What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5158391 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] at 78C Tawa Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5158391?

2. Renee Margaret Wilde And Soka Chh…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158391?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158391?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11493327-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5158391 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] at 78C Tawa Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5158391?

2. Renee Margaret Wilde And Soka Chh…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158391?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158391?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11493327-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

78C Tawa Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5158391 — Harassment

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5158391. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. Renee Margaret Wilde and Soka Chhuon are to pay	$27.00		2. Renee Margaret Wilde and Soka Chhuon are to pay

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] at 78C Tawa Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206 is terminated, and possession is granted to Home Let Property Management Limited As Agent For Veracity Properties Limited, at
59pm on Sunday 2 March 2025.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] are to pay $27.00, for reimbursement of the filing fee, to Home Let Property Management Limited As Agent For Veracity Properties Limited immediately,

Reasons

Mr Rennie, representing the landlord, attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend.
The tenants live in a one bedroomed unit which is down a shared driveway. The premises is under the same roof as another larger residential property (78 Tawa Street). Each property has its own separate carport area.
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.
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 anti-social behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
Section 55A(4) requires the Tribunal must not take into consideration the impact on the tenant in making an order terminating the tenancy.
The anti-social behaviour in the three notices is described as: Notice 1: contains two separate behaviours/incidents - On 19 December 2024 “a man walked from [the tenants property] into the garage of the neighbouring property (78 Tawa St) holding a hammer”. On 21 December 2024 “the same man approached the front door of 78 Tawa Street and stole an orange power cord from that location”. Notice 2: On 20 January 2025 there was “significant noise (sounded like fighting) and yelling which prompted nearby occupants to call the police”. Notice 3: On 1 February 2025 there was “a loud disturbance”, consisting of “hysterical crying and screaming outside the front door. 2 different neighbours called the police”.
Where 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)). In the absence of the tenants I find they are presumed to have permitted the man referred to in Notice 1 to be at their premises.
The landlord has received emails from neighbour/s complaining about each the above incidents. The emails, along with videos relating to the incidents in Notice 1, were provided to the Tribunal and provide direct evidence supporting the landlord’s application.
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. In making this finding I have particularly considered whether the incidents described in Notice 1 fall within the definition of anti-social behaviour. I find that the actions of the man, based on the neighbour’s evidence, has reasonably caused them alarm and distress and were more than a minor nuisance to the tenants’ neighbour.
I have considered the contents of all three notices and find they comply strictly with the procedural requirements of s55A as set out above.
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. The landlord has not acted in a retaliatory way in giving the notices and the behaviour has continued. I note the landlord confirmed other complaints have been received from neighbours of the tenants in addition to those incidents set out in the three notices. The landlord provided evidence of a complaint from a neighbour which set out anti-social behaviours which occurred after the third notice.
Accordingly I find the landlord has met the threshold required under section 55A and the tenancy is terminated for anti-social behaviour.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
Even if I am wrong in considering the events set out in Notice 1 meet the threshold of anti-social behaviour, I would consider the behaviours of the tenant and those person/s at the premises with their permission amount to a breach of section 40(2)(c) of the Act. That provision states that a tenant, or person/s at the premises with their permission, shall not cause of permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any person residing in the neighbour. The tenants have breached this obligation. The breach is not capable of remedy and I find the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be unfair to refuse to terminate the tenancy based on the breach.
The tenancy is terminated on Sunday 2 March as requested by the landlord.
As the landlord has been wholly successful in its claim the filing fee is reimbursed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5158391. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. Renee Margaret Wilde and Soka Chhuon are to pay	$27.00		2. Renee Margaret Wilde and Soka Chhuon are to pay

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] at 78C Tawa Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206 is terminated, and possession is granted to Home Let Property Management Limited As Agent For Veracity Properties Limited, at
59pm on Sunday 2 March 2025.
[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] are to pay $27.00, for reimbursement of the filing fee, to Home Let Property Management Limited As Agent For Veracity Properties Limited immediately,

Reasons

Mr Rennie, representing the landlord, attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend.
The tenants live in a one bedroomed unit which is down a shared driveway. The premises is under the same roof as another larger residential property (78 Tawa Street). Each property has its own separate carport area.
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.
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 anti-social behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
Section 55A(4) requires the Tribunal must not take into consideration the impact on the tenant in making an order terminating the tenancy.
The anti-social behaviour in the three notices is described as: Notice 1: contains two separate behaviours/incidents - On 19 December 2024 “a man walked from [the tenants property] into the garage of the neighbouring property (78 Tawa St) holding a hammer”. On 21 December 2024 “the same man approached the front door of 78 Tawa Street and stole an orange power cord from that location”. Notice 2: On 20 January 2025 there was “significant noise (sounded like fighting) and yelling which prompted nearby occupants to call the police”. Notice 3: On 1 February 2025 there was “a loud disturbance”, consisting of “hysterical crying and screaming outside the front door. 2 different neighbours called the police”.
Where 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)). In the absence of the tenants I find they are presumed to have permitted the man referred to in Notice 1 to be at their premises.
The landlord has received emails from neighbour/s complaining about each the above incidents. The emails, along with videos relating to the incidents in Notice 1, were provided to the Tribunal and provide direct evidence supporting the landlord’s application.
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. In making this finding I have particularly considered whether the incidents described in Notice 1 fall within the definition of anti-social behaviour. I find that the actions of the man, based on the neighbour’s evidence, has reasonably caused them alarm and distress and were more than a minor nuisance to the tenants’ neighbour.
I have considered the contents of all three notices and find they comply strictly with the procedural requirements of s55A as set out above.
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. The landlord has not acted in a retaliatory way in giving the notices and the behaviour has continued. I note the landlord confirmed other complaints have been received from neighbours of the tenants in addition to those incidents set out in the three notices. The landlord provided evidence of a complaint from a neighbour which set out anti-social behaviours which occurred after the third notice.
Accordingly I find the landlord has met the threshold required under section 55A and the tenancy is terminated for anti-social behaviour.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
Even if I am wrong in considering the events set out in Notice 1 meet the threshold of anti-social behaviour, I would consider the behaviours of the tenant and those person/s at the premises with their permission amount to a breach of section 40(2)(c) of the Act. That provision states that a tenant, or person/s at the premises with their permission, shall not cause of permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any person residing in the neighbour. The tenants have breached this obligation. The breach is not capable of remedy and I find the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be unfair to refuse to terminate the tenancy based on the breach.
The tenancy is terminated on Sunday 2 March as requested by the landlord.
As the landlord has been wholly successful in its claim the filing fee is reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158391 — Harassment at 78C Tawa Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158391 — Harassment at 78C Tawa Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions