless on the ground is unjustifiable.
The second incident was on 16 January 2026 and the other tenant who was the victim in that incident gave evidence with the help of an interpreter.
The other tenant said that he had come to check on his vegetable patch and he found the tenant using drugs and some of his vegetables had been uprooted. He asked the tenant what he was doing. The tenant then picked up a shovel and began hitting the other tenant with it. The other tenant, who is aged 83, asked the tenant to stop and let him get up so that they could fight without the weapon. The tenant carried on hitting him.
When the attack stopped, the tenant went home where he was found by his wife and daughter. They called the Police and Ambulance. The Police came and subsequently charged the tenant. The tenant said that the Police later told him that the tenant was convicted and served time in prison. Decision
I accept the evidence of the two witnesses unreservedly. One of the witnesses said that she saw the tenant loading a trailer with his belongings and it appeared that he was vacating the premises. He did not attend the hearing today to defend the application and it appears that he has seen the writing on the wall and accepted that he cannot remain living in the premises.
The tenant’s two attacks of the other tenants plainly engage s55(1)(c) of the Act. They cannot be remedied or compensated and there is no reason to think that the tenant would be unlikely to commit similar acts in the future.
It follows that I must terminate the tenancy.
I would also have terminated the tenancy under s56. Given the nature and extent of the breaches of both the Act and the tenancy agreement (the tenant must not interfere with the peace, comfort or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants), it would be inequitable (unfair) not to terminate the tenancy.
I end by thanking the witnesses who were resolute in their actions and by giving evidence today. I have not named them in this order to protect their privacy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5472152 — 14-day notice at 669F Richardson Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5472152 — 14-day notice at 669F Richardson Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

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