What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5192613 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 5192613?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5192613?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5192613?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11972918-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5192613 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 5192613?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5192613?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5192613?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11972918-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

87D Thompson Terrace, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5192613 — 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 Brooke Haika and Te Rangi Hemara at 87D Thompson Terrace, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
I grant leave for this order to be enforced immediately pursuant to section 138 of the District Court Act 2016 and section 106(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Brooke Haika and Te Rangi Hemara must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 for the filing fee immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearings on 8 April and 12 June 2025.
On 10 March 2025 the landlord applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour by the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord served the following notices: • A notice to remedy dated 28 January 2025. The notice stated that, on 21 January 2025, the tenant and her visitors were parking cars in the driveway, obstructing other vehicles and blocking access to other tenants’ units. • A notice of anti-social behaviour dated 12 February 2025. The notice stated that the landlord received video footage showing the tenants from unit 87D and their guests trying to intimidate a neighbouring unit. The incidents took place on 6 February 2025 and 9 February 2025. The Police attended on at least one of these occasions. • A notice of anti-social behaviour dated 28 February 2025. The notice stated that the landlord received complaints from neighbouring tenants on 11 February 2025 alleging aggressive and threatening behaviour. On 21 October 2025 it was reported to the landlord that there were domestic violence incidents at the property which led to the police being called and an arrest being made. • A notice of anti-social behaviour dated 8 April 2025. The notice said that the landlord received complaints from neighbouring residents on 6 March 2025 regarding a fight between the tenants’ visitors on 5 March 2025 at 6pm.
The Tribunal was shown videos at the first hearing which support the landlord’s view that the tenants or their visitors displayed aggressive behaviour towards a neighbour on 6 February 2025.
There is a letter from Victim Support dated which referred to threats and intimidation towards a neighbour on 7 February and 10 February 2025.
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 as set out above.
I find 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. The application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the notice on 28 February 2025, which was the second anti-social behaviour notice. In my view, the requirements of section 55A of the Act are satisfied where, as here, an application had been made to the Tribunal prior to 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 (section 55A(4)).
If I had decided that termination pursuant to section 55A was not available, I consider that it would have been open to the Tribunal to terminate based on a breach of section 40(2)(c) of the Act.
I have granted leave to the landlord to enforce this order immediately, as requested.

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 Brooke Haika and Te Rangi Hemara at 87D Thompson Terrace, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
I grant leave for this order to be enforced immediately pursuant to section 138 of the District Court Act 2016 and section 106(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Brooke Haika and Te Rangi Hemara must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 for the filing fee immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearings on 8 April and 12 June 2025.
On 10 March 2025 the landlord applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour by the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord served the following notices: • A notice to remedy dated 28 January 2025. The notice stated that, on 21 January 2025, the tenant and her visitors were parking cars in the driveway, obstructing other vehicles and blocking access to other tenants’ units. • A notice of anti-social behaviour dated 12 February 2025. The notice stated that the landlord received video footage showing the tenants from unit 87D and their guests trying to intimidate a neighbouring unit. The incidents took place on 6 February 2025 and 9 February 2025. The Police attended on at least one of these occasions. • A notice of anti-social behaviour dated 28 February 2025. The notice stated that the landlord received complaints from neighbouring tenants on 11 February 2025 alleging aggressive and threatening behaviour. On 21 October 2025 it was reported to the landlord that there were domestic violence incidents at the property which led to the police being called and an arrest being made. • A notice of anti-social behaviour dated 8 April 2025. The notice said that the landlord received complaints from neighbouring residents on 6 March 2025 regarding a fight between the tenants’ visitors on 5 March 2025 at 6pm.
The Tribunal was shown videos at the first hearing which support the landlord’s view that the tenants or their visitors displayed aggressive behaviour towards a neighbour on 6 February 2025.
There is a letter from Victim Support dated which referred to threats and intimidation towards a neighbour on 7 February and 10 February 2025.
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 as set out above.
I find 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. The application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the notice on 28 February 2025, which was the second anti-social behaviour notice. In my view, the requirements of section 55A of the Act are satisfied where, as here, an application had been made to the Tribunal prior to 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 (section 55A(4)).
If I had decided that termination pursuant to section 55A was not available, I consider that it would have been open to the Tribunal to terminate based on a breach of section 40(2)(c) of the Act.
I have granted leave to the landlord to enforce this order immediately, as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5192613 — Harassment at 87D Thompson Terrace, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5192613 — Harassment at 87D Thompson Terrace, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

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