Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5495930 — 14-day notice at 12 Verner Place, Conifer Grove, Takanini 2112

Published 14 May 2026 · Application 5495930

Mixed / unclear

14-day notice
Harassment

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Mixed / unclear

From published order

Location

Takanini

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

S Young

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

The tenancy of Alicia-Jan Maxwell at 12 Verner Place, Conifer Grove, Takanini 2112 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 by Teams video link or by phone. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy. The landlord relies on section 55(1)(c)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and in the alternative, s.55B RTA to terminate the tenancy .
The tenancy commenced on 13 March 2017.
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, the Tribunal requires evidence of a sufficiently high standard to meet the burden. Landlord’s evidence
The tenant is the sole tenant of a four-bedroom, standalone property and lives at the property with her four children.
The landlord explained that there has been an ongoing history of issues between the tenant and their staff members and contractors.
On 10 February 2026, the landlord sent an e-mail notification to the tenant informing her of a planned upcoming visit to the tenant’s premises on 13 February 2026.
On 11 February 2026, the tenant sent an e-mail to the tenancy manager. The email states “You came to my home months ago with a locksmith tried to break into our home, threatening our lives, I’m going to kill you.”
On 12 February 2026, the tenant followed up her earlier email with a further email That email states “Why have we not met at tenancy tribunal yet? You continue to be inappropriate...i feel yous are perverts...I need you to bring paper highlighting that it was legal for you to bring a locksmith here that time? I see you tomorrow at my gate....otherwise second attempt of trespassing in our home, second attempt you going to break into our home, stand overs, therefore I have the right to self defence for my kids home !!!”(sic).
The landlord informed the Police of the tenant’s threat to kill. No charges have been laid by the Police.
An anti-social behaviour notice under s.55A RTA was served on the tenant by the landlord in relation to the threat. The tenant has not challenged that notice.
The staff member who received the threat (“Ms A”) provided a witness statement confirming what had occurred. Ms A said; The wording of the threat, together with the tone and circumstances in which it was made, caused me to believe that the threat was genuine and that there was a real risk it could be carried out. At the time the threat was made, I was at work. I experienced immediate fear for my personal safety and had to leave office. Since receiving this threat, I have suffered ongoing fear, anxiety, and emotional distress. I no longer feel safe and remain constantly concerned about the possibility of harm being caused to me. I had to seek counselling through EAP services. This incident has had a significant impact on my day-to-day life. In particular: a) I experience ongoing anxiety and heightened vigilance; b) My sense of safety within my community has been compromised; c) Disturbed sleep & increased stress with fear for my safety. Given the nature of the threat, I remain concerned about the defendant’s capacity and willingness to act on what was said.
The tenant provided the Tribunal with her view on the incident in writing. The tenant does not dispute having made the threat to kill but says that the threat was justified. The tenant said that she felt harassed by the landlord’s staff. The tenant says “ There would be something wrong if I didn’t react how I did, all throughout!!! Allow that upon us n do n say nothing!!!!! warning warning!! Warning them, to sort asap...they offered no mediation!! they want to kill our spirit!! hence my warning in my email, saying I’m going to kill you...knowing that they think they have the final nail in my coffin....”(sic). Termination The law
The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(iii) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for a threatened 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:... (v) any agent of the landlord; (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 R v Meek [1981] 1 NZLR 499 (CA) the Court discussed what is meant by “threatened to assault” and considered 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 passed on to the person to whom the threat relates.”
See also Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd [2004] NZAR 665, at [29] – [30], where the High Court, quoting the above dicta, added: “Under the criminal law, what does have to be proved is the intent that the threat be taken seriously by the person to whom it was made. But how far that applies under this Act is another question. The intent of s55 is to protect the classes of persons to whom it refers: the landlord, the landlord’s family or agents, and indeed other occupiers. In this context, the fact of a threat has to be enough.”
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 threatened to kill Ms A, a staff member of the landlord. That the threat is to kill, not simply assault the staff member, is a particularly aggravating factor.
The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of s. 55(1)(c)(iii) 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.
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 consider the following history of the tenancy to be relevant. a. On 20 November 2025, Ms Maxwell became verbally abusive towards staff who were onsite to follow out an inspection. Ms Maxwell used offensive language while leaning out the front facing window. Ms Maxwell told the tenancy managers to “Fuck Off.” A section 55A notice was issued. b. On 24 November 2025, Ms Maxwell sent an aggressive email to Kāinga Ora that included the indirect threat of “if that’s an actual procedure of Kāinga that risks the lives of staff you could get killed, imagine breaking in and then the tenant is in the bath n gets out their gun n shoots you.” This was reported to police. The context of this email related to an inspection in which Kāinga Ora staff had visited the tenancy with a locksmith in order to gain entry. This followed previous unsuccessful attempts to inspect the premises. The tenant had been provided due notice of the inspection in accordance with the Act. c. The above firearm threat caused the Kāinga Office to enter lockdown until Police confirmed they had spoken with Ms Maxwell and assessed safety. d. In September 2024, Ms Maxwell showed aggressive behaviour by refusal of works and verbal abuse while Kāinga Ora were undertaking a maintenance visit. e. On 13 September 2024, a contractor reported to Kāinga Ora that upon his arrival Ms Maxwell was volatile, made racist remarks and was verbally abusive. f. In June 2024, Ms Maxwell attempted to extort $2000.00 from a Kāinga Ora contractor in exchange for withdrawing a complaint. g. The evidence provided by the tenant to the Tribunal includes ongoing abuse aimed at the landlord and its staff members.
The threat made by the tenant is the most serious of all possible threats to assault. Nothing that the landlord’s staff members may have said or done justifies a threat of this nature.
The tenant’s evidence indicates that she has no insight into the effect of her behaviour. Evidence provided by the landlord shows that there has been a pattern of behaviour involving the tenant over the term of the tenancy. An anti-social behaviour notice has previously been issued. In light of that evidence, 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) RTA and I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The tenancy is terminated.
Having ordered the termination under s.55(1)(c)(iii) RTA, I am not required to consider the application for termination by the landlord under s.55B RTA.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

