What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5480479?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Teremoana Uriake Taokia at Unit/Flat Unit 420, 139B Greys

How much money was awarded in case 5480479?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5480479?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5480479?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13483930-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5480479?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Teremoana Uriake Taokia at Unit/Flat Unit 420, 139B Greys

How much money was awarded in case 5480479?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5480479?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5480479?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13483930-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 420, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5480479 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenancy of Teremoana Uriake Taokia at Unit/Flat Unit 420, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 pm on Sunday 3 May 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video-conference. The landlord was represented by Ms Eder. Mr Taokia joined the hearing at 9.46 am with his support people. Mr Taokia’s support people were William (service manager at Kahui tu Kaha), Afo (primary support worker for Mr Taokia at Kahui tu Kaha), and Rodney (drug and alcohol counsellor at Kahui tu Kaha).
When Mr Taokia joined the hearing, he was told what had been discussed before he joined.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating Mr Taokia’s periodic tenancy because of anti-social behaviour. See the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) section 55A.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant engaged in anti- social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of his right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
The landlord states that the three incidents of anti-social behaviour are as follows: a. 9 February 2026. At 2.40 am loud music was coming from Mr Taokia’s unit. Another tenant made a complaint to the landlord. The landlord attended and knocked on the door. Noise control attended twice and knocked on the door. The volume of the music increased. Police attended later in the day and Mr Taokia’s stereo was seized. b. 14 February 2026. At 4.37 pm Mr Taokia was drinking alcoholic beverages at the entrance to the premises and being abusive to other tenants and visitors. When staff tried to intervene, Mr Taokia escalated his behaviour and became even more aggressive leading to a violent encounter. c. 26 February 2026. Early in the afternoon Mr Taokia was intoxicated and being verbally antagonistic to another tenant. Eventually a fight broke out. When staff intervened Mr Taokia was abusive to staff. Later on the same day staff were alerted to Mr Taokia being verbally abusive to other residents, including calling female tenants “sluts” and “whores”. Staff intervened but were unable to de-escalate the situation. Police were called and were similarly unable to get compliance from Mr Taokia. Mr Taokia was eventually arrested and taken into custody.
For each breach, the landlord served notices that comply with the RTA.
In response Mr Taokia said he couldn’t remember much about any of the incidents, but that he apologised for his part in all of the incidents. He said he would like to get together face to face to talk about the claim.
Mr Taokia’s support people each spoke and the consensus was that Mr Taokia is a good person and the only time situations turn bad is when he is intoxicated. Strategies have been implemented to address the drivers of Mr Taokia’s alcohol use.
Ms Eder said that she appreciated Mr Taokia had begun addressing his alcohol use, but the anti-social incidents were continuing on a regular basis, including three incidents in the last two weeks.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above. I am satisfied that each of the events involved Mr Taokia causing alarm, and/or distress, and/or nuisance, in connection with the tenancy.
The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I am satisfied the claim is proved to the standard of on the balance of probabilities.

Order

The tenancy of Teremoana Uriake Taokia at Unit/Flat Unit 420, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 pm on Sunday 3 May 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video-conference. The landlord was represented by Ms Eder. Mr Taokia joined the hearing at 9.46 am with his support people. Mr Taokia’s support people were William (service manager at Kahui tu Kaha), Afo (primary support worker for Mr Taokia at Kahui tu Kaha), and Rodney (drug and alcohol counsellor at Kahui tu Kaha).
When Mr Taokia joined the hearing, he was told what had been discussed before he joined.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating Mr Taokia’s periodic tenancy because of anti-social behaviour. See the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) section 55A.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant engaged in anti- social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of his right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
The landlord states that the three incidents of anti-social behaviour are as follows: a. 9 February 2026. At 2.40 am loud music was coming from Mr Taokia’s unit. Another tenant made a complaint to the landlord. The landlord attended and knocked on the door. Noise control attended twice and knocked on the door. The volume of the music increased. Police attended later in the day and Mr Taokia’s stereo was seized. b. 14 February 2026. At 4.37 pm Mr Taokia was drinking alcoholic beverages at the entrance to the premises and being abusive to other tenants and visitors. When staff tried to intervene, Mr Taokia escalated his behaviour and became even more aggressive leading to a violent encounter. c. 26 February 2026. Early in the afternoon Mr Taokia was intoxicated and being verbally antagonistic to another tenant. Eventually a fight broke out. When staff intervened Mr Taokia was abusive to staff. Later on the same day staff were alerted to Mr Taokia being verbally abusive to other residents, including calling female tenants “sluts” and “whores”. Staff intervened but were unable to de-escalate the situation. Police were called and were similarly unable to get compliance from Mr Taokia. Mr Taokia was eventually arrested and taken into custody.
For each breach, the landlord served notices that comply with the RTA.
In response Mr Taokia said he couldn’t remember much about any of the incidents, but that he apologised for his part in all of the incidents. He said he would like to get together face to face to talk about the claim.
Mr Taokia’s support people each spoke and the consensus was that Mr Taokia is a good person and the only time situations turn bad is when he is intoxicated. Strategies have been implemented to address the drivers of Mr Taokia’s alcohol use.
Ms Eder said that she appreciated Mr Taokia had begun addressing his alcohol use, but the anti-social incidents were continuing on a regular basis, including three incidents in the last two weeks.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above. I am satisfied that each of the events involved Mr Taokia causing alarm, and/or distress, and/or nuisance, in connection with the tenancy.
The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I am satisfied the claim is proved to the standard of on the balance of probabilities.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5480479 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 420, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5480479 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 420, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions