What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5157543 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 5157543?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5157543?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5157543?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11481946-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5157543 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 5157543?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5157543?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5157543?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11481946-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

52 Sarah Street, Waikawa Beach, Manakau 5573 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5157543 — Harassment

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 Sarah Helen Peard at 52 Sarah Street, Waikawa Beach, Manakau 5573 is terminated immediately, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], today 25 February 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. The landlord’s application
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
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 (“RTA”).
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 landlord’s evidence
The landlord provided the following evidence in support of its application: a. Email evidence that having sent “vicious texts and social media messages over a period of months”, the tenant came 30 January 2025.to a property in the neighbourhood and threatened to kill the occupants. b. Email evidence from another resident in the neighbourhood that the tenant came to her property and made threats in relation to the resident’s husband. The tenant’s behaviour made the resident feel afraid for her safety. A complaint was made to the police. c. Email evidence that on 12 February 2025 the tenant made threats to a resident of the neighbourhood in relation to her, her husband and son. d. Email evidence that the tenant left a signed note on her car threatening to give her partner “a farken good hiding”. e. Email evidence from a resident in the neighbourhood that the tenant had harassed and verbally abused the resident “for the last couple of years” and had entered the resident’s property and smashed a window. A complaint was made to the police. f. A letter from the local police dated 10 February 2025 confirming that the tenant was in custody on two charges involving victims in the neighbourhood and that the police oppose her living at the tenancy address because of its proximity to the complainants and the “need t keep these parties safe”. g. A breach notice to the tenant dated 6 February 2025: “We have received complaints regarding harassment, intimidation & antisocial behaviour on numerous occasions that have resulted in you being removed from the community by the Police. We believe there are approximately 14 complaints to date. The harassment also extends to text messages and social media posts directed at the community. This behaviour is unacceptable and is of a level of intimidation that police have been involved as we understand that you have threatened to kill as well. We have also been informed that you have been trespassed from multiple properties. It’s a small community that you reside in, and we have no choice other than now to act on a serious matter as we are flooded with multiple threats and complaints.” The breach notice went on to confirm that the tenant’s behaviour breached section 40(2)(c) RTA by “causing interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood” and that an application would be made to the Tribunal.
With this evidence the landlord has persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has breached her responsibilities under section 40(2)(c) RTA on the occasions detailed above. Consideration and decision
It remains to consider whether these breaches are of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. See section 56(1)(c) RTA.
The Tribunal has determined that it would be inequitable to refuse to make a termination order because: a. The breaches were intentional, repeated and aimed at a number of people. b. The police oppose the tenant returning to the premises out of concern for the safety of complainants. The Tribunal shares the police’s view that the likelihood of the tenant repeating her behaviour or of carrying out her threats is a real danger. c. Although it has only recently been brought to the landlord’s attention, the evidence shows that the tenant’s behaviour has continued for some months. There has been a history of this behaviour. d. The breaches are serious. They involve physical damage to property in the neighbourhood and threats of physical violence. The tenant’s behaviour has caused her neighbourhood to fear for their safety. e. Termination is an appropriate response to breaches of this nature and extent.
The landlord wishes to enforce the termination with immediate effect because a recent inspection shows that the tenant has left the property in poor and deteriorating condition and the landlord wishes to take immediate steps to secure the property.
Section 138 of the District Court Act 2016 provides that normally an order cannot be enforced until 48 hours have expired, unless a “Judge grants leave”. However, section 106(2) of the RTA which relates to enforcement of possession orders, confirms that reference to a “Judge” in section 138(1) applies as if it were reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator.
This is a case where it is appropriate that leave be granted for an immediate enforcement of the possession order.

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 Sarah Helen Peard at 52 Sarah Street, Waikawa Beach, Manakau 5573 is terminated immediately, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], today 25 February 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. The landlord’s application
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
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 (“RTA”).
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 landlord’s evidence
The landlord provided the following evidence in support of its application: a. Email evidence that having sent “vicious texts and social media messages over a period of months”, the tenant came 30 January 2025.to a property in the neighbourhood and threatened to kill the occupants. b. Email evidence from another resident in the neighbourhood that the tenant came to her property and made threats in relation to the resident’s husband. The tenant’s behaviour made the resident feel afraid for her safety. A complaint was made to the police. c. Email evidence that on 12 February 2025 the tenant made threats to a resident of the neighbourhood in relation to her, her husband and son. d. Email evidence that the tenant left a signed note on her car threatening to give her partner “a farken good hiding”. e. Email evidence from a resident in the neighbourhood that the tenant had harassed and verbally abused the resident “for the last couple of years” and had entered the resident’s property and smashed a window. A complaint was made to the police. f. A letter from the local police dated 10 February 2025 confirming that the tenant was in custody on two charges involving victims in the neighbourhood and that the police oppose her living at the tenancy address because of its proximity to the complainants and the “need t keep these parties safe”. g. A breach notice to the tenant dated 6 February 2025: “We have received complaints regarding harassment, intimidation & antisocial behaviour on numerous occasions that have resulted in you being removed from the community by the Police. We believe there are approximately 14 complaints to date. The harassment also extends to text messages and social media posts directed at the community. This behaviour is unacceptable and is of a level of intimidation that police have been involved as we understand that you have threatened to kill as well. We have also been informed that you have been trespassed from multiple properties. It’s a small community that you reside in, and we have no choice other than now to act on a serious matter as we are flooded with multiple threats and complaints.” The breach notice went on to confirm that the tenant’s behaviour breached section 40(2)(c) RTA by “causing interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood” and that an application would be made to the Tribunal.
With this evidence the landlord has persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has breached her responsibilities under section 40(2)(c) RTA on the occasions detailed above. Consideration and decision
It remains to consider whether these breaches are of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. See section 56(1)(c) RTA.
The Tribunal has determined that it would be inequitable to refuse to make a termination order because: a. The breaches were intentional, repeated and aimed at a number of people. b. The police oppose the tenant returning to the premises out of concern for the safety of complainants. The Tribunal shares the police’s view that the likelihood of the tenant repeating her behaviour or of carrying out her threats is a real danger. c. Although it has only recently been brought to the landlord’s attention, the evidence shows that the tenant’s behaviour has continued for some months. There has been a history of this behaviour. d. The breaches are serious. They involve physical damage to property in the neighbourhood and threats of physical violence. The tenant’s behaviour has caused her neighbourhood to fear for their safety. e. Termination is an appropriate response to breaches of this nature and extent.
The landlord wishes to enforce the termination with immediate effect because a recent inspection shows that the tenant has left the property in poor and deteriorating condition and the landlord wishes to take immediate steps to secure the property.
Section 138 of the District Court Act 2016 provides that normally an order cannot be enforced until 48 hours have expired, unless a “Judge grants leave”. However, section 106(2) of the RTA which relates to enforcement of possession orders, confirms that reference to a “Judge” in section 138(1) applies as if it were reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator.
This is a case where it is appropriate that leave be granted for an immediate enforcement of the possession order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5157543 — Harassment at 52 Sarah Street, Waikawa Beach, Manakau 5573

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5157543 — Harassment at 52 Sarah Street, Waikawa Beach, Manakau 5573

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