14-day notice Harassment Takanini

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s2(1), s21, s55, s55(1), s55(2), s55A, s78A(3)

Key findings

Dispute theme: termination 14day
Dispute theme: harassment

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5495930?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Alicia-Jan Maxwell at 12 Verner Place, Conifer Grove, Takanini

How much money was awarded in case 5495930?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5495930?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5495930?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13597287-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely.

The landlord’s representative attended the hearing.

The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link or by phone. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy. The landlord relies on section 55(1)(c)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and in the alternative, s.55B RTA to terminate the tenancy .

The tenancy commenced on 13 March 2017.

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, the Tribunal requires evidence of a sufficiently high standard to meet the burden. Landlord’s evidence

The tenant is the sole tenant of a four-bedroom, standalone property and lives at the property with her four children.

The landlord explained that there has been an ongoing history of issues between the tenant and their staff members and contractors.

On 10 February 2026, the landlord sent an e-mail notification to the tenant informing her of a planned upcoming visit to the tenant’s premises on 13 February 2026.

On 11 February 2026, the tenant sent an e-mail to the tenancy manager. The email states “You came to my home months ago with a locksmith tried to break into our home, threatening our lives, I’m going to kill you.”

On 12 February 2026, the tenant followed up her earlier email with a further email That email states “Why have we not met at tenancy tribunal yet? You continue to be inappropriate...i feel yous are perverts...I need you to bring paper highlighting that it was legal for you to bring a locksmith here that time? I see you tomorrow at my gate....otherwise second attempt of trespassing in our home, second attempt you going to break into our home, stand overs, therefore I have the right to self defence for my kids home !!!”(sic).

The landlord informed the Police of the tenant’s threat to kill. No charges have been laid by the Police.

An anti-social behaviour notice under s.55A RTA was served on the tenant by the landlord in relation to the threat. The tenant has not challenged that notice.

The staff member who received the threat (“Ms A”) provided a witness statement confirming what had occurred. Ms A said; The wording of the threat, together with the tone and circumstances in which it was made, caused me to believe that the threat was genuine and that there was a real risk it could be carried out. At the time the threat was made, I was at work. I experienced immediate fear for my personal safety and had to leave office. Since receiving this threat, I have suffered ongoing fear, anxiety, and emotional distress. I no longer feel safe and remain constantly concerned about the possibility of harm being caused to me. I had to seek counselling through EAP services. This incident has had a significant impact on my day-to-day life. In particular: a) I experience ongoing anxiety and heightened vigilance; b) My sense of safety within my community has been compromised; c) Disturbed sleep & increased stress with fear for my safety. Given the nature of the threat, I remain concerned about the defendant’s capacity and willingness to act on what was said.

The tenant provided the Tribunal with her view on the incident in writing. The tenant does not dispute having made the threat to kill but says that the threat was justified. The tenant said that she felt harassed by the landlord’s staff. The tenant says “ There would be something wrong if I didn’t react how I did, all throughout!!! Allow that upon us n do n say nothing!!!!! warning warning!! Warning them, to sort asap...they offered no mediation!! they want to kill our spirit!! hence my warning in my email, saying I’m going to kill you...knowing that they think they have the final nail in my coffin....”(sic). Termination The law

The landlord seeks termination under section 55(1)(c)(iii) RTA. This section provides for the termination of tenancies for a threatened 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:... (v) any agent of the landlord; (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 R v Meek [1981] 1 NZLR 499 (CA) the Court discussed what is meant by “threatened to assault” and considered 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 passed on to the person to whom the threat relates.”

See also Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd [2004] NZAR 665, at [29] – [30], where the High Court, quoting the above dicta, added: “Under the criminal law, what does have to be proved is the intent that the threat be taken seriously by the person to whom it was made. But how far that applies under this Act is another question. The intent of s55 is to protect the classes of persons to whom it refers: the landlord, the landlord’s family or agents, and indeed other occupiers. In this context, the fact of a threat has to be enough.”

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 threatened to kill Ms A, a staff member of the landlord. That the threat is to kill, not simply assault the staff member, is a particularly aggravating factor.

The landlord has therefore proven to the required standard that the requirements of s. 55(1)(c)(iii) 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.

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 consider the following history of the tenancy to be relevant. a. On 20 November 2025, Ms Maxwell became verbally abusive towards staff who were onsite to follow out an inspection. Ms Maxwell used offensive language while leaning out the front facing window. Ms Maxwell told the tenancy managers to “Fuck Off.” A section 55A notice was issued. b. On 24 November 2025, Ms Maxwell sent an aggressive email to Kāinga Ora that included the indirect threat of “if that’s an actual procedure of Kāinga that risks the lives of staff you could get killed, imagine breaking in and then the tenant is in the bath n gets out their gun n shoots you.” This was reported to police. The context of this email related to an inspection in which Kāinga Ora staff had visited the tenancy with a locksmith in order to gain entry. This followed previous unsuccessful attempts to inspect the premises. The tenant had been provided due notice of the inspection in accordance with the Act. c. The above firearm threat caused the Kāinga Office to enter lockdown until Police confirmed they had spoken with Ms Maxwell and assessed safety. d. In September 2024, Ms Maxwell showed aggressive behaviour by refusal of works and verbal abuse while Kāinga Ora were undertaking a maintenance visit. e. On 13 September 2024, a contractor reported to Kāinga Ora that upon his arrival Ms Maxwell was volatile, made racist remarks and was verbally abusive. f. In June 2024, Ms Maxwell attempted to extort $2000.00 from a Kāinga Ora contractor in exchange for withdrawing a complaint. g. The evidence provided by the tenant to the Tribunal includes ongoing abuse aimed at the landlord and its staff members.

The threat made by the tenant is the most serious of all possible threats to assault. Nothing that the landlord’s staff members may have said or done justifies a threat of this nature.

The tenant’s evidence indicates that she has no insight into the effect of her behaviour. Evidence provided by the landlord shows that there has been a pattern of behaviour involving the tenant over the term of the tenancy. An anti-social behaviour notice has previously been issued. In light of that evidence, 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) RTA and I decline to exercise my discretion to not terminate the tenancy under section 55(2) RTA. The tenancy is terminated.

Having ordered the termination under s.55(1)(c)(iii) RTA, I am not required to consider the application for termination by the landlord under s.55B RTA.