What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5041908 about?

The tribunal order states: Dairne Jane Burrett’s tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and

How much money was awarded in case 5041908?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5041908?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5041908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11928578-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5041908 about?

The tribunal order states: Dairne Jane Burrett’s tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and

How much money was awarded in case 5041908?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5041908?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5041908?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11928578-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5041908 — Harassment

Order

Dairne Jane Burrett’s tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to the Landlord as at 10am 11 June 2025.
The names of the Landlord’s witnesses are suppressed.

Reasons

The application

The Tenant has a periodic tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] (the premises), which is a one-bedroom semi-detached house in a residential neighbourhood. This application relates to events that have occurred at the premises since October 2023.
The Landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on two grounds: a.Under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) due to anti- social behaviour by the Tenant or someone on the premises with the Tenant’s permission; and/or b.Under section 56 of the RTA due to breaches of the tenancy agreement and the Tenant’s obligations under the RTA.
The Tenant denies that the behaviour was anti-social or a breach of the tenancy agreement or her obligations under the RTA and also says that: a.The anti-social behaviour notices do not meet the formal requirements in the RTA; and b.It would be inappropriate for the Tribunal to consider an application under section 56 of the RTA given the allegation that the Tenant’s conduct also breached section 55A of the RTA. Procedural background
The Tribunal (a different Adjudicator) first heard this matter in November 2024 and issued a decision and made orders terminating the tenancy. The Tenant then applied for a rehearing. The Adjudicator allowed that application, so the matter was assigned to me for rehearing.
The rehearing occurred before me on 27 May 2025 and both parties attended. The Tenant was represented by counsel, Ms Holden. The issues
To determine this application, I need to consider four issues: a.Did the anti-social behaviour notices issued by the Landlord comply with the formal requirements in section 55A of the RTA? b.Was there anti-social behaviour? c.Should the Tenant be liable for that behaviour? d.Is termination of the tenancy for anti-social behaviour appropriate?
Given my finding that the Landlord has proven its claim under section 55A of the RTA, I do not need to consider the Landlord’s application under section 56 of the RTA in this decision. The relevant law Anti-social behaviour
A landlord can apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating a periodic tenancy on the ground of anti-social behaviour. 1 Anti-social behaviour is: a. harassment; or b. any other act or omission (whether intentional or not), if the act or omission reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor. 2
The Tribunal must (subject to section 55A(3) of the RTA) terminate the tenancy if it is satisfied that: 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 55A(1). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 55A(7). a.On 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the premises; b.On each occasion the landlord has given the tenant a notice that: (i)Described the specific behaviour, and if known by the landlord, who engaged in it; and (ii)Advised of the date and approximate location it occurred; and (iii) Stated how many notices had been given; and (iv) Advised the tenant of a right to challenge the notice in this Tribunal; and c.The landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy was made within 28 days of the third notice. 3
Under section 55A(3), the Tribunal must not order termination of a tenancy if it is satisfied that: a.doing so would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred or the notices were given; or b.the Landlord’s actions were retaliatory in response to the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by the RTA or any other Act.
When deciding whether to terminate the tenancy, the Tribunal cannot consider the impact that terminating the tenancy would have on the Tenant. 4 The anti-social behaviour notices
The Landlord served three anti-social behaviour notices on the Tenant relating to incidents between 4 July 2024 and 1 October 2024: a.A notice dated 1 August 2024 (the first notice), which related to behaviour between 4 and 6 July 2024 as set out in paragraphs 15 and 16; b.A notice dated 14 August 2024 (the second notice), which related to between 2 and 3 am on 3 August 2024, as set out in paragraphs 17 to 21; and c.A notice dated 17 October 2024 (the third notice), which related to an incident on 1 October 2024, as set out in paragraphs 23 to 25. The relevant events
I heard evidence from the Tenant and from three neighbours: 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 55A(2). 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 55A(4). a.[Neighbour 1 and 2], who reside [redacted] to the premises; and b.[Neighbour 3], who lives [redacted] the premises.
I have also reviewed the documents provided by both parties, including emails, photographs, audio and video recordings and written statements. My assessment of the relevant events, as discussed below, is based upon the evidence given during the hearing and the information provided by the parties. Behaviour between 4 and 6 July 2024 – First anti-social behaviour notice
[Neighbour 1] said: a.On three consecutive nights from 4 to 6 July 2024 between midnight and 5am, [Neighbour 1], [Neighbour 2] and [redacted] were repeatedly woken up by disruptive behaviour from the Tenant’s premises, including loud yelling, “very offensive language”, car doors slamming, swearing, car horns being “honked”, angry and aggressive conversations and arguments about money. b.On the third night, he spoke with those at the premises, and he says they laughed and “nothing really changed”. c.He found the behaviour to be “deeply concerning”.
[Neighbour 2] gave evidence to a similar effect. She confirmed that the behaviour had disturbed the sleep of her family and that the behaviour continued after [Neighbour 1] had spoken to those at the premises on 6 July. Behaviour between 29 July to 3 August 2024 – Second anti-social behaviour notice
[Neighbour 1] said that for three or four days up to and including 3 August 2024 there was a continuation of the pattern of consistent repeated behaviour that he had experienced between 4 and 6 July. He says that people were going constantly in and out of the premises in the early hours of the morning, with loud talking and swearing and he, his wife and children were awoken by the behaviour.
[Neighbour 2] gave similar evidence.
Regarding the allegations between 4 and 6 July and 29 July and 3 August 2024, the Tenant accepts noise came from the premises. She denies that there was any physical fighting and says that she recalls telling a couple to leave one night as they were bickering, and she was tired. She says that they may also have beeped their horn as they left, but not repeatedly. The Tenant says that she often heard cars beeping their horns late at night when leaving other addresses on the street.
I also understood the Tenant to say that she led a different lifestyle from the neighbours, and that her lifestyle sometimes involved having visitors at the premises until the early hours of the morning. The Tenant says that she socialises at home once or twice a week because cannot afford to go out and these events sometime go on into the night. She says that sometimes those gatherings continue until 2 or 3 am. She also said that other houses in the neighbourhood also made noise into the night, including by hosting parties. She also says some attend a chess club that she hosts about once a week, others are there to use her internet connection and some are friends of her children. She gave evidence that the behaviour complained of by the neighbours could be due to one or two of her son’s young “silly” friends, who are not in any way trying to be offensive.
Through Ms Holden, the Tenant also said that any noise made by her or others on the premises with her permission was not often people talking loudly and laughing or and was not unacceptable given her lifestyle and that any disturbance to the [Neighbour 1 and 2] may have been due to their close proximity. Incident on 1 October 2024 – Third anti-social behaviour notice
All witnesses agreed that a disturbing incident, involving the assault of a female, occurred on the premises 1 October 2024. [Neighbour 1] says: a.At about 8 pm, he heard a woman in distress. He says that it sounded like she was being attacked. [Neighbour 1] says that there was an aggressive man with the woman. He says that he heard banging, shouting and lots of swearing. b.The incident started at the back of the Tenant’s premises and the woman and the attacker then moved out onto the street. c.He says the woman and the man came from the Tenant’s premises, and the incident then moved out onto the street.
[Neighbour 1] made an audio recording, in which the sounds of a distressed woman screaming can be heard. [Neighbour 2] says that the woman who was being attacked was calling the Tenant’s name, saying “I am so sorry Dairne, I am so sorry Dairne” while the attack was happening. [Neighbour 2] called the Police. By the time they arrived the attacker had left.
[Neighbour 3] also gave evidence about this incident. [Neighbour 3] says that she heard arguing and yelling between a man and a woman that started at the rear of the premises and moved towards the front of the house. She said she could hear the woman repeatedly saying things like “stop, you’re hurting me, stop”. She says that she also heard what sounded like property damage, including breaking glass and possibly a wall or door being hit. [Neighbour 3] also called the Police.
The Tenant says that the argument happened only in the car or on the driveway, and the woman and attacker were not on the premises with her permission. She says that she did not know the attacker and had only met the woman once, when she walked to the supermarket with her. The Tenant says that she was also disturbed by what happened and called the Police as well. Other incidents
[The Neighbours] gave evidence as to other instances of disturbance. [Neighbour 2] says that she often answered the door to people who were looking for the Tenant but were at the wrong address. Aside from the incidents on 1 October and 24 December 2024 (discussed below), [Neighbour 2] also says that the police visited on other occasions. She recalled Police officers knocking on her door looking for people, who were then found and arrested at the Tenant’s premises.
[Neighbour 1 and 2] also say that on “multiple occasions” they have noticed strong odours of marijuana from the premises. They say that the smell was so overwhelming that they had to take action to remove their children from exposure. [Neighbour 2] kept notes of when these events occurred, and has recorded marijuana smells on: a.18 February 2025 b.19 February 2025 c.25 March 2025; and d.31 March 2025.
The Tenant denies that marijuana has been used and says that she has smelled marijuana from other houses nearby.
[Neighbour 1] also gave evidence that, on 6 March 2025 at about 2.47 am, that he was awoken by a male visitor to the premises speaking loudly outside on the phone. The Tenant says that the male was a guest at the premises. She agrees that he was talking loudly and angrily on the phone outside. She says that she went outside and asked him to come inside and be quiet. He did.
[Neighbour 3] also gave evidence about general disruption from the premises. She said that, particularly in the second half of 2024, the noise and disruption became more frequent. She complained of “shouting, slamming car doors, revving engines”, “a constant stream of people coming down our driveway”, arriving unannounced day and night looking for the Tenant and asking for her by name and of “visitors blocking our driveway with their vehicles at all hours”, and that some responded with hostility and aggression when they get asked to move. This evidence is consistent with the [Neighbour 1 and 2]’s evidence as to what occurred in July and August 2024.
[Neighbour 3] and the [Neighbour 1 and 2] also gave evidence about an incident on 24 December 2024. [Neighbour 3] says that, at about 11 pm on 24 December 2024, a woman ran to her house from the premises. [Neighbour 3] says the woman seemed high and told [Neighbour 3] that someone was chasing her with a gun. [Neighbour 3] was frightened and alarmed and says that she felt like this incident put her family’s safety at risk and she felt violated in her home.
[Neighbour 1 and 2] also witnessed parts of this incident. They say that they were about to go to bed at about 11 pm, when they heard screaming from [Neighbour 3]’s house. They then saw a woman cut through the hedge onto their property. [Neighbour 2] says that the woman was calling out for the Tenant. [Neighbour 2] said it was quite obvious that she under the influence of a substance. The Police were called, and the woman was taken into custody.
The Tenant says that the woman did not come from the premises, that she did not know who the woman was and had no knowledge of the incident.
The Tenant gave evidence that her visitors are just normal people, who are not threatening. She says that she did not know about the neighbour’s concerns, and that “unless a whole lot goes on that I don’t see”, she questions whether the issues were as significant as the neighbours now claim and that she is alarmed that they now feel in anyway upset or nervous for their children or otherwise.
The Tenant believes that everything that has gone wrong in the neighbourhood has been blamed on her. She says that typically she only has family over at nighttime. She says that she tells everyone who comes into to “walk in like church mice and leave like church mice”. She says that if her visitors were as loud as claimed she would hear it, and she does not. She agrees that some people are rude but believes that something has happened to upset [Neighbour 1 and 2], so they have started to complain about everything. She says that she does not mean it to upset her neighbours. Issue 1: Did the anti-social behaviour notices comply with the formal requirements?
Section 55A(2)(b) sets out the formal requirements for an anti-social behaviour notice. I am satisfied that each of the three notices served by the Landlord meets those requirements. The first notice
The first notice stated: The incident/s that had taken place multiple times between 4th and 6th July 2024 • Complaints regarding several visitors to your property yelling, beeping the horn and fighting outside over money during early hours of the morning.
I consider that description adequately identifies: a.the specific behaviour - yelling, beeping the horn, fighting outside over money; b.who engaged in the behaviour - visitors to the property; and c.the approximate time and date of the behaviour - multiple times between 4 and 6 July during the early hours of the morning.
Ms Holden submitted that the first notice was vague about what morning and what time in the morning the behaviour occurred and was not specific as to how many specific instances there were, including how many fights over money there were, whether these were physical fights or an argument, how many times the horns were beeped and whether the events occurred at 1 am or 7 am. Ms Holden says that these are all specifics that should have been advised to the Tenant in the notice.
The RTA does not require minute detail in an anti-social behaviour notice. The purpose of this requirement is to provide detail sufficient to notify the Tenant of the behaviour complained of, who engaged in that behaviour (if known) and when that behaviour occurred. The detail should be sufficient to then enable the Tenant to then challenge the notice if she disagreed with it.
The first notice meets those requirements and was sufficient to put the Tenant on notice that visitors to her home were making disruptive noise in the early morning hours across three days, including by yelling, beeping the horn and fighting outside over money.
The first notice also advised the Tenant that the Landlord could apply to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy “if you receive three or more breach notices within 90 days.” Ms Holden submitted that this statement was misleading, because it could be interpreted as saying that the Landlord would only apply to the Tribunal if the Tenant received at least three more notices within 90 days. I disagree. The clear and plain meaning of those words are consistent with the statutory language, in that the Landlord can apply to the Tribunal where three or more notices are issued relating to anti-social behaviour in a 90-day period,
The first notice also advised the Tenant of her right to challenge the notice by applying to the Tribunal. She did not do that, which means the notice remains valid. Finally, as this was the first notice issued, the Landlord was not obliged to disclose the number of notices that had previously been issued (if any).
I therefore find that the first notice complied with the requirements in section 55A(2) of the RTA. The second notice
The second notice identified the alleged ant-social behaviour as: Multiple instances of early-hours noise disruption coming from your property [tenancy address suppressed]. One particular occurrence was on Saturday 3rd August starting around 2-3 am where there was loud talking, banging, beeping of car horns and loud motorcycle revving coming from visitors to your property. Around lunchtime on the same day alcohol cans were found littered on neighbouring properties, along with shopping trollies.
That description identifies: a.the specific behaviour - loud talking, banging, beeping of car horns and loud motorcycle revving); b. who engaged in the behaviour - visitors to the property; and c.the approximate time and date of the behaviour - Sunday 3 rd August between 2 and 3 am.
The second notice also met the other formal requirements, in that it: a.advised the Tenant of her right to challenge the notice by applying to the Tribunal and set out the consequences that may follow if the Tenant received three or more notices within 90 days; and b.stated that this was the second notice within the last 90 days.
The Tenant did not apply to the Tribunal to challenge the notice and I am satisfied that the second notice complied with the requirements in section 55A(2) and is valid. The third notice
The third notice identified the alleged anti-social behaviour are: We understand the details of the incident to be: • on 1 October 2024 at 8:17PM; • at [tenancy address suppressed]; • disruption of the peace and comfort of the neighbourhood caused by distressing yelling and loud noise from your property - resulting in police being contacted and visiting.. We consider this behaviour to be anti-social behaviour in connection with your tenancy
That description identifies: a. the specific behaviour - distressing yelling and loud noise from your property - resulting in police being contacted and visiting; and b. the approximate time and date of the behaviour - 1 October 2024 and 8.17 pm).
The notice does not identify who engaged in that behaviour, but that is because the details of those involved remains unknown and there is no obligation to identify the persons involved where they are unknown.
The third notice also met the other formal requirements, in that it: a.advised the Tenant of her right to challenge the notice by applying to the Tribunal and set out the consequences that may follow if the Tenant received three or more notices within 90 days; and b.stated that this was the third notice within the last 90 days and that the Landlord would now commence proceedings with the Tribunal.
Again, the Tenant did not apply to the Tribunal to challenge the notice and I am satisfied that the third notice complied with the requirements in section 55A(2) and is valid. Issue 2: Was the behaviour anti-social behaviour?
Relevant to this case, anti-social behaviour is any act or omission that reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor.
The evidence from [Neighbour 1 and 2] demonstrated a clear and regular course of conduct from visitors over the two periods relating to the first and second notices, including but not limited to people coming and going in the early hours (any time between midnight and 5 am) and opening and closing car doors, talking loudly, arguing, swearing and beeping car horns.
Ms Holden submitted, with respect to the first and second notices, that at least some of the behaviour of the Tenant’s visitors was “normal behaviour of people leaving an address” and that some people “do stay up late and voices do carry at night”. She submitted that the behaviour may be annoying but was “at most a minor nuisance” and insufficient to cause alarm and distress.
I disagree and find that the incidents specified in the first and second notices were anti-social behaviour, because they involved repeated acts that reasonably caused nuisance to the neighbours that was more than minor.
The behaviour happened over several nights in the early morning when most people – including the Tenant’s neighbours – are trying to sleep. Conduct that might have been acceptable in daylight hours is not acceptable in those early morning hours. I consider that most people have a reasonable expectation of peace and quiet in the early hours of the morning, and that they will not be disturbed by frequent and disruptive noises from a neighbouring property. That is why we have noise control laws and other laws restricting loud noises at night, such as the restrictions on building and construction work and when airports can operate.
The third notice related to the incident on 1 October 2024, when a woman was assaulted on the premises and Police were called. I have no hesitation in concluding that this was anti-social behaviour, because it caused alarm, distress and nuisance that was more than minor to the neighbours. [Neighbour 1 and 2]. [Neighbour 3] and the Tenant were so distressed by the behaviour that they called the Police. Issue 3: Should the Tenant be liable for the anti-social behaviour?
None of the evidence presented showed that the Tenant personally engaged in any of the anti-social behaviour. But that does not provide a defence, because the RTA does not require the Tenant to have personally engaged in the conduct. Instead, under s 55A(2)(a) of the RTA, the Tenant will be responsible where the conduct was engaged in by someone in the premises with her permission.
With respect to the first and second notices, the people who engaged in that conduct were on the premises with the Tenant’s permission. The Tenant did not argue otherwise.
With respect to the third notice, the Tenant said that the woman and her attacker were not on the premises with her permission. She says that she did not know the attacker and barely knew the woman. She says they arrived unexpectedly, and the relevant events all took place in their car or on the driveway.
The neighbours gave different evidence. Both [Neighbour 3] and [Neighbour 1] gave evidence that the incident began at the rear of the premises and moved to the driveway at the front of the premises. [Neighbour 1] also gave evidence that the woman being attacked was saying “I am so sorry Dairne, I am so sorry Dairne” while the attack was happening, suggesting that she knew the Tenant.
Section 55A(5) of the RTA contains a presumption that any person on the premises at the same time as the Tenant is there with the Tenant’s permission, unless the Tenant proves that they took all reasonable steps to prevent the person entering the premises or to eject the person from the premises. That presumption and onus is important in this case, and I find that the Tenant has not proven that the woman and attacker were not permitted on the premises.
The evidence shows that the Tenant generally permitted the premises to be used by visitors (including those she did not know) to come and go at all hours of the day and night, including by allowing people she does not know to come into her home to access the internet.
The evidence from the neighbours also suggests that the woman knew the Tenant and the woman and the attacker were on the premises with permission, in that: a.The woman and attacker arrived in a car that was parked on the Tenant’s driveway. In my view it would be unusual for people unknown to the Tenant to arrive unexpectedly and park on the driveway. The most plausible explanation is that the occupants of the car were visiting the Tenant. In that regard, I note [Neighbour 3]’s evidence that it was common for Tenant’s guests to park on the driveway, often blocking her access. b.Two neighbours say that the attack started at the rear of the premises and moved to the front of the premises, which suggests that the woman and attacker were visiting the premises. Ms Holden questioned the witnesses recollection on this point, but both [Neighbour 1] and [Neighbour 3] gave this same evidence, independent of each other, which in my view adds to its plausibility. Both [Neighbour 3] and [Neighbour 1] also said they heard banging, with [Neighbour 3] saying she also heard what sounded like breaking glass and a door or wall being hit. That evidence is consistent with the woman and the attacker being at the premises and in or near the house. c.[Neighbour 2] gave evidence that the attacked woman called out the Tenant’s name and apologised, which suggests that the woman knew the Tenant sufficiently to feel the need to apologise for being attacked.
Weighing that evidence, I find that the Tenant has not overcome the presumption in section 55A(5) that the woman and the attacker were permitted on the premises. Instead, I consider it most likely that they were permitted to be on the premises. I acknowledge that the Tenant called then Police when the woman was assaulted, but up until that point she had permitted the woman and the attacker to be on the premises. The Tenant is therefore liable for their behaviour. Issue 4: Is termination of the tenancy for anti-social behaviour appropriate?
Under section 55A of the RTA, I must terminate the tenancy where there has been anti-social behaviour on three or more occasions within a 90 day period and the Landlord has served a valid anti-social behaviour notice, unless I satisfied that: a.doing so would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred or the notices were given; or b.the Landlord’s actions were retaliatory in response to by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by the RTA or any other Act. 5
The Landlord’s actions were not retaliatory. Likewise, there was nothing about the circumstances in which the conduct occurred or the notices were given that would make it unfair to terminate. In issuing the notices, the Landlord has responded to concerns raised by neighbours and provided sufficient information about the behaviour to enable the Tenant to understand the allegations made and to challenge those allegations.
I also note, as set out in the relevant events section of this decision, that there have been other instances of general disruption throughout the tenancy that caused concern to the neighbours, so it cannot be said that the three instances of anti- social behaviour were so isolated that it is unfair for the Landlord to seek termination due to that behaviour.
I acknowledge the impact that termination of the tenancy will have on the Tenant. She has built a life at the premises, established gardens and formed bonds in the local community. I do not end her tenancy lightly. However, I cannot take account of the effect on her. Section 55A(4) of the RTA prohibits me from doing so. Instead, if the statutory tests in s 55A of the RTA are met, as they are here, I must terminate the tenancy. Outcome
The Tenant’s tenancy at the premises is terminated and possession is granted to the Landlord as at 10am 11 June 2025. Name suppression of witnesses 5 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 55A(3).
I order that the names and all identifying details of the Landlord’s witnesses are suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5041908 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5041908 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions