What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5101328 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5101328?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5101328?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5101328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11283071-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5101328 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5101328?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5101328?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5101328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11283071-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5101328 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5101328 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Siasosi Tapaevalu and Heni Tukiroa Tapaevalu at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on 19 January 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour was making obscene hand gestures to the neighbouring Tenants camera, unlawfully entering the neighbours property, slashing the neighbours tyres, slamming doors, disrupting reasonable peace of the neighbours by singing loudly and repeatedly yelling profanities from their property.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: 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 tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has not established that all three incidents of anti-social behaviour occurred within the relevant 90-day period. The second notice provided by the Landlord referred to incidents in June and March 2024. The first instance of antisocial behaviour occurred on 8 October 2024.
The tenancy does not meet the grounds for termination pursuant to this section.
The Landlord has also submitted termination pursuant to a breach that is not capable of remedy. Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The tenant has breached their obligations by admitting that they went into the garage of the neighbour and slashed their car tyres. This was in retaliation for the neighbour leaving nails on the shared driveway which punctured the Tenants tyres.
The breach is not capable of remedy because it has already been committed.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the Tenant admitted to slashing the neighbours tyres in response to the neighbour leaving nails in the driveway. When questioned by the Tribunal about this, the Tenant responded the neighbour had offended him first. After this incident, the Landlord submitted there were further reports of the Tenant making obscene gestures and intimidating the neighbours. When questioned by the Tribunal about the gestures, the Tenant denied this and stated that all he said was for the other Tenant to “shut up”.
I am not persuaded that this was the Tenant’s only response. The Tenants failure to show some remorse towards his actions of slashing the tyres is concerning and if the Tenant did not acknowledge his actions were wrong then the anti-social behaviour may continue. The slashing of the tyres was a serious breach that is incapable of being remedied. There was then continued anti- social behaviour after that incident by the Tenant and a high chance that this will either escalate further or continue. For these reasons, the tenancy must be terminated.
As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim, the Tenant must pay the filing fee and name suppression is granted to the Landlord only. The Tenant is not granted name suppression as they have not been successful.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5101328 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Siasosi Tapaevalu and Heni Tukiroa Tapaevalu at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on 19 January 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour was making obscene hand gestures to the neighbouring Tenants camera, unlawfully entering the neighbours property, slashing the neighbours tyres, slamming doors, disrupting reasonable peace of the neighbours by singing loudly and repeatedly yelling profanities from their property.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: 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 tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has not established that all three incidents of anti-social behaviour occurred within the relevant 90-day period. The second notice provided by the Landlord referred to incidents in June and March 2024. The first instance of antisocial behaviour occurred on 8 October 2024.
The tenancy does not meet the grounds for termination pursuant to this section.
The Landlord has also submitted termination pursuant to a breach that is not capable of remedy. Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The tenant has breached their obligations by admitting that they went into the garage of the neighbour and slashed their car tyres. This was in retaliation for the neighbour leaving nails on the shared driveway which punctured the Tenants tyres.
The breach is not capable of remedy because it has already been committed.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the Tenant admitted to slashing the neighbours tyres in response to the neighbour leaving nails in the driveway. When questioned by the Tribunal about this, the Tenant responded the neighbour had offended him first. After this incident, the Landlord submitted there were further reports of the Tenant making obscene gestures and intimidating the neighbours. When questioned by the Tribunal about the gestures, the Tenant denied this and stated that all he said was for the other Tenant to “shut up”.
I am not persuaded that this was the Tenant’s only response. The Tenants failure to show some remorse towards his actions of slashing the tyres is concerning and if the Tenant did not acknowledge his actions were wrong then the anti-social behaviour may continue. The slashing of the tyres was a serious breach that is incapable of being remedied. There was then continued anti- social behaviour after that incident by the Tenant and a high chance that this will either escalate further or continue. For these reasons, the tenancy must be terminated.
As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim, the Tenant must pay the filing fee and name suppression is granted to the Landlord only. The Tenant is not granted name suppression as they have not been successful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5101328 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5101328 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions