What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5176792 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5176792?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176792?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176792?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11542008-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5176792 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5176792?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176792?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176792?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11542008-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5176792 — Harassment

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by phone.
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 antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
The tenant agrees with the landlord that there was social disruption while her son was living at the premises. There were two notices given to the tenant regarding that disruption. The landlord gave the tenant a 3 rd Notice regarding an incident at the premises on 23 February 2025.
There is no dispute that anti-social behaviour occurred on the premises on 23 February 2025. There was an altercation in the carpark and the tenant was injured and taken to hospital. The altercation caused significant concern to other tenants in the complex who emailed and phoned the property manager. The property manager understood from the other tenants in the complex that the tenant’s son was there and that there were gang connections. The landlord’s letter to the tenant states that the people who caused the anti-social behaviour at the complex were the tenant’s guests.
The tenant claims that a car was parked in her carpark that did not belong to her. A couple of people began syphoning petrol from it and broke a window/s. She said she went down to the carpark to ask them to remove the car. In the process she was assaulted and taken to hospital. The police arrived while she was at the hospital and the car was gone when she returned from the hospital. She said that she did not invite the people who caused the disruption to be at the premises. She said that her son was not there that day. She disputed that he has gang connections.
It is the landlord’s burden to prove that the people who were at the carpark interfering with a vehicle there were there with the tenant’s permission. The fact that she was injured by one of those people does cast significant doubt about whether there were her “guests”.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above. I find that the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the tenant gave permission for the people who caused the disruption in the carpark area on 23 February 2025, to be at the premises. The application must therefore be dismissed. Suppression
The Tribunal may, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (s.95A(4). I have ordered suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by phone.
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 antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
The tenant agrees with the landlord that there was social disruption while her son was living at the premises. There were two notices given to the tenant regarding that disruption. The landlord gave the tenant a 3 rd Notice regarding an incident at the premises on 23 February 2025.
There is no dispute that anti-social behaviour occurred on the premises on 23 February 2025. There was an altercation in the carpark and the tenant was injured and taken to hospital. The altercation caused significant concern to other tenants in the complex who emailed and phoned the property manager. The property manager understood from the other tenants in the complex that the tenant’s son was there and that there were gang connections. The landlord’s letter to the tenant states that the people who caused the anti-social behaviour at the complex were the tenant’s guests.
The tenant claims that a car was parked in her carpark that did not belong to her. A couple of people began syphoning petrol from it and broke a window/s. She said she went down to the carpark to ask them to remove the car. In the process she was assaulted and taken to hospital. The police arrived while she was at the hospital and the car was gone when she returned from the hospital. She said that she did not invite the people who caused the disruption to be at the premises. She said that her son was not there that day. She disputed that he has gang connections.
It is the landlord’s burden to prove that the people who were at the carpark interfering with a vehicle there were there with the tenant’s permission. The fact that she was injured by one of those people does cast significant doubt about whether there were her “guests”.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above. I find that the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the tenant gave permission for the people who caused the disruption in the carpark area on 23 February 2025, to be at the premises. The application must therefore be dismissed. Suppression
The Tribunal may, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (s.95A(4). I have ordered suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176792 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176792 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions