What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5139228?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Heather Wilson at Unit/Flat Unit 107, 75 Fourth Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 5139228?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5139228?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5139228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11374720-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5139228?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Heather Wilson at Unit/Flat Unit 107, 75 Fourth Avenue,

How much money was awarded in case 5139228?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5139228?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5139228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11374720-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 107, 75 Fourth Avenue, Tauranga, Tauranga Tenancy Tribunal Case 5139228 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Heather Wilson at Unit/Flat Unit 107, 75 Fourth Avenue, Tauranga, Tauranga 3110, Camden Apartments is terminated, and possession is granted to Behome Realty Limited As Agent For Colin Booth, at 5pm on 6 February 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by phone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The 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.
Here, the tenant has breached her obligations by causing interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of persons residing in the neighbourhood. On 28 December 2024, a violent altercation occurred at the apartment complex in which the tenant assaulted her sister and dragged her back into her unit as her sister was trying to leave. The tenant acknowledges having punched her sister. Video recordings show the serious nature of the assault that occurred.
While the tenant has indicated that the assault was the first time that she has been brought before the courts on a criminal charge and that diversion has been sought, the breach is not capable of remedy as the violence and assault that occurred cannot be undone.
I acknowledge the tenant’s plea to be given another chance as she is being helped by the court system and processes in place to correct her behaviour, and the tenant promising not to reoffend.
However, I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy in the circumstances.
Acting from complaints of other residents residing in the apartment complex, the landlord has previously issued 3 notices to the tenant for anti-social behaviour from the tenant. The other occupants at the complex are fearful and their reasonable peace and comfort have been interfered with.
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. The matters previously complained against the tenant constitute anti-social behaviour.
I have taken into account the evidence presented on the previous infringements and anti-social behaviour exhibited by the tenant.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant; the landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Those notices and general behaviour by the tenant lead me to conclude that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy at the behest of the landlord on account of the assault that took place in December 2024.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the many instances of anti-social behaviour and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
For those reasons, I accede the landlord’s application termination of the tenancy.
To enable the tenant some time to relocate and find alternative accommodation, I have ordered the termination to take effect a week from today instead of immediately.

Order

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by phone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The 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.
Here, the tenant has breached her obligations by causing interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of persons residing in the neighbourhood. On 28 December 2024, a violent altercation occurred at the apartment complex in which the tenant assaulted her sister and dragged her back into her unit as her sister was trying to leave. The tenant acknowledges having punched her sister. Video recordings show the serious nature of the assault that occurred.
While the tenant has indicated that the assault was the first time that she has been brought before the courts on a criminal charge and that diversion has been sought, the breach is not capable of remedy as the violence and assault that occurred cannot be undone.
I acknowledge the tenant’s plea to be given another chance as she is being helped by the court system and processes in place to correct her behaviour, and the tenant promising not to reoffend.
However, I find that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy in the circumstances.
Acting from complaints of other residents residing in the apartment complex, the landlord has previously issued 3 notices to the tenant for anti-social behaviour from the tenant. The other occupants at the complex are fearful and their reasonable peace and comfort have been interfered with.
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. The matters previously complained against the tenant constitute anti-social behaviour.
I have taken into account the evidence presented on the previous infringements and anti-social behaviour exhibited by the tenant.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant; the landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Those notices and general behaviour by the tenant lead me to conclude that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy at the behest of the landlord on account of the assault that took place in December 2024.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the many instances of anti-social behaviour and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
For those reasons, I accede the landlord’s application termination of the tenancy.
To enable the tenant some time to relocate and find alternative accommodation, I have ordered the termination to take effect a week from today instead of immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5139228 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Unit 107, 75 Fourth Avenue, Tauranga, Tauranga

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5139228 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Unit 107, 75 Fourth Avenue, Tauranga, Tauranga

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions