What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5503248?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of David Straker at Unit/Flat 26, 7 Rowlands Avenue, Mount

How much money was awarded in case 5503248?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5503248?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5503248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13679206-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5503248?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of David Straker at Unit/Flat 26, 7 Rowlands Avenue, Mount

How much money was awarded in case 5503248?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5503248?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5503248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13679206-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 26, 7 Rowlands Avenue, Mount Wellington, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5503248 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of David Straker at Unit/Flat 26, 7 Rowlands Avenue, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm on Friday 5 June 2026.

Reasons

The applicant attended the hearing. The respondent did not.
Kāinga Ora seeks termination of this tenancy on two grounds. Termination under Section 55A
The first ground is under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. That section provides that a landlord may seek an order from the Tribunal terminating a tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour if, on three separate occasions within a 90-day period, the tenant engaged in, or threatened to engage in, anti- social behaviour, and on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice.
I am satisfied that the landlord issued three notices that are appropriately characterised as anti-social behaviour notices.
The first two notices relate to telephone calls made by the tenant to the call centre. In the first phone call Mr Straker threatens to assault and kill his neighbour. In the second, Mr Straker makes inappropriate references, including racial slurs and Nazi-related references, as part of a request to have a new housing manager assigned to him.
The third incident relates to an occasion when two Kāinga Ora staff members attended the property to conduct an inspection. Police officers observed the visit from several metres away in case the situation deteriorated. During that interaction, the tenant again used racist and inappropriate language and swore at the staff members. As the staff members were leaving, the tenant threw what appeared to the staff member to be a butter knife, but it did not make contact with either staff member as they had sufficient time to close the glass door. The item made contact with the glass door.
The first incident occurred on 16 January 2026, the second on 9 March 2026, and the third on 27 March 2026. The notice relating to the third incident was not issued until 30 April 2026, 34 days after the incident and 104 days after the first incident relied upon by Kāinga Ora.
The criteria in section 55A are time-bound. Whilst the Act does not prescribe a specific timeframe within which a notice must be issued following the relevant conduct it does provide a 90 day period within which all 3 incidents must occur to access termination under these provisions.
It is unclear why Kāinga Ora delayed issuing the third notice for 34 days. Whatever the explanation, that delay sits uneasily with the urgency inherent in the statutory scheme and undermines the proposition that immediate intervention was required.
In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the third notice can properly be relied upon for the purposes of section 55A. By the time it was issued, 104 days had elapsed since the first incident relied upon by Kāinga Ora. The chronology is difficult to reconcile with the prompt and escalating response contemplated by section 55A. Accordingly, termination under section 55A is not available. Termination under Section 55(1)(c)
The second ground upon which Kāinga Ora seeks termination is section 55(1)(c) of the Act, which provides for termination where the tenant has assaulted, or threatened to assault, a neighbour of the premises or the landlord.
The section 55(1)(c) application relies primarily on the third incident, and in particular the throwing of the butter knife, as conduct said to satisfy the criteria of that provision.
I do not consider that the events of 27 March 2026 satisfy section 55(1)(c) or amount to a threat to assault the staff members. The descriptions provided by the police officers and the two staff members suggest, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Straker showed restraint and threw the butter knife only once there was a physical barrier between himself and the staff members and the force of the object was broken by glass which did not break. Whilst the behaviour was wholly inappropriate, I am not satisfied that it amounted to an assault or threat to assault within the meaning of section 55(1)(c).
However, whilst the incident of 27 March 2026 does not meet the criteria of section 55(1)(c), I am satisfied that the incident of 16 January 2026, which was the subject of the first anti-social behaviour notice, did amount to a threat to assault.
During that call, Mr Straker stated in relation to his neighbour: "If she passes my flat and gawks at me next time, she is getting a knife in her skull. Any more shit, things are going to escalate with violence. You'll see blue uniforms all over the place. Tell her to stay the f*** away from me. Next time I'll chuck a knife into her. Bought a new knife was in the army."
I am satisfied that these statements amounted to a threat to assault.
The pattern of behaviour following 16 January 2026 further demonstrates that Mr Straker's conduct is volatile. In those circumstances, it would be inappropriate to refuse termination where Parliament has provided these grounds specifically to protect neighbours, landlords, and other tenants from unacceptable risks to safety and quiet enjoyment of their homes. Conduct of Kāinga Ora:
I make the following observations concerning Kāinga Ora's conduct of this matter.
In determining this application, I have carefully considered whether the statutory grounds for termination have been established. These orders are made to give effect to the protections provided by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 for landlords, neighbours, and other tenants.
I note that the third anti-social behaviour notice was issued 34 days after the events of 27 March 2026 and more than three months after the threat made on 16 January 2026. Whilst the Act does not prescribe a timeframe within which such notices must be issued, those delays are difficult to reconcile with the time- sensitive nature of the anti-social behaviour regime in section 55A and the urgency that the applicant submits that I should end the tenancy.
It is careful consideration of these competing features of the evidence and the landlord's submission that has caused me to hesitate before reaching this decision.
Ultimately, however, the threat made on 16 January 2026 was serious, explicit, and involved threatened violence with a knife. Considered alongside the subsequent conduct, I am satisfied that termination is justified under section 55(1)(c).

Order

The tenancy of David Straker at Unit/Flat 26, 7 Rowlands Avenue, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm on Friday 5 June 2026.

Reasons

The applicant attended the hearing. The respondent did not.
Kāinga Ora seeks termination of this tenancy on two grounds. Termination under Section 55A
The first ground is under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. That section provides that a landlord may seek an order from the Tribunal terminating a tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour if, on three separate occasions within a 90-day period, the tenant engaged in, or threatened to engage in, anti- social behaviour, and on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice.
I am satisfied that the landlord issued three notices that are appropriately characterised as anti-social behaviour notices.
The first two notices relate to telephone calls made by the tenant to the call centre. In the first phone call Mr Straker threatens to assault and kill his neighbour. In the second, Mr Straker makes inappropriate references, including racial slurs and Nazi-related references, as part of a request to have a new housing manager assigned to him.
The third incident relates to an occasion when two Kāinga Ora staff members attended the property to conduct an inspection. Police officers observed the visit from several metres away in case the situation deteriorated. During that interaction, the tenant again used racist and inappropriate language and swore at the staff members. As the staff members were leaving, the tenant threw what appeared to the staff member to be a butter knife, but it did not make contact with either staff member as they had sufficient time to close the glass door. The item made contact with the glass door.
The first incident occurred on 16 January 2026, the second on 9 March 2026, and the third on 27 March 2026. The notice relating to the third incident was not issued until 30 April 2026, 34 days after the incident and 104 days after the first incident relied upon by Kāinga Ora.
The criteria in section 55A are time-bound. Whilst the Act does not prescribe a specific timeframe within which a notice must be issued following the relevant conduct it does provide a 90 day period within which all 3 incidents must occur to access termination under these provisions.
It is unclear why Kāinga Ora delayed issuing the third notice for 34 days. Whatever the explanation, that delay sits uneasily with the urgency inherent in the statutory scheme and undermines the proposition that immediate intervention was required.
In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the third notice can properly be relied upon for the purposes of section 55A. By the time it was issued, 104 days had elapsed since the first incident relied upon by Kāinga Ora. The chronology is difficult to reconcile with the prompt and escalating response contemplated by section 55A. Accordingly, termination under section 55A is not available. Termination under Section 55(1)(c)
The second ground upon which Kāinga Ora seeks termination is section 55(1)(c) of the Act, which provides for termination where the tenant has assaulted, or threatened to assault, a neighbour of the premises or the landlord.
The section 55(1)(c) application relies primarily on the third incident, and in particular the throwing of the butter knife, as conduct said to satisfy the criteria of that provision.
I do not consider that the events of 27 March 2026 satisfy section 55(1)(c) or amount to a threat to assault the staff members. The descriptions provided by the police officers and the two staff members suggest, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Straker showed restraint and threw the butter knife only once there was a physical barrier between himself and the staff members and the force of the object was broken by glass which did not break. Whilst the behaviour was wholly inappropriate, I am not satisfied that it amounted to an assault or threat to assault within the meaning of section 55(1)(c).
However, whilst the incident of 27 March 2026 does not meet the criteria of section 55(1)(c), I am satisfied that the incident of 16 January 2026, which was the subject of the first anti-social behaviour notice, did amount to a threat to assault.
During that call, Mr Straker stated in relation to his neighbour: "If she passes my flat and gawks at me next time, she is getting a knife in her skull. Any more shit, things are going to escalate with violence. You'll see blue uniforms all over the place. Tell her to stay the f*** away from me. Next time I'll chuck a knife into her. Bought a new knife was in the army."
I am satisfied that these statements amounted to a threat to assault.
The pattern of behaviour following 16 January 2026 further demonstrates that Mr Straker's conduct is volatile. In those circumstances, it would be inappropriate to refuse termination where Parliament has provided these grounds specifically to protect neighbours, landlords, and other tenants from unacceptable risks to safety and quiet enjoyment of their homes. Conduct of Kāinga Ora:
I make the following observations concerning Kāinga Ora's conduct of this matter.
In determining this application, I have carefully considered whether the statutory grounds for termination have been established. These orders are made to give effect to the protections provided by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 for landlords, neighbours, and other tenants.
I note that the third anti-social behaviour notice was issued 34 days after the events of 27 March 2026 and more than three months after the threat made on 16 January 2026. Whilst the Act does not prescribe a timeframe within which such notices must be issued, those delays are difficult to reconcile with the time- sensitive nature of the anti-social behaviour regime in section 55A and the urgency that the applicant submits that I should end the tenancy.
It is careful consideration of these competing features of the evidence and the landlord's submission that has caused me to hesitate before reaching this decision.
Ultimately, however, the threat made on 16 January 2026 was serious, explicit, and involved threatened violence with a knife. Considered alongside the subsequent conduct, I am satisfied that termination is justified under section 55(1)(c).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5503248 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 26, 7 Rowlands Avenue, Mount Wellington,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5503248 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 26, 7 Rowlands Avenue, Mount Wellington,

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