What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5134348 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5134348?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5134348?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5134348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11367745-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5134348 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5134348?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5134348?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5134348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11367745-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Clement Place, Greenmeadows, Napier 4112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5134348 — Harassment

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, however the grounds for suppression are not met (see. S.95A(1).
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 15 Clement Place, Greenmeadows, Napier 4112 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm on Monday 10 February 2025.
It is a condition of the tenancy continuing to 10 February 2025 that the tenant’s partner Toni Karauria not be on the premises at any time after Thursday, 30 January 2025.
If Toni Kauraria is shown to have been at the premises at any time after Thursday 30 January 2024, the tenancy at 15 Clement Place, Greenmeadows, Napier 4112 will terminate immediately and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenant was supported by Ms Maaka, a registered Oranga Tamariki social worker. Ms Karauria also participated and gave evidence.
Ms Karauria is the tenant’s partner and was a party to the agreement then the tenancy began in 2015 but was released from the tenancy when she and the tenant separated in February 2016. She has since returned to live at the premises with the tenant and says that for years she has been trying to be put back on the tenancy.
The landlord was represented by Ms Thomson-Wise and by Ms Williams, from the Napier Housing Support Team.
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 has been ongoing and in particular that: a. on 22 September 2024, Ms Kaurauria, verbally abused two visitors to a neighbouring property, with the same behaviour, yelling abuse and obscenities and kicking rubbish bins continuing the next morning, causing distress to the neighbouring residents; b. on 30 October 2024, Ms Karauria yelled at abused and threatened neighbours at 2am, using foul language. A video/ audio recording has been provided; c. on 27 December 2024, Ms Karauria was again yelling and ranting in the street outside the premises loudly swearing at, threatening and abusing neighbouring residents.
Under s.55A, 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.
Antisocial behaviour means harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
I have read witness statements provided by the landlord, heard from a neighbour orally, viewed the video/ audio evidence provided and heard from both the tenant and Ms Karauria.
As the Tribunal has a civil not criminal jurisdiction, the facts on which the application is based must be proved on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not), rather than beyond reasonable doubt. With serious allegations such as these, compelling evidence must be provided to prove the allegations.
The behaviour alleged is not denied by the tenant or Ms Karauria. As well as issuing the s.55A notices, the landlord met with the tenant after each incident to explain the consequences of that behaviour continuing. The tenant accepted that the behaviour had occurred.
The alarm and distress caused to neighbouring residents is apparent from the evidence.
I find that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by Ms Karauria, a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
For reasons discussed during the hearing I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy (s.55A(4)).
I have given long thought to whether it would be unfair to the tenant to terminate the tenancy when the anti-social behaviour that led to this application was the behaviour of Ms Karauria not the tenant, which the tenant was not able to prevent. Both the tenant and Ms Karauria have given evidence that because of the disfunction in their relationship, Ms Karauria will be moving out of the premises and relocating to Gisborne tomorrow. They say that the landlord and neighbours can therefore be reassured that the behaviour will not continue.
I have discussed with the parties whether an Order that allowed the tenancy to continue, but on condition that Ms Karauria must not be at the premises or the tenancy would end, might be satisfactory.
Having carefully considered the evidence, I accept the landlords’ position that everything possible has been done to try and make the tenant aware, over a long period, of the consequences of the anti-social behaviour at the premises continuing and that it would be unfair to the landlord and particularly to neighbouring residents, not to end the tenancy now.
I am therefore required to make an Order ending the tenancy.
The landlord sought an Order for immediate termination but I am of the view that with a fixed termination date given and with a condition in place that the tenancy will end immediately if Ms Karauria comes to the premises after tomorrow, (having regard to the evidence from she and the tenant that she will be in Gisborne), it is not unreasonable to allow a short time for the tenant to assess his options before the tenancy ends.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, however the grounds for suppression are not met (see. S.95A(1).
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 15 Clement Place, Greenmeadows, Napier 4112 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59pm on Monday 10 February 2025.
It is a condition of the tenancy continuing to 10 February 2025 that the tenant’s partner Toni Karauria not be on the premises at any time after Thursday, 30 January 2025.
If Toni Kauraria is shown to have been at the premises at any time after Thursday 30 January 2024, the tenancy at 15 Clement Place, Greenmeadows, Napier 4112 will terminate immediately and the landlord will have immediate possession of the premises.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenant was supported by Ms Maaka, a registered Oranga Tamariki social worker. Ms Karauria also participated and gave evidence.
Ms Karauria is the tenant’s partner and was a party to the agreement then the tenancy began in 2015 but was released from the tenancy when she and the tenant separated in February 2016. She has since returned to live at the premises with the tenant and says that for years she has been trying to be put back on the tenancy.
The landlord was represented by Ms Thomson-Wise and by Ms Williams, from the Napier Housing Support Team.
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 has been ongoing and in particular that: a. on 22 September 2024, Ms Kaurauria, verbally abused two visitors to a neighbouring property, with the same behaviour, yelling abuse and obscenities and kicking rubbish bins continuing the next morning, causing distress to the neighbouring residents; b. on 30 October 2024, Ms Karauria yelled at abused and threatened neighbours at 2am, using foul language. A video/ audio recording has been provided; c. on 27 December 2024, Ms Karauria was again yelling and ranting in the street outside the premises loudly swearing at, threatening and abusing neighbouring residents.
Under s.55A, 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.
Antisocial behaviour means harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
I have read witness statements provided by the landlord, heard from a neighbour orally, viewed the video/ audio evidence provided and heard from both the tenant and Ms Karauria.
As the Tribunal has a civil not criminal jurisdiction, the facts on which the application is based must be proved on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not), rather than beyond reasonable doubt. With serious allegations such as these, compelling evidence must be provided to prove the allegations.
The behaviour alleged is not denied by the tenant or Ms Karauria. As well as issuing the s.55A notices, the landlord met with the tenant after each incident to explain the consequences of that behaviour continuing. The tenant accepted that the behaviour had occurred.
The alarm and distress caused to neighbouring residents is apparent from the evidence.
I find that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by Ms Karauria, a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
For reasons discussed during the hearing I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy (s.55A(4)).
I have given long thought to whether it would be unfair to the tenant to terminate the tenancy when the anti-social behaviour that led to this application was the behaviour of Ms Karauria not the tenant, which the tenant was not able to prevent. Both the tenant and Ms Karauria have given evidence that because of the disfunction in their relationship, Ms Karauria will be moving out of the premises and relocating to Gisborne tomorrow. They say that the landlord and neighbours can therefore be reassured that the behaviour will not continue.
I have discussed with the parties whether an Order that allowed the tenancy to continue, but on condition that Ms Karauria must not be at the premises or the tenancy would end, might be satisfactory.
Having carefully considered the evidence, I accept the landlords’ position that everything possible has been done to try and make the tenant aware, over a long period, of the consequences of the anti-social behaviour at the premises continuing and that it would be unfair to the landlord and particularly to neighbouring residents, not to end the tenancy now.
I am therefore required to make an Order ending the tenancy.
The landlord sought an Order for immediate termination but I am of the view that with a fixed termination date given and with a condition in place that the tenancy will end immediately if Ms Karauria comes to the premises after tomorrow, (having regard to the evidence from she and the tenant that she will be in Gisborne), it is not unreasonable to allow a short time for the tenant to assess his options before the tenancy ends.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5134348 — Harassment at 15 Clement Place, Greenmeadows, Napier 4112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5134348 — Harassment at 15 Clement Place, Greenmeadows, Napier 4112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions