What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5185351 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5185351?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5185351?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5185351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11585186-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5185351 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5185351?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5185351?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5185351?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11585186-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 5, 25A Beach Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5185351 — Harassment

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 25A Beach Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to Susan Mary Macky and Olivia Alice Macky, at 11.59 pm on Sunday 30 March 2025.

Reasons

Ms Susan Macky, for the landlords and Tenant A attended the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal called Tenant B, on the number provided for him in the application but he did not answer the calls. I am satisfied that he received notice of the hearing and 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 under section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour was reported by neighbours and may be summarised as follows: a. Loud arguments, yelling and obscene language with two incidents occurring late at night on 16 December 2024 at 3am; on 5 January 2025 at
09pm to which Police were called; and on 18 January 2025 at 11.30 pm; b. Revving a car engine on 21 January 2025 from 6-9.30pm and on 22 January 2025 from 6-11.30pm; c. Yelling, swearing, and arguing between the tenants multiple times during the week of 24 February 2025 with Police called on 25 February 2025 at
35pm and on 28 February 2025 in the morning.
At the hearing, Tenant A confirmed the above incidents occurred. She advised that Tenant B (her now former Partner) was causing the noise and disruptions and that his behaviour got worse over time. She asked him to leave the tenancy and says that he vacated a few days before the hearing. She is also considering whether she might need to obtain protection orders. Ms Macky also confirmed that Tenant B sent her a message advising that he had left the premises and would not be returning.
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 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 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 given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
Tenant A’s evidence is that the anti-social behaviour was caused mainly by Tenant B, although she acknowledged that the incidents also resulted in her yelling at Tenant B on occasion. She also says that she called the police once. There was some discussion at the hearing as to whether the landlord might agree to Tenant A remaining in the tenancy given that Tenant B has vacated. Tenant A confirmed that she can afford the rent alone. However, the landlord is concerned that Tenant B may return and cause further problems and they do not want neighbours to be further impacted and affected.
While termination of the tenancy may unfairly impact Tenant A, the Tribunal has no power to exclude her from termination because the tenancy is held by Tenants A and B jointly and severally. Furthermore, under s55A(4) RTA I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
In summary, the grounds for terminating the tenancy under s55A are met. The landlord has agreed to give the tenant some further time before the termination takes effect and, therefore the tenancy will terminate on 30 March 2025 at
59pm.
I am suppressing the names and identifying details of the tenants for several reasons. Tenant A has suggested that Tenant B’s behaviour could be related to issues with his mental health. If that is the case, it could be prejudicial to his health if the details of this decision and his name are published. Tenant A has also stated that she may need to consider protection orders. There is also a strong suggestion that this application has eventuated mainly because of Tenant B’s behaviour. Therefore, I find it would be unfair, and not in the Public interest, to publish Tenant A’s details. See section 95A RTA. K Stirling, 17 March 2025

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 25A Beach Road, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to Susan Mary Macky and Olivia Alice Macky, at 11.59 pm on Sunday 30 March 2025.

Reasons

Ms Susan Macky, for the landlords and Tenant A attended the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal called Tenant B, on the number provided for him in the application but he did not answer the calls. I am satisfied that he received notice of the hearing and 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 under section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour was reported by neighbours and may be summarised as follows: a. Loud arguments, yelling and obscene language with two incidents occurring late at night on 16 December 2024 at 3am; on 5 January 2025 at
09pm to which Police were called; and on 18 January 2025 at 11.30 pm; b. Revving a car engine on 21 January 2025 from 6-9.30pm and on 22 January 2025 from 6-11.30pm; c. Yelling, swearing, and arguing between the tenants multiple times during the week of 24 February 2025 with Police called on 25 February 2025 at
35pm and on 28 February 2025 in the morning.
At the hearing, Tenant A confirmed the above incidents occurred. She advised that Tenant B (her now former Partner) was causing the noise and disruptions and that his behaviour got worse over time. She asked him to leave the tenancy and says that he vacated a few days before the hearing. She is also considering whether she might need to obtain protection orders. Ms Macky also confirmed that Tenant B sent her a message advising that he had left the premises and would not be returning.
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 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 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 given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
Tenant A’s evidence is that the anti-social behaviour was caused mainly by Tenant B, although she acknowledged that the incidents also resulted in her yelling at Tenant B on occasion. She also says that she called the police once. There was some discussion at the hearing as to whether the landlord might agree to Tenant A remaining in the tenancy given that Tenant B has vacated. Tenant A confirmed that she can afford the rent alone. However, the landlord is concerned that Tenant B may return and cause further problems and they do not want neighbours to be further impacted and affected.
While termination of the tenancy may unfairly impact Tenant A, the Tribunal has no power to exclude her from termination because the tenancy is held by Tenants A and B jointly and severally. Furthermore, under s55A(4) RTA I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
In summary, the grounds for terminating the tenancy under s55A are met. The landlord has agreed to give the tenant some further time before the termination takes effect and, therefore the tenancy will terminate on 30 March 2025 at
59pm.
I am suppressing the names and identifying details of the tenants for several reasons. Tenant A has suggested that Tenant B’s behaviour could be related to issues with his mental health. If that is the case, it could be prejudicial to his health if the details of this decision and his name are published. Tenant A has also stated that she may need to consider protection orders. There is also a strong suggestion that this application has eventuated mainly because of Tenant B’s behaviour. Therefore, I find it would be unfair, and not in the Public interest, to publish Tenant A’s details. See section 95A RTA. K Stirling, 17 March 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5185351 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 25A Beach Road, Te Atatu Peninsula,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5185351 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 25A Beach Road, Te Atatu Peninsula,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions