A Kāinga Ora tenant claimed his apartment was burglarised by his neighbour or her associates following a dispute. Photo / 123RF
A dispute between two neighbours in Kāinga Ora properties has led to court and tribunal action following threats, and allegations of an assault and a retaliatory burglary.
One of the tenants had complained to the Government landlord in early November last year about children from the neighbouring apartment “causing noise and nuisance in the stairwells”.
Later that month, on November 10, an altercation occurred between the man, who had raised the concern, and his neighbour’s mother.
He claimed that following a “verbal exchange”, the woman called on “a mob of associates” who came to the premises and threatened him.
The police were called and the man was subsequently arrested for assault with a weapon.
It was alleged he had assaulted someone with a door, but that charge was later downgraded to common assault, which he planned to defend.
The man went on to claim that while he was in custody for the alleged assault, the neighbour or her associates broke into his apartment and smashed and stole valuable property.
A complaint was made to the police but there was not enough evidence to lay charges.
The man claimed that the “lack of investigation” into the alleged burglary was because police were at fault for not securing his apartment when they arrested him, allowing it to occur.
A complaint he lodged with the Independent Police Conduct Authority was not upheld.
Now, he has taken issue with how Kāinga Ora has responded to the incidents.
The man complained to the Tenancy Tribunal that the agency breached its obligations as a landlord by failing to protect his interests as its tenant.
A recently released decision by the tribunal, which outlined the details of the incidents, suppressed the man’s identity and the location of his premises.
According to the decision, he believed the agency failed to provide him with any assistance or support when he was “attacked by a mob of Middle Eastern people connected to [his] neighbour”.
The man further claimed Kāinga Ora failed to provide him with “wrap-around services in assisting” him in having the “burglary and home invasion” investigated by the police, or in seeking redress.
He told the tribunal that Kāinga Ora was “inept” in managing the high and complex needs and behaviours of tenants, such as his neighbour.
The man claimed that when seeking assurances from the agency that there would be no repeat of the incident, he was victim-blamed and “not allowed to describe the incident in the terms preferred by him”.
The tribunal decision stated that under the Residential Tenancies Act, a landlord was obliged to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s tenants caused or permitted any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of its other tenants.
While the tribunal found that the man’s peace, comfort and privacy had been interfered with, accepting evidence that the neighbour’s family had threatened the man, Kāinga Ora had not breached its obligations to him.
“The key issue here is whether Kāinga Ora ought reasonably have done more to prevent that interference or to support [the man] afterwards,” the tribunal stated.
It found that before the altercation, Kāinga Ora had investigated the man’s concerns about the children causing noise and nuisance in the stairwells.
Kāinga Ora reported back to the man, who thanked the agency for its response.
“That communication does not corroborate [the man’s] claim that Kāinga Ora did nothing about the concerns he had earlier raised in connection with the neighbouring apartment.
“The evidence does not establish that there were warnings or indications about the incident on 10 November 2024 that Kāinga Ora was or should have been aware of, that it would have been reasonable for Kāinga Ora to act on to prevent the incident occurring.”
Following the November 10 incident, Kāinga Ora gave police CCTV footage to help with the investigation, and when asked to do so by the man, followed up with the police about the burglary complaint.
Police told Kāinga Ora that the complaint had been filed and that it seemed the man would “like his victims charged with burglary” but there was not enough evidence.
The man believed that the correspondence between Kāinga Ora and police showed that instead of supporting him, the agency accepted the “police approach of blaming him” for the incident.
However, on November 15, Kāinga Ora issued the neighbour with an antisocial behaviour notice for the threats made against the man, acknowledging his distress.
The tribunal found Kāinga Ora had done all that was expected of it under the Act.
Dismissing the man’s claim, the tribunal said it was not proved that there were other avenues reasonably available to Kāinga Ora to prevent intrusion into the man’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy.
“It [Kāinga Ora] is not responsible for the conduct of tenants that it is not aware of or reasonably able to prevent.”
A Kāinga Ora spokesperson said the agency had responded to all the complaints made, investigated and taken reasonable steps to address the issue.
The spokesperson emphasised that the tribunal dismissed the tenant’s claims and found Kāinga Ora did not breach its obligations.
Tara Shaskey joined NZME in 2022 and is currently an assistant editor and reporter for the Open Justice team. She has been a reporter since 2014 and previously worked at Stuff covering crime and justice, arts and entertainment, and Māori issues.