How much money was awarded in case 5150194?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5150194?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5150194?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11430011-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5150194?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5150194?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5150194?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11430011-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 1339 Amohau Street, Rotorua, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5150194 — Harassment

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5150194 about?

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

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

The tenancy of Te Tamaiti Moke at Unit/Flat 7, 1339 Amohau Street, Rotorua, Rotorua 3010 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 6pm on Sunday 16 February2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Mr Moke did not. His partner attended; she is living at the property but not a named tenant. She wishes to have the tenancy transferred to her, but the landlord does not agree with that, largely because of the ongoing issues at the property.

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 is yelling, screaming and drug and alcohol fuelled anti-social and intimidating behaviour.

The tenancy began on 23 December 2024 and the complaints of unreasonable noise and disturbances, from neighbouring tenants, began very soon after. The unit is in a complex of 11; a number of other tenants have young children, and some tenants are elderly. The landlord has owned the complex for more than 10 years and said he has never had complaints of the type that have arisen with respect to Mr Moke’s tenancy and his behaviour and the behaviour of his guests.

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 established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or 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.

I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose, and the notices that 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.

Mr Moke’s partner understands that the termination of the tenancy on Sunday, means that she also must vacate and remove all possessions, as the landlord is entitled to vacant possession of the property.

The landlord’s request for name suppression is granted as the application is successful. The public interest requires the tenant’s name is published.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Te Tamaiti Moke at Unit/Flat 7, 1339 Amohau Street, Rotorua, Rotorua 3010 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 6pm on Sunday 16 February2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Mr Moke did not. His partner attended; she is living at the property but not a named tenant. She wishes to have the tenancy transferred to her, but the landlord does not agree with that, largely because of the ongoing issues at the property.
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 is yelling, screaming and drug and alcohol fuelled anti-social and intimidating behaviour.
The tenancy began on 23 December 2024 and the complaints of unreasonable noise and disturbances, from neighbouring tenants, began very soon after. The unit is in a complex of 11; a number of other tenants have young children, and some tenants are elderly. The landlord has owned the complex for more than 10 years and said he has never had complaints of the type that have arisen with respect to Mr Moke’s tenancy and his behaviour and the behaviour of his guests.
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 established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or 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.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose, and the notices that 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.
Mr Moke’s partner understands that the termination of the tenancy on Sunday, means that she also must vacate and remove all possessions, as the landlord is entitled to vacant possession of the property.
The landlord’s request for name suppression is granted as the application is successful. The public interest requires the tenant’s name is published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5150194 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 7, 1339 Amohau Street, Rotorua, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5150194 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 7, 1339 Amohau Street, Rotorua, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions