What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5151654?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Carla Adeline Bishop at 8D Fow Street, Hamilton Central,

How much money was awarded in case 5151654?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5151654?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5151654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11465508-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5151654?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Carla Adeline Bishop at 8D Fow Street, Hamilton Central,

How much money was awarded in case 5151654?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5151654?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5151654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11465508-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8D Fow Street, Hamilton Central, Hamilton 3204 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5151654 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Carla Adeline Bishop at 8D Fow Street, Hamilton Central, Hamilton 3204 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59pm on Thursday 6 March 2025.

Reasons

Mrs Thompson-Wise and Mr Nai, representing the landlord, and Miss Bishop, the tenant, attended the hearing.
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 tenancy is a two bedroomed unit in a complex consisting of 8 units. The units are in close proximity to one another but are not adjoining.

Subject to certain considerations, under section 55A of the Residential Tenancy Act 1986 (RTA) 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 RTA confirms in s 55A(7) that “anti-social behaviour” means harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
If the anti-social behaviour relates to behaviour from a person at the premises at the same time the tenant is at the premises, then the tenant is presumed to have permitted the person to be there unless the tenant proves they took all reasonable steps to prevent the person from entering or to eject the person from the premises (s 55A(5)).
Section 55A(4) requires the Tribunal must not take into consideration the impact on the tenant in making an order terminating the tenancy.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour consists of ongoing loud, abusive arguing between persons at the tenancy premises often late at night. The landlord says it has received ongoing complaints from the tenant’s neighbours about the noise. The landlord cited a number of incidents in addition to the occasions referred to in the anti-social behaviour notices which occurred between 22 January 2018 and 20 January 2025.
The tenant confirmed that: • her oldest son lives at the premises. • her younger son was trespassed from the premises as he “causes trouble” but that he ignored the trespass notice and continued to come around, and has been involved in some of the arguing and fighting that has occurred. • her daughter has also moved in with her five children. • The father of her daughter’s children also visits and the tenant says he and her daughter often argue and yell at each other.
The landlord states the anti-social behaviour described in the three notices as: i.Notice 1: On 12 October 2024 at about 3.00am there were “loud arguments” and persistent barking from dogs. The Police attended and arrested the tenant’s youngest son. ii.Notice 2: On 13 November 2024 at around midnight and 2:00am there was “loud arguments”. A neighbour made a complaint to the Police. iii.Notice 3: On 14 December 2024 at around 10.30pm there was “yelling and screaming” which was “abusive” and “distressing to neighbours”.
The tenant was at home on all three occasions and accepts that all of the above incidents occurred as described. She says the incident in the first notice was caused by her youngest son who arrived and “stirred up the household, particularly her older son, and then returned and caused a fight with her oldest son. The tenant had told Mr Nia, her Senior Housing Manager, soon after the incident in the second notice that it was an argument between her and her daughter. The third notice involved several persons at the tenancy premises. The tenant believes the father of her daughter’s children was involved in the arguments in both the second and the third notices.
There is a statement corroborating the behaviours from a resident in the neighbourhood whose name has been redacted. A sound recording of each of the incidents in the three notices was presented in evidence. The recordings were not taken from a unit immediately next the tenant’s premises. The recordings verify loud yelling and use of abusive language occurred in each incident. I find the behaviour exhibited fell within the definition of anti-social behaviour as it is behaviour that reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor.
I have considered whether the persons engaged in the anti-social behaviour were there with the tenant’s permission or, if not, whether the tenant has proved that she took all reasonable steps to prevent the person from entering the premises or ejecting them from the premises.
Based on the tenants’ evidence I have no doubt that the tenant’s older son, her daughter and the father of her daughter’s children were at the premises with her permission, albeit that she has asked her daughter to leave from time to time.
In relation to her youngest son who had been trespassed from the property, I am not convinced that the tenant took all reasonable steps to prevent him from entering the premises. I make this finding for the following reasons: a) The tenant said her son continued to come around despite being trespassed and that he essentially ignored the trespass notice. b) Regardless of his continuing presence at the property the tenant confirmed that her front door was regularly unlocked until she went to bed. That meant her younger son could walk into the property as he chose. c) On the night of the incident under the first notice the tenant said her younger son arrived and stayed for some time, which she recalled as being about 30 minutes. He was told to go, which he did but then returned. To enter the property he either was able to walk in as the door was unlocked, had a key (which was denied by the tenant), or was let into the property. The tenant has not raised that the younger son has entered the property in any other way. d) While the tenant says her older son called the police to have him removed from the property after the second entry, I consider the tenant should have locked the door so that her son could not walk in, or if the door was locked not let him into the property. Opening the door and letting him into the property amounts to an invitation to enter.
Section 55A provides for strict processes that a landlord needs to follow when giving notices for anti-social behaviour that may lead to termination. I find the notices meet the requirements of Act.
All notices were issued within 90 days and there are at least three occasions where persons at the premises with the permission of the tenant have engaged in anti-social behaviour. The application was made within 28 days of the third notice being given.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred and the notices were given. I note the ongoing behaviours of the same nature that occurred before the, during and after the three anti-social behaviour notices were given. The landlord has not acted in a retaliatory way in giving the notices and the behaviour has continued.
Accordingly I find the landlord has met the threshold required under section 55A and the tenancy is terminated for anti-social behaviour.
The landlord has asked that the tenant be given two weeks’ notice to vacate the premises. I have terminated the tenancy in accordance with this request.

Order

Reasons

Mrs Thompson-Wise and Mr Nai, representing the landlord, and Miss Bishop, the tenant, attended the hearing.
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 tenancy is a two bedroomed unit in a complex consisting of 8 units. The units are in close proximity to one another but are not adjoining.

Subject to certain considerations, under section 55A of the Residential Tenancy Act 1986 (RTA) 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 RTA confirms in s 55A(7) that “anti-social behaviour” means harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
If the anti-social behaviour relates to behaviour from a person at the premises at the same time the tenant is at the premises, then the tenant is presumed to have permitted the person to be there unless the tenant proves they took all reasonable steps to prevent the person from entering or to eject the person from the premises (s 55A(5)).
Section 55A(4) requires the Tribunal must not take into consideration the impact on the tenant in making an order terminating the tenancy.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour consists of ongoing loud, abusive arguing between persons at the tenancy premises often late at night. The landlord says it has received ongoing complaints from the tenant’s neighbours about the noise. The landlord cited a number of incidents in addition to the occasions referred to in the anti-social behaviour notices which occurred between 22 January 2018 and 20 January 2025.
The tenant confirmed that: • her oldest son lives at the premises. • her younger son was trespassed from the premises as he “causes trouble” but that he ignored the trespass notice and continued to come around, and has been involved in some of the arguing and fighting that has occurred. • her daughter has also moved in with her five children. • The father of her daughter’s children also visits and the tenant says he and her daughter often argue and yell at each other.
The landlord states the anti-social behaviour described in the three notices as: i.Notice 1: On 12 October 2024 at about 3.00am there were “loud arguments” and persistent barking from dogs. The Police attended and arrested the tenant’s youngest son. ii.Notice 2: On 13 November 2024 at around midnight and 2:00am there was “loud arguments”. A neighbour made a complaint to the Police. iii.Notice 3: On 14 December 2024 at around 10.30pm there was “yelling and screaming” which was “abusive” and “distressing to neighbours”.
The tenant was at home on all three occasions and accepts that all of the above incidents occurred as described. She says the incident in the first notice was caused by her youngest son who arrived and “stirred up the household, particularly her older son, and then returned and caused a fight with her oldest son. The tenant had told Mr Nia, her Senior Housing Manager, soon after the incident in the second notice that it was an argument between her and her daughter. The third notice involved several persons at the tenancy premises. The tenant believes the father of her daughter’s children was involved in the arguments in both the second and the third notices.
There is a statement corroborating the behaviours from a resident in the neighbourhood whose name has been redacted. A sound recording of each of the incidents in the three notices was presented in evidence. The recordings were not taken from a unit immediately next the tenant’s premises. The recordings verify loud yelling and use of abusive language occurred in each incident. I find the behaviour exhibited fell within the definition of anti-social behaviour as it is behaviour that reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor.
I have considered whether the persons engaged in the anti-social behaviour were there with the tenant’s permission or, if not, whether the tenant has proved that she took all reasonable steps to prevent the person from entering the premises or ejecting them from the premises.
Based on the tenants’ evidence I have no doubt that the tenant’s older son, her daughter and the father of her daughter’s children were at the premises with her permission, albeit that she has asked her daughter to leave from time to time.
In relation to her youngest son who had been trespassed from the property, I am not convinced that the tenant took all reasonable steps to prevent him from entering the premises. I make this finding for the following reasons: a) The tenant said her son continued to come around despite being trespassed and that he essentially ignored the trespass notice. b) Regardless of his continuing presence at the property the tenant confirmed that her front door was regularly unlocked until she went to bed. That meant her younger son could walk into the property as he chose. c) On the night of the incident under the first notice the tenant said her younger son arrived and stayed for some time, which she recalled as being about 30 minutes. He was told to go, which he did but then returned. To enter the property he either was able to walk in as the door was unlocked, had a key (which was denied by the tenant), or was let into the property. The tenant has not raised that the younger son has entered the property in any other way. d) While the tenant says her older son called the police to have him removed from the property after the second entry, I consider the tenant should have locked the door so that her son could not walk in, or if the door was locked not let him into the property. Opening the door and letting him into the property amounts to an invitation to enter.
Section 55A provides for strict processes that a landlord needs to follow when giving notices for anti-social behaviour that may lead to termination. I find the notices meet the requirements of Act.
All notices were issued within 90 days and there are at least three occasions where persons at the premises with the permission of the tenant have engaged in anti-social behaviour. The application was made within 28 days of the third notice being given.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred and the notices were given. I note the ongoing behaviours of the same nature that occurred before the, during and after the three anti-social behaviour notices were given. The landlord has not acted in a retaliatory way in giving the notices and the behaviour has continued.
Accordingly I find the landlord has met the threshold required under section 55A and the tenancy is terminated for anti-social behaviour.
The landlord has asked that the tenant be given two weeks’ notice to vacate the premises. I have terminated the tenancy in accordance with this request.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5151654 — Harassment at 8D Fow Street, Hamilton Central, Hamilton 3204

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5151654 — Harassment at 8D Fow Street, Hamilton Central, Hamilton 3204

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for anti-social behaviour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for anti-social behaviour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions