Landlord Ordered to Pay Tenant Following Reign of Terror at Kāinga Ora Property
A woman living in a Kāinga Ora property in New Zealand has been awarded $5000 in compensation after the Tenancy Tribunal found the social housing provider failed to adequately address ongoing harassment and threats from a neighbouring tenant. The case, which highlights the challenges faced by vulnerable tenants and the responsibilities of landlords, involved repeated abuse, threats with a machete, and a disturbing incident where the tenant’s grandson was nearly struck by a vehicle. The ruling underscores the legal obligations of landlords to ensure a safe and peaceful living environment for their tenants, even when dealing with complex and challenging situations.
The elderly Tongan woman, who has name suppression, had resided at the Kāinga Ora property since 2019. Her ordeal began with escalating harassment from a neighbouring tenant and her partner, including verbal abuse shouted across fences, threats of physical violence towards her and her family, and the deliberate disruption of her peace with loud music and thrown objects. The situation deteriorated to the point where the woman lived in constant fear, often remaining inside her home and avoiding contact with the outside world. Her health, already compromised by recent stroke and mobility issues, further contributed to her distress.
The tribunal’s decision, recently released, details a pattern of disturbing behaviour. According to evidence presented, the tenant reported numerous incidents to Kāinga Ora, including being sworn at in her driveway, having rocks thrown at her family, and being harassed when contacting the police. Three separate incidents prompted police intervention: on February 4, 2024, the male neighbour was reported as being hostile and shouting threats at the tenant’s front gate; on March 2, 2024, he was reported making threats while brandishing a machete at the same location; and on June 10, 2024, he allegedly threatened to kill the tenant’s son with a machete while working in the garden. While the man was charged with threatening to kill, he was ultimately convicted of a lesser charge related to the weapon.
Escalating Harassment and a Near Miss
The harassment extended beyond verbal threats. The woman’s daughter testified about a harrowing incident involving her 14-year-traditional son. While walking home from school, he was chased by the male neighbour in a car, which drove onto the grass verge in an attempt to hit him. The boy managed to escape by hiding behind a boat. This incident, coupled with the machete threat to her son, left the tenant living in a state of constant anxiety and fear. She reported feeling unable to freely move around her property and often stayed at her daughter’s home to cope with the situation.
Despite repeated complaints to Kāinga Ora, the tenant felt her concerns were not adequately addressed. The landlord’s response, she claimed, was to advise her and her family to avoid contact with the disruptive neighbours. Kāinga Ora acknowledged receiving reports of the issues but argued that terminating the neighbour’s tenancy was complicated. The organization stated that the male neighbour was not a listed tenant on the lease, and the threats were directed at the tenant’s son, not the tenant herself. Kāinga Ora explained that they did not meet the threshold for termination based on antisocial behaviour, as there had not been three incidents within a 90-day period, as required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Tribunal Ruling: Landlord Breached Obligations
Tribunal adjudicator Melissa Allan strongly disagreed with Kāinga Ora’s assessment. In her ruling, she stated that the tenant had been “left in a very difficult situation” and that Kāinga Ora should have initiated proceedings to terminate the neighbouring tenancy. Allan emphasized that proving a breach did not require criminal convictions, only demonstrating that the neighbour’s behaviour interfered with the tenant’s “reasonable peace, comfort and privacy” to an unacceptable degree. She found that Kāinga Ora had failed to fulfil its obligations as a landlord by not taking appropriate action to protect its tenant.
The adjudicator’s decision highlights a critical aspect of landlord-tenant law: the responsibility of landlords to proactively address disruptive behaviour that impacts the quality of life of other tenants. The ruling clarifies that landlords cannot simply advise tenants to avoid problematic neighbours; they must take concrete steps to resolve the situation, including pursuing termination of the offending tenancy when warranted. This case sets a precedent for similar situations, reinforcing the importance of landlords prioritizing the safety and well-being of their tenants.
Kāinga Ora was ordered to pay the tenant $5000 in compensation for the breach of its obligations. The organization has stated This proves now working to transfer the tenant to a more suitable property that better meets her current health needs. This case also prompted a review of Kāinga Ora’s approach to disruptive behaviour, as outlined in their disruptive behaviour policy, which aims to balance the needs of all tenants while ensuring a safe and respectful community environment.
Kāinga Ora’s Response and Broader Implications
Kāinga Ora, New Zealand’s largest provider of social housing, manages approximately 190,000 properties, with around 40% of residents being children and young people. The organization has faced increasing scrutiny regarding its handling of disruptive tenants and its commitment to ensuring the safety and well-being of all residents. The agency has stated it is committed to being a “good landlord” and has implemented a new approach to tenancy management, strengthening its response to disruptive behaviour. This includes escalating interventions for serious cases and seeking termination at the Tenancy Tribunal when necessary. However, this case demonstrates that even with updated policies, implementation and timely action remain crucial.
The ruling also raises broader questions about the challenges faced by social housing providers in balancing the rights of tenants while maintaining safe and harmonious communities. Finding solutions that address disruptive behaviour effectively, while also providing support to tenants facing complex social issues, requires a multifaceted approach. This includes collaboration with social services, mental health providers, and law enforcement agencies. The case serves as a reminder that ignoring disruptive behaviour can have severe consequences for vulnerable tenants and underscores the importance of proactive and decisive action by landlords.
The incident also highlights the potential for escalation when landlords fail to address tenant concerns promptly. What began as verbal harassment and minor disturbances spiralled into threats of violence and a genuine fear for safety. This underscores the need for landlords to take all complaints seriously and to investigate them thoroughly, taking appropriate action to protect their tenants. The $5000 compensation awarded to the tenant serves as a clear message that landlords will be held accountable for failing to uphold their legal obligations.
As of February 28, 2026, Kāinga Ora has not publicly commented on whether it will appeal the Tenancy Tribunal’s decision. The organization is currently focused on relocating the tenant to a more suitable property and reviewing its internal processes for handling complaints of disruptive behaviour. Further updates on this case, and any potential changes to Kāinga Ora’s policies, are expected in the coming months. Readers seeking information about their rights as tenants, or wishing to file a complaint with the Tenancy Tribunal, can identify resources on the Kāinga Ora website.
Do you have experience with similar issues? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below. Please also share this article with anyone who might find it helpful.
Related reading