What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5167824 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 5167824?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167824?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167824?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11868409-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5167824 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 5167824?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167824?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167824?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11868409-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5167824 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Julie Heremaia at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 8pm Monday 2 June 2025.
Julie Heremaia must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, being the application filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.
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, as well as for tenant breaches 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.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The landlord has also 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.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
Ms Heremaia had provided a written submission prior to the hearing. She acknowledged serious breaches had occurred. At the hearing she accepted the tenancy should end.
Given her agreement the tenancy should end I do not recount the cited instances of anti-social behaviour or any failure to remedy here. Suffice to record that grounds for termination by order had been established evidentially.
The date set for the tenancy ending in this order was arrived at after discussion and input from both parties. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Julie Heremaia at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 8pm Monday 2 June 2025.
Julie Heremaia must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, being the application filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.
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, as well as for tenant breaches 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.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The landlord has also 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.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
Ms Heremaia had provided a written submission prior to the hearing. She acknowledged serious breaches had occurred. At the hearing she accepted the tenancy should end.
Given her agreement the tenancy should end I do not recount the cited instances of anti-social behaviour or any failure to remedy here. Suffice to record that grounds for termination by order had been established evidentially.
The date set for the tenancy ending in this order was arrived at after discussion and input from both parties. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5167824 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5167824 — 14-day notice

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