What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5160651?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of TRACEY ANNE O'CONNOR at 63A Hei Hei Road, Hei Hei,

How much money was awarded in case 5160651?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5160651?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5160651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11498444-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5160651?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of TRACEY ANNE O'CONNOR at 63A Hei Hei Road, Hei Hei,

How much money was awarded in case 5160651?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5160651?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5160651?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11498444-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

63A Hei Hei Road, Hei Hei, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5160651 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of TRACEY ANNE O'CONNOR at 63A Hei Hei Road, Hei Hei, Christchurch 8042 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

A representative of Kainga Ora Homes and Communities (‘KO’) attended the hearing conducted remotely. The tenant was phoned but the call went to answer phone. I am satisfied she had been served with notice of the hearing and the hearing proceeded in her absence. The occupant from 63B Hei hei Road also attended during the hearing and gave oral evidence.
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 and on the basis of a breach of tenant responsibilities by interfering with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants or neighbours .
Ms O’Connor’s tenancy at 63a Hei Hei Rd, Christchurch began in March 2005. She is the sole tenant of the tenancy and resides at the address with her boarder/partner, Mr Tritt. Ms Connor’s premises is one of three KO properties at number 63. Ms Connor’ s unit is the front one of the three and there is shared driveway giving access to all 3 properties. Anti-social behaviour
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.
The first incident occurred on 2 November 2024 when at approximately
40am Ms O’Connor is alleged to have smashed a lounge window at 63B. Police received 2 calls about this incident and took statements form the occupants of 63B and 63C. The occupant said she was woken by a loud smash and looked out the window to see a figure walking past the window. It was dark so she could not identify the person. Shortly after that, the neighbour from 63C came over and said she had been woken by the smash and she had immediately checked her cameras which have a clear view down the driveway. She had seen Ms O’Connor running from 63B, and back into her address at 63A. She was unable to rewind the video as her remote was broken and it is unclear if the police have yet received a copy of that video. She was not prepared to appear as a witness at the hearing as she fears retaliation. Ms O’Connor denied to police that it was her.
While I have not been able to have direct evidence from the occupant of 63C, I find on the balance of probabilities that it was more likely than not that Ms O’Connor broke the window. I reach this conclusion from the fact that she immediately came to 63B after the noise and reported what she had seen on the video and this was consistent with the statement she made to the Police. The first notice was served on 14 November 2024.
The second incident occurred on 25 November 2024. The occupant of 63B had family guests and were out on the driveway. Ms O’Connor had a verbally abusive exchange with the guests and another witness called the police as Ms O’Connor’s partner/boarder, Mr Tritt, had produced an axe. The police also received other concerned calls with one reporting Mr Tritt had let their pit bulldog loose and instructed it to attack the occupant’s guests. The occupant of 63B said Ms O’Connor was throwing stones at them and one narrowly missed her grandson. Mr Tritt also threatened to get gang members and sons to shoot them. Mr Tritt was arrested and is in custody and Ms O’Connor fell, hitting her head, and was taken to hospital. A second notice was served on 2 December 2024.
The third incident occurred on 9 January 2025. The Tribunal had the statements of the affected father in this incident, a detailed record of a phone conversation between the Police and Manager at KO about this incident, Police records and photographs of the victim’s significant injuries.
Ms O’Connor’s dog escaped the property and attacked another dog that was being walked by a father and daughter. The daughter was badly bitten by Ms O’Connor’s dog. Mr Tritt, proceeded to have a verbal exchange with the father and threatened to kill him and his dog. Ms O’Connor got between Mr Tritt and the father and punched the father in the face. By the time police arrived Ms O’Connor and Mr Tritt were in their house, but the dog escaped again so the Police pepper sprayed it. While Police were responding to the incident Ms O’Connor told the neighbours she was getting a screwdriver and going to ‘deal to the police’. Both Mr Tritt and Ms O’Connor were arrested and face various charges. Mr Tritt is in custody. Ms O’Connor confirmed the events to KO staff. A third notice was served on 28 January 2025.
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 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. Breach of tenant 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.
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.
Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA states that Ms O’Connor shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants or of other neighbours in the area. KO Evidence
KO claim that in addition to the above incidents, Ms O’Connor has further breached this obligation.
On 27 November 2024, two days after the second section 55A incident, a neighbour’s children were leaving their property by car when Ms O’Connor appeared and started abusing them. A video has been provided evidencing her screaming abuse close to the car and making rude gestures. The children in the car could be heard screaming and the driver was trying to reassure them.
This is not a breach capable of remedy.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

The District Court set out the various factors that can be considered in making this decision in Huff v Central City Property Management Ltd [2020] NZDC 19229: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
In making my decision I have taken into account the ongoing incidents of antisocial behaviour and the incident on 27 November. These events have had a significant effect on the neighbours causing fear and distress. The occupant of 63B gave evidence that they have had these sorts of ongoing disturbances for a long time but she had been loath to raise them, but she has now had enough and it was time for something to happen. She said the behaviour of Ms O’Connor is so unpredictable you never know what is going to happen and she fears for her and her son’s safety and for that of her neighbours.
I have taken all these factors into account and find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5160651 — Harassment at 63A Hei Hei Road, Hei Hei, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5160651 — Harassment at 63A Hei Hei Road, Hei Hei, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions