A Glen Innes resident whose latest bid to keep her home failed, plans to take her battle to the Court of Appeal after the High Court at Auckland dismissed her latest appeal.

Meanwhile her supporters are rallying to her side and plan to once again camp at the sickness beneficiary's home in Tamaki.

Ioela (Niki) Rauti has been fighting to keep her Tamaki state house of more than two decades from developers who want to demolish it to make way for new homes.

Her latest appeal relates to a notice of termination served by Tamaki Housing Association, on behalf of the property owners, Tamaki Regeneration Ltd.

Advertisement

In February the Tenancy Tribunal granted a possession order of her Taniwha St home to the housing development company, TRL.

An appeal of the tribunal decision in the District Court at Auckland, in May, was unsuccessful. This was followed by another unsuccessful appeal heard in the High Court at Auckland last week.

Rauti has announced she also plans to appeal this latest decision after being notified yesterday afternoon the High Court judge had ruled to uphold the possession order.

"We will continue this struggle to protect our community and the vulnerable people including our sick and elderly. We intend to appeal this decision," she said.

Both sides in the legal fight appeared to hang the argument on a technicality: if Tamaki Regeneration Ltd had been appropriately identified as the landlord and what bearing this had on her tenancy termination.

Rauti's lawyer, Justin Harder, also questioned whether TRL, a subsidiary of Tamaki Redevelopment Company, was the legally appropriate body to serve notice and if Tamaki Housing was the appropriate agent to deliver it.

He said this needed to have been made clear to his client when the notice was served.
The lawyer for the respondent, TRL, stood by the District Court's ruling and said even if there had been a clearer distinction between the various bodies the outcome would have been the same.

"It was minor and technical and no breach that should invalidate a notice to terminate."

He said at no point was the tenant unable to communicate with TRL, she had been aware her house had been sold by HNZ and the new landlords were willing to rehouse her.

The lawyer said despite some confusion between the various bodies this should not be enough to invalidate the notice.

Justice Graham Lang found the question revolved around whether Rauti had been sufficiently told by the Housing Corporation of New Zealand (HCNZ) that it had transferred her tenancy to TRL, and whether TRL had then given sufficient notice asking her to leave.

He found that it had.

Her house is one of 2500 houses Tamaki Redevelopment Company, TRL's parent company, has pinpointed to be replaced with thousands of new homes over the coming years.

The company wants the house and her land for redevelopment but Rauti has so far refused to leave, despite orders to do so and offers of alternative houses nearby.

The house was leased to Rauti in 1999 after the death of her mother, who had lived there since the 1980s.

Rauti said alternative homes offered were not suitable for her needs - they were too damp or the two-storeyed homes were too difficult for her to access.

Tamaki Regeneration Company housing general manager Neil Porteous said work would be done to gain legal possession of the house.

However, the timelines for this were not within its control.

"We recognise this is a challenging time for Ms Rauti but TRC has been transparent with her about the redevelopment plans and tried to communicate with her at every opportunity," he said.

Porteous said the company still stood by its offer to rehouse her and invited Rauti to see the property, which was 500m from her current house.