Niki Rauti's fight against eviction in court

Niki Rauti (62) outside her Glen Innes home. Photo / Greg Bowker

A Glen Innes resident facing eviction from her home of more than two decades has taken her fight to the Auckland District Court this afternoon.

In February the Tenancy Tribunal granted a possession order of the former state house Ioela (Niki) Rauti, 62, has called home for 21 years to a housing development company.

Today she's seeking appeal against the decision that gave possession of the house at 14 Taniwha St to the Tamaki Regeneration Company.

Her house is one of 2800 state houses TRC 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 her 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-storied homes were too difficult for her to access.

She's been fighting TRC since it took ownership of her house, along with 2700 other houses in the area, from Housing New Zealand last year.

Today she had some 30 supporters, including long-time activist Penny Bright, both inside and outside court.

A number of supporters waved banners outside which read; "Stop Niki's eviction", whilst others sat by her side during the hearing.

Either side appears to be hanging its argument in the case on a technicality; if TRC had been appropriately identified as the landlord and what bearing this had on the eviction notice.

The lawyer representing Rauti argued before the judge that the TRC had not identified itself as the landlord; and thus its orders to evict her and the tenancy tribunal decision were void.

"On that basis the tenant says the tribunal should have rejected the application."

The lawyer said any decision in this case was a significant matter of public interest.

"She's one of 28,000 tenants affected by this order, there is significant impact and ramifications."

However, the lawyer acting on behalf of the TRC said the company was the owner; it was a lawful successor and was therefore a landlord.

"My submission is Tamaki did act as an agent for the landlord. The respondent submits that the appeal should be dismissed and the interim stay must be cancelled."

She accepted there was a minor error in paper work which hadn't clarified Tamaki Housing Association was the landlord, a subsidiary acting on behalf of the TRC.

The lawyer argued a variation in the name of the company dealing with Rauti was a minor error that did not invalidate its rights.

"She was not misled."

The TRC's lawyer maintained as far back as March 2015 Rauti was informed there would be a change in ownership and that there had been regular communication with the TRC since it took over.

The judge has reserved his decision.

Speaking to Rauti outside the courts after the hearing; she seemed overwhelmed with the process and did not want to comment in detail.

"My head is spinning."

At today's hearing the Tamaki Regeneration Company indicated a home 700 metres away from her current one remained available if she chose to move into it.