According to the tribunal’s recent decision, the tenant, who has name suppression, along with his landlord, lived by himself in a unit at the social housing complex from November 2022 to November 2025.
He had long-term mental and physical disabilities resulting from a traumatic brain injury he sustained in a violent assault when he was 18.
This meant his decision-making was compromised, and he suffered paranoia, the decision said.
He also suffered burns from a house fire that he was still being treated for. Because of this, he struggled to regulate body heat, was very sensitive to noise, and suffered from fatigue.
The tribunal was told his tolerance ran short because of a lack of understanding of situations, and he often needed to have things explained to him multiple times to help settle him.
The tenant complained to the Tenancy Tribunal about his eviction. Photo / 123RF
The landlord was aware of the tenant’s brain injury and resulting special housing needs.
But during the tenancy, he had issues with three neighbours.
According to the decision, the first incident occurred in late 2022, when the tenant accused a neighbour of throwing stones.
There was a further incident between the pair weeks later, in which the neighbour threatened the tenant with a crowbar. The tenant then struck the neighbour in the face.
Days later, a dispute took place between the tenant and a different neighbour over cars parked in the driveway when the tenant’s brother was visiting.
The tenant punched the neighbour in the face and the police were called. The pair were told to stay away from each other, and there were no further incidents between them.
A third neighbour, who the tenant claimed frequently came to his door asking for cigarettes, took the tenant’s house key, came into his home, and broke his belongings from time to time, such as his television aerial, the tribunal was told.
The tenant produced evidence that he had reported these issues to his housing support manager in January 2023.
In August 2025, the tenant had an altercation with that same neighbour after she came to his unit asking for cigarettes.
The tenant assaulted her so badly that she was taken to hospital with jaw and spinal injuries.
The woman was moved to another social housing facility as her family considered the environment too unsafe for her to return to.
The tenant claimed he hit her in self-defence after things escalated between them, as he did not want her coming to his door all the time asking for cigarettes.
The landlord told the tribunal the woman had lived in the complex a long time and there was no history of her knocking on neighbours’ doors.
The tenant was arrested and later discharged without charges being laid.
However, the landlord sent the tenant a 90-day notice terminating his tenancy.
The landlord told the tribunal it had managed the tenant’s accommodation needs since 2019, as he had lived at two of the landlord’s other properties.
They said he was moved from the other complexes due to having issues with his neighbours.
This included incidents where he and another tenant chucked avocados and eggs at people’s windows, and he had to be stopped from lighting fires in the backyard.
The landlord stated that since he had moved into the recent complex, he had more trouble with neighbours, the cleanliness of his house was an issue and he allegedly smoked marijuana in the house.
The decision said his unit had also been contaminated by methamphetamine during his tenancy.
Tenant claims termination was unlawful
The tenant’s sisters represented him at the tribunal hearing.
They said the landlord cited health and safety concerns as the reason for the termination but this reason was not reflected in the termination notice.
They claimed the 90-day notice was invalid as it displayed the incorrect address, that the notice was retaliatory and discriminatory, and the landlord had attempted to terminate the tenancy without grounds.
Another termination notice was not issued to correct the address, but an email was sent to the tenant’s sister correcting the error and confirming it was a clerical error.
The housing tenancy manager and the housing team lead met with the tenant and explained why he was being given the termination notice and when it was to take effect.
The landlord submitted the notice error did not result in the tenant being unclear about why he was being evicted.
The tenant was issued a 90-day termination notice. Photo / 123rf
The tenant and his sisters sought an order from the tribunal to find the notice invalid and unenforceable, relying on the incorrect address, so the tenant could return to the complex, which the landlord confirmed was still vacant, the decision said.
But tribunal adjudicator Michelle Pollak found the error was not enough to invalidate the notice, saying it did not mislead or affect the interests of the tenant unjustly.
The tenant also claimed the termination was retaliatory as it was issued five days after the violent assault, but the tribunal dismissed this claim due to the lack of evidence.
“Regardless of whether the tenant was provoked by tenant 3 by asking for cigarettes, it is not an unreasonable conclusion to reach that the tenant living in a row of units with other vulnerable mental health persons may not be the best environment for him if there was a chance he may be triggered to assault any another tenant that provoked him,” Pollack said.
“The landlord has the difficult position of having to balance the tenant’s needs with the needs of the other tenants in the complex.”
The tenant’s claim that he was discriminated against because of his disability was also dismissed.
His eviction notice was upheld.
Brianna McIlraith is a Queenstown-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the lower South Island. She has been a journalist since 2018 and has had a strong interest in business and financial journalism.