What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5185072 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 5185072?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5185072?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5185072?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11649830-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5185072 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 5185072?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5185072?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5185072?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11649830-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5185072 — 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 Belinda Simkin at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Sunday 6 April 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 28 March 2025.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour comprises the tenant playing loud music late at night and in the early hours of the morning, playing extremely loud music and using derogatory and threatening language to other tenants at a communal part of the social housing complex, and acting in a threatening manner towards another tenant.
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.
Section 55A(7) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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 evidence
I have considered the evidence presented by the landlord including video (CCTV) evidence and a sound file of a phone message the tenant left on another tenant’s phone. I need not record here the graphic nature of the message left; save to say it was disturbing.
The CCTV evidence is disturbing also. The incidents of playing extremely loud music and using derogatory and threatening language took place in an area for communal use by tenants at this housing complex.
The Tribunal also heard direct witness evidence from four witnesses, three of whom are other tenants. One tenant, who is aged 83 years, described how the tenant’s behaviour is on-going. The elderly tenant’s daughter described how her mother is frightened and anxious, does not sleep well, and has lost weight, all because of Ms Simkin’s behaviour.
The tenant did not challenge the evidence given by the witnesses when invited to do so, other than to say she considered that the other tenants had ganged up on her.
Further, there is a petition signed by 15 residents at this social housing complex, all tenants, who state that Ms Simkin terrorises residents to the point where they do not feel safe in their homes, and some have elected to sleep elsewhere.
One of the witnesses gave evidence that Ms Simkin screamed at her words to the effect that she was going to burn down her house and kill her. That alone would establish grounds for termination of the tenancy for a threat of assault.
The tenant denied most of the allegations made against her, although she agreed she had played her music loudly. She promised to stop that. Analysis
Ms Simkin’s denials are simply not credible when weighed against the considerable evidence placed before the Tribunal – the witness evidence, the CCTV evidence, and the recording of the phone message.
The tenant has mental health issues. She referred to a hospital admission earlier this year. The Tribunal is mindful of the challenges faced by persons with mental health conditions such as the bi-polar condition the tenant described.
However, a situation where one tenant acts in an anti-social manner and interferes with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of other tenants (and acts in a manner that would constitute a threat of assault) cannot be allowed to continue.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required by the RTA, 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. The RTA does not allow for that.
The landlord has proved its case to have the tenancy terminated and that is what the Tribunal must do.
I have delayed the possession order by several days to allow the tenant time to make other living arrangements, hopefully supported by social agencies. Name suppression
Both parties applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful. The tenant is not entitled to name suppression as her defence to the application is unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

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 Belinda Simkin at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59pm on Sunday 6 April 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing I held on 28 March 2025.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour comprises the tenant playing loud music late at night and in the early hours of the morning, playing extremely loud music and using derogatory and threatening language to other tenants at a communal part of the social housing complex, and acting in a threatening manner towards another tenant.
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.
Section 55A(7) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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 evidence
I have considered the evidence presented by the landlord including video (CCTV) evidence and a sound file of a phone message the tenant left on another tenant’s phone. I need not record here the graphic nature of the message left; save to say it was disturbing.
The CCTV evidence is disturbing also. The incidents of playing extremely loud music and using derogatory and threatening language took place in an area for communal use by tenants at this housing complex.
The Tribunal also heard direct witness evidence from four witnesses, three of whom are other tenants. One tenant, who is aged 83 years, described how the tenant’s behaviour is on-going. The elderly tenant’s daughter described how her mother is frightened and anxious, does not sleep well, and has lost weight, all because of Ms Simkin’s behaviour.
The tenant did not challenge the evidence given by the witnesses when invited to do so, other than to say she considered that the other tenants had ganged up on her.
Further, there is a petition signed by 15 residents at this social housing complex, all tenants, who state that Ms Simkin terrorises residents to the point where they do not feel safe in their homes, and some have elected to sleep elsewhere.
One of the witnesses gave evidence that Ms Simkin screamed at her words to the effect that she was going to burn down her house and kill her. That alone would establish grounds for termination of the tenancy for a threat of assault.
The tenant denied most of the allegations made against her, although she agreed she had played her music loudly. She promised to stop that. Analysis
Ms Simkin’s denials are simply not credible when weighed against the considerable evidence placed before the Tribunal – the witness evidence, the CCTV evidence, and the recording of the phone message.
The tenant has mental health issues. She referred to a hospital admission earlier this year. The Tribunal is mindful of the challenges faced by persons with mental health conditions such as the bi-polar condition the tenant described.
However, a situation where one tenant acts in an anti-social manner and interferes with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of other tenants (and acts in a manner that would constitute a threat of assault) cannot be allowed to continue.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required by the RTA, 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. The RTA does not allow for that.
The landlord has proved its case to have the tenancy terminated and that is what the Tribunal must do.
I have delayed the possession order by several days to allow the tenant time to make other living arrangements, hopefully supported by social agencies. Name suppression
Both parties applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful. The tenant is not entitled to name suppression as her defence to the application is unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5185072 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5185072 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions