What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5220131 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] at Unit A, 476

How much money was awarded in case 5220131?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5220131?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5220131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11978681-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5220131 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] at Unit A, 476

How much money was awarded in case 5220131?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5220131?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5220131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11978681-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit A, 476 Armagh Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5220131 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] at Unit A, 476 Armagh Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at 11.59pm on Monday 30 June 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating this periodic tenancy on the grounds, a. of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission, b. that the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault a neighbour, c. that the tenant has committed a breach of the tenancy agreement that is not capable of remedy.
The tenancy commenced on 20 March 2024. The premises are one house in a group of four houses all owned by the landlord.
The tenants are husband and wife. The conduct alleged to constitute the grounds for termination relates only to Mr Parnham’s behaviour.
In relation to anti-social behaviour, under s55(A) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that: 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 three occasions of anti-social behaviour that the landlord relies on are as follows, a. On 14 January 2025, Mr Parnham was playing music at a high volume. He entered the driveway of the neighbouring property and was verbally abusive, shouting, “these f***** neighbours need to get locked up” and “my hammer hasn’t seen blood yet”. b. On 30 January 2025, one of the landlord’s Housing Support Managers (HSM) telephoned Mr Parnham following a call he had made to the Contact Centre. There was a discussion about maintenance issues and complaints from neighbours about Mr Parnham. Mr Parnham yelled at her and told her to “shut up”. He was warned about his manner, and he then yelled “shut the f*** up, you stupid f****** bitch”. c. On 22 March 2025, Mr Parnham dropped bottles into his recycling bin. The dog in the neighbouring house started barking and Mr Parnham yelled “you f****** c***. I’m sick of hearing that f****** c*** dog. I’m going to slit someone’s neck”. The elderly neighbour picked up her dog and went inside her house. Mr Parnham then went to her door and banged on it. When she answered, he yelled, “You f****** bitch. I hate your dog. I’m going to get you, you f****** bitch”. She tried to shut the door and Mr Parnham tried to block it, but she managed to close it. Mr Parnham kicked at the door before leaving. She called the Police and reported the incident.
As to the first incident, there was a written statement from a neighbour confirming language that Mr Parnham used at the time as alleged by the landlord.
Another neighbour gave evidence by telephone and said that on 14 January she was outside washing her car. There was loud music from the tenants’ garden, and she heard Mr Parnham shout something about slitting someone’s neck. She made a report to police about it, anonymously.
On 22 March she made a voice recording of Mr Parnham on her mobile telephone. It was played during the hearing. The person can be heard shouting “f***off”, “f*** you”, “I’ll slit your f****** neck” and “I’ll find you too”. It sounded like Mr Parnham’s voice. Mrs Parnham interjected at that time and said it was not Mr Parnham. He was not in the hearing room at the time having angrily walked out earlier.
As to the second incident, the landlord’s HSM confirmed Mr Parnham’s abusive language as referred to above.
As to the third incident, the neighbour involved gave evidence by telephone and confirmed what happened on 22 March as stated above. She said that Mr Parnham had abused her previously.
She described how Mr Parnham would often sit in his garden from about 11am and start drinking beer on his own and playing music loudly. She said that he was intoxicated on 22 March when he came over to her house at about 5pm.
She telephoned her daughter after the incident, and she left immediately from her home some distance away to come to see her. The daughter also gave evidence by telephone and said she called the Police about the incident before she left home. After she arrived at her mother’s house, she said Mr Parnham came outside and called her a “stupid bitch”. He then came to her mother’s door and banged on it. She produced a photograph of the front door that she took with her mobile telephone showing a palm print on the door. She said it must have been Mr Parnham’s from when he tried to hold the door open earlier.
The elderly neighbour was very upset by the incident, and she did not want to remain living in the house. The landlord has now moved her to another of their properties.
The HSM and her supervisor further gave evidence about Mr Parnham’s calls to the landlord’s contact centre some of which were escalated to them. The supervisor said there were 58 calls from Mr Parnham since January 2025. He played a recording of one of the calls to him from 7 March. It concerned a request by Mr Parnham for the landlord to reimburse him for the cost of repairing an aerial connection in the lounge and installing a new connection in his bedroom. The landlord would not install a new connection and whilst they would repair a faulty connection, there was no evidence that it was needed or that Mr Parnham had requested it or that he had incurred any expense.
In the recording, Mr Parnham can be heard denying that he had spoken to his neighbours. He makes various threats about the landlord’s staff being “sacked”, he says he has spoken to the Press newspaper and TVNZ and written to the Prime Minister and to New Zealand First. He accuses the supervisor of being as “dirty as they are”, referring to his neighbours, and their “lies”.
The supervisor said he received two calls from Mr Parnham within 24 hours about the same thing and Mr Parnham had no recollection of the prior call. The HSM said that Mr Parnham often seemed to be under the influence of alcohol when he called, and he didn’t recall the fact that he had made the same complaints previously.
Mr Parnham’s response to the evidence relating to the three incidents was to deny that they occurred. He said that he did not go to his neighbour’s door and that he had only ever spoken to her over the fence. When he was asked why all these witnesses would make up these things about him, he suggested that they were all involved in a conspiracy against him, including the landlord, who has paid off his neighbours because they want to get rid of him. He did not offer any explanation for why that would be so.
Mr Parnham denied going into his garden most days to drink and play music. He said that he went out there perhaps twice a week and that he did not drink much. When asked how much he drank, he said 8 to 10 “stubbies”. He said that level of drinking was ok with food.
Mrs Parnham stoutly supported Mr Parnham’s denials. In a written statement she paints herself and Mr Parnham as the victims in all of this.
I am satisfied that the evidence given on behalf of the landlord has been given honestly and that it is reliable. The suggestion that it has been invented as part of a conspiracy against the tenants is not credible and I utterly reject it.
The evidence proves the landlord’s allegations of anti-social behaviour by Mr Parnham on the three occasions relied on in this application.
It is difficult to know what to make of the tenants’ denials. There was evidence that Mr Parnham has suffered head injuries in the past and they could have adversely affected his ability to recall these events. Alcohol may also have played a part. Mrs Parnham may not have been aware of some of Mr Parnham’s behaviour, and it would be natural for her to support her husband and to try to protect their tenancy.
I any case, I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred in connection with the tenancy, by the tenant. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required by the Act, 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.
There have been no complaints about Mr Parnham’s behaviour recently, and the landlord did not press for an immediate possession order. They confirmed that they would try to assist the tenants to find other accommodation. I have therefore made an order for possession to be given to the landlord within 14 days.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5220131 — 14-day notice at Unit A, 476 Armagh Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5220131 — 14-day notice at Unit A, 476 Armagh Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions