What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5163391 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 5163391?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5163391?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5163391?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11563925-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5163391 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 5163391?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5163391?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5163391?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11563925-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5163391 — 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 Latara Louise Stevens at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.

Reasons

Ms [R] and Ms [HR] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant did not attend.
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 began in July 2024 and was uneventful until December of that year when another person either moved into the property (without the landlord’s consent) or became a frequent visitor.
The landlord submits that the anti-social behaviour is ongoing harassment of other neighbours by aggressive and threatening behaviour, often in the early hours of the morning, including but not limited to: a. Blocking the driveway (to five tenancies) with a vehicle and refusing to move the vehicle and responding in an intoxicated and aggressive way when asked to do so (repeatedly); and b. Emptying council bins over common areas; and c. Throwing rubbish in and around a neighbour’s property; and d. Blocking the driveway with council bins; and e. Behaving aggressively towards neighbour’s cameras (so as to intimidate the neighbours) including threateningly holding a dangerous looking dog up to and against the neighbour’s window; and f. Repeatedly throwing alcohol cans on neighbour’s house and hosing the windows in the missile of the night so as to waking and frighten the neighbour; and g. Fights between the tenant and/or her guests necessitating police intervention and resulting in arrests; and h. Driving in and out of the common driveway (shared between the five tenancies), at speed, during the day and night while intoxicated and openly consuming alcohol; and i. Playing loud music at night in cars parked close to neighbours; and j. Abusive and racist language and threatening and aggressive behaviour in response to complaints about the above matters, including “attempting to provoke a fight”; and k. Being intoxicated on many or all of these occasions causing more distress and fear to neighbours due to uncertainty as to possible reactions; and l. Causing some tenants to feel so unsafe in their own home, due to the above, that they eventually ended their tenancy; and m. Causing distress to other tenants (who also want to move) and people in the wider neighbourhood; and n. Continuing the above behaviour despite landlord and police intervention on more than one occasion.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. That 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. That 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. That 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.
However, the landlord’s notices are defective in that they do not describe, “clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social” and nor do they identify “(if known) to the landlord, who engaged in it.”
Further, although the notices specify a number of dates, they do not identify the approximate time or location of the specific behaviour that caused the notice to be given.
Given the defect in the notices, I am unable to terminate the tenancy under this section of the Act.
The tenant’s behaviour (outlined above and further below) is also covered by other sections of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach of tenant’s responsibilities where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) the Act.
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 tenant has breached their obligations by causing or permitting “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 with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.”
The breaches, as described in paragraph 4 above, and further described below, are not capable of remedy.
The tenant has been given three anti-social behaviour notes (albeit defective) to advise that the behaviour needs to stop.
She is aware that the neighbours have cameras and have been filming the behaviour.
The police have been called on multiple occasions and the tenant has been arrested at least once.
Video footage (ten short videos) and photographs have been provided to the Tribunal to support the application for termination.
Multiple police reports have been filed.
Two of those police reports were provided to the Tribunal.
One report provided lists the offence as “Common assault” and this was filed by the neighbour.
Other police reports (filed by neighbours) were requested from police but had not been made available to the landlord prior to the hearing.
One neighbouring tenant has already moved due to this tenant’s behaviour and others have indicated a desire to do so.
In addition to the harassment of neighbouring tenants, this tenant has also behaved aggressively towards the landlord’s agents.
The landlord gave evidence that when trying to conduct an open home at the (now) vacant neighbouring property, the tenant was so aggressive towards the landlord’s agent that the open home was cancelled, and prospective tenants were ushered away at the entrance to the property.
During this incident, the tenant came very close to the landlord’s agents face and said words to the effect, “I’m coming for ya”
The police report filed in relation to this incident lists the offence as “Behave threateningly”.
Another, less experienced, property manager has been so badly affected by this tenant’s behaviour that she took medical leave and has now resigned. The Tribunal was provided with evidence to confirm this.
The landlord is now unable to attend to usual matters at the premises (such as upcoming inspections) due to fear for the safety of staff.
For all of the above reasons, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
I note that the tenancy could also have been terminated under section 55A of the Act as I consider some of the behaviour listed above amounts to threats to assault (in relation to both a neighbour and an agent of the landlord). It is not necessary to review this here as the tenancy is terminated under s56 of the Act.
I note that that the landlord was prepared to grant the tenant possession to 23 March 2025 but in the circumstances the Tribunal considers that immediate possession is appropriate.

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 Latara Louise Stevens at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.

Reasons

Ms [R] and Ms [HR] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
The tenant did not attend.
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 began in July 2024 and was uneventful until December of that year when another person either moved into the property (without the landlord’s consent) or became a frequent visitor.
The landlord submits that the anti-social behaviour is ongoing harassment of other neighbours by aggressive and threatening behaviour, often in the early hours of the morning, including but not limited to: a. Blocking the driveway (to five tenancies) with a vehicle and refusing to move the vehicle and responding in an intoxicated and aggressive way when asked to do so (repeatedly); and b. Emptying council bins over common areas; and c. Throwing rubbish in and around a neighbour’s property; and d. Blocking the driveway with council bins; and e. Behaving aggressively towards neighbour’s cameras (so as to intimidate the neighbours) including threateningly holding a dangerous looking dog up to and against the neighbour’s window; and f. Repeatedly throwing alcohol cans on neighbour’s house and hosing the windows in the missile of the night so as to waking and frighten the neighbour; and g. Fights between the tenant and/or her guests necessitating police intervention and resulting in arrests; and h. Driving in and out of the common driveway (shared between the five tenancies), at speed, during the day and night while intoxicated and openly consuming alcohol; and i. Playing loud music at night in cars parked close to neighbours; and j. Abusive and racist language and threatening and aggressive behaviour in response to complaints about the above matters, including “attempting to provoke a fight”; and k. Being intoxicated on many or all of these occasions causing more distress and fear to neighbours due to uncertainty as to possible reactions; and l. Causing some tenants to feel so unsafe in their own home, due to the above, that they eventually ended their tenancy; and m. Causing distress to other tenants (who also want to move) and people in the wider neighbourhood; and n. Continuing the above behaviour despite landlord and police intervention on more than one occasion.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. That 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. That 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. That 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.
However, the landlord’s notices are defective in that they do not describe, “clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social” and nor do they identify “(if known) to the landlord, who engaged in it.”
Further, although the notices specify a number of dates, they do not identify the approximate time or location of the specific behaviour that caused the notice to be given.
Given the defect in the notices, I am unable to terminate the tenancy under this section of the Act.
The tenant’s behaviour (outlined above and further below) is also covered by other sections of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach of tenant’s responsibilities where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) the Act.
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 tenant has breached their obligations by causing or permitting “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 with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.”
The breaches, as described in paragraph 4 above, and further described below, are not capable of remedy.
The tenant has been given three anti-social behaviour notes (albeit defective) to advise that the behaviour needs to stop.
She is aware that the neighbours have cameras and have been filming the behaviour.
The police have been called on multiple occasions and the tenant has been arrested at least once.
Video footage (ten short videos) and photographs have been provided to the Tribunal to support the application for termination.
Multiple police reports have been filed.
Two of those police reports were provided to the Tribunal.
One report provided lists the offence as “Common assault” and this was filed by the neighbour.
Other police reports (filed by neighbours) were requested from police but had not been made available to the landlord prior to the hearing.
One neighbouring tenant has already moved due to this tenant’s behaviour and others have indicated a desire to do so.
In addition to the harassment of neighbouring tenants, this tenant has also behaved aggressively towards the landlord’s agents.
The landlord gave evidence that when trying to conduct an open home at the (now) vacant neighbouring property, the tenant was so aggressive towards the landlord’s agent that the open home was cancelled, and prospective tenants were ushered away at the entrance to the property.
During this incident, the tenant came very close to the landlord’s agents face and said words to the effect, “I’m coming for ya”
The police report filed in relation to this incident lists the offence as “Behave threateningly”.
Another, less experienced, property manager has been so badly affected by this tenant’s behaviour that she took medical leave and has now resigned. The Tribunal was provided with evidence to confirm this.
The landlord is now unable to attend to usual matters at the premises (such as upcoming inspections) due to fear for the safety of staff.
For all of the above reasons, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
I note that the tenancy could also have been terminated under section 55A of the Act as I consider some of the behaviour listed above amounts to threats to assault (in relation to both a neighbour and an agent of the landlord). It is not necessary to review this here as the tenancy is terminated under s56 of the Act.
I note that that the landlord was prepared to grant the tenant possession to 23 March 2025 but in the circumstances the Tribunal considers that immediate possession is appropriate.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5163391 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5163391 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions