What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5232171?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of ISABEL MARGARET RALPH at 29A Gresford Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5232171?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5232171?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5232171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11758568-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5232171?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of ISABEL MARGARET RALPH at 29A Gresford Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5232171?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5232171?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5232171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11758568-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29A Gresford Street, Edgeware, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5232171 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenancy of ISABEL MARGARET RALPH at 29A Gresford Street, Edgeware, Christchurch 8013 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, IMMEDIATELY.

Reasons

Only the representative for the applicant landlord attended the hearing.
Ms Ralph could not be contacted despite multiple calls to her cell phone numbers (both the number on the tenancy agreement and the most recent number Ms Ralph has provided to the applicant).
The Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Ralph was properly notified of the details of the hearing and full particulars of the claims against her including the applicant’s request for an immediate termination order because of the serious and ongoing effects of her breaches of her obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
Ms Ralph’s tenancy began on 6/3/2024. She lives in a multi-level complex, managed by the applicant, that contains 14 units.
The applicant began receiving complaints about Ms Ralph’s behaviour causing significant disruption to other tenants at the complex in July 2024.
Three of the neighbours living in closest proximity to Ms Ralph’s unit, have children living with them (one child lives at the complex only part of the time). The tenants have all confirmed in written statements, the significant effects Ms Ralph’s behaviour has had on them and their children. They live in constant fear and anxiety, with frequent disruptions to their sleep. One tenant has requested a transfer of her tenancy and another reports that she spends time away from her unit when she is able to because of the disruptions and threats.
The tenant has breached a number of her obligations under the RTA including her obligation to ensure that she does not unreasonably interfere with her neighbours right to live in peace, comfort and privacy. She has also threatened to assault at least two of her neighbouring tenants and the neighbours report that she is likely engaging in unlawful drug offending at the property.
The breaches are not capable of remedy because the serious breach events outlined in the statements from the NZ Police and neighbours have occurred and the effects cannot be undone.
Despite knowing of this application, and despite having had multiple breach notices served on her outlining the breaches and the likely consequences of continuing to behave or permit others at the property to behave like this, the tenant continues to cause significant disruption at the complex. The most recent events which confirm an escalating pattern of behaviour are outlined below.
On 2 April 2025, multiple neighbours reported that Ms Ralph had returned to the address and began yelling and verbally abusing neighbours with the disruption starting at about 2.45am.
When Kāinga Ora staff attended the complex, they saw that a guest of Ms Ralphs was yelling at neighbours, knocking on a neighbour’s door and making threats to harm her and throwing food at her door. Kāinga Ora staff phoned police who attended.
On 7 April 2025, two neighbours reported to Kāinga Ora that a male from Ms Ralph’s home had approached a neighbouring unit at approximately 8pm and made threats and requested entry multiple times. This happened again at about 11pm and 4am.
On 9 April 2025, a different neighbour complained to Kāinga Ora that she was woken up at 2am by noise, loud banging and smashing noises coming from Ms Ralph’s home.
On 10 April 2025, multiple neighbours advised Kāinga Ora that Ms Ralph had ‘lost her shit’ and was throwing items out of her second story window into the complex car park. Due to the behaviour continuing through the night, police attended and arrested Ms Ralph.
On 13 April 2025, a neighbour forwarded a message to Kāinga Ora staff advising one of the children in the complex had advised them that they were scared due to the noises coming from Ms Ralph’s home.
On 15 April 2025, Kainga Ora received multiple reports that a female guest at Ms Ralph’s home was reportedly waiting for a neighbour to return home so that she could assault her. A male guest at Ms Ralph’s home was reported to have banged on a neighbour’s door and started screaming through the door.
On 19 April 2025, neighbours advised that Ms Ralp has been ‘going off’ as well as yelling at two females outside her unit.
On 22 April 2025, multiple complaints received from neighbours between 3am and 5am that Ms Ralph was intoxicated and banging on neighbour’s doors. Ms Ralph was seen throwing items out of her second story window.
Kāinga Ora staff attended the complex the next day and saw evidence of the items and rubbish throughout the complex. Kāinga Ora staff viewed video footage of the previous night’s behaviour that showed Ms Ralph knocking on doors, yelling and screaming and throwing the belongings.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy considering the significant breaches that have occurred.
The breaches are so serious that they cannot be allowed to continue. They are causing ongoing and significant disruption, fear, distress, and anxiety for multiple neighbouring tenants and their children.
The termination order is to have immediate effect at the applicant’s request and because that is appropriate, taking account of the serious impacts on those who continue to be affected by Ms Ralph’s disruptive behaviour.
The names of the witnesses and the property managers providing statements to support the application are supressed.
The applicant did not seek name suppression and the public interest requires that the tenant’s name is published.

Order

The tenancy of ISABEL MARGARET RALPH at 29A Gresford Street, Edgeware, Christchurch 8013 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, IMMEDIATELY.

Reasons

Only the representative for the applicant landlord attended the hearing.
Ms Ralph could not be contacted despite multiple calls to her cell phone numbers (both the number on the tenancy agreement and the most recent number Ms Ralph has provided to the applicant).
The Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Ralph was properly notified of the details of the hearing and full particulars of the claims against her including the applicant’s request for an immediate termination order because of the serious and ongoing effects of her breaches of her obligations under the tenancy agreement and the RTA.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
Ms Ralph’s tenancy began on 6/3/2024. She lives in a multi-level complex, managed by the applicant, that contains 14 units.
The applicant began receiving complaints about Ms Ralph’s behaviour causing significant disruption to other tenants at the complex in July 2024.
Three of the neighbours living in closest proximity to Ms Ralph’s unit, have children living with them (one child lives at the complex only part of the time). The tenants have all confirmed in written statements, the significant effects Ms Ralph’s behaviour has had on them and their children. They live in constant fear and anxiety, with frequent disruptions to their sleep. One tenant has requested a transfer of her tenancy and another reports that she spends time away from her unit when she is able to because of the disruptions and threats.
The tenant has breached a number of her obligations under the RTA including her obligation to ensure that she does not unreasonably interfere with her neighbours right to live in peace, comfort and privacy. She has also threatened to assault at least two of her neighbouring tenants and the neighbours report that she is likely engaging in unlawful drug offending at the property.
The breaches are not capable of remedy because the serious breach events outlined in the statements from the NZ Police and neighbours have occurred and the effects cannot be undone.
Despite knowing of this application, and despite having had multiple breach notices served on her outlining the breaches and the likely consequences of continuing to behave or permit others at the property to behave like this, the tenant continues to cause significant disruption at the complex. The most recent events which confirm an escalating pattern of behaviour are outlined below.
On 2 April 2025, multiple neighbours reported that Ms Ralph had returned to the address and began yelling and verbally abusing neighbours with the disruption starting at about 2.45am.
When Kāinga Ora staff attended the complex, they saw that a guest of Ms Ralphs was yelling at neighbours, knocking on a neighbour’s door and making threats to harm her and throwing food at her door. Kāinga Ora staff phoned police who attended.
On 7 April 2025, two neighbours reported to Kāinga Ora that a male from Ms Ralph’s home had approached a neighbouring unit at approximately 8pm and made threats and requested entry multiple times. This happened again at about 11pm and 4am.
On 9 April 2025, a different neighbour complained to Kāinga Ora that she was woken up at 2am by noise, loud banging and smashing noises coming from Ms Ralph’s home.
On 10 April 2025, multiple neighbours advised Kāinga Ora that Ms Ralph had ‘lost her shit’ and was throwing items out of her second story window into the complex car park. Due to the behaviour continuing through the night, police attended and arrested Ms Ralph.
On 13 April 2025, a neighbour forwarded a message to Kāinga Ora staff advising one of the children in the complex had advised them that they were scared due to the noises coming from Ms Ralph’s home.
On 15 April 2025, Kainga Ora received multiple reports that a female guest at Ms Ralph’s home was reportedly waiting for a neighbour to return home so that she could assault her. A male guest at Ms Ralph’s home was reported to have banged on a neighbour’s door and started screaming through the door.
On 19 April 2025, neighbours advised that Ms Ralp has been ‘going off’ as well as yelling at two females outside her unit.
On 22 April 2025, multiple complaints received from neighbours between 3am and 5am that Ms Ralph was intoxicated and banging on neighbour’s doors. Ms Ralph was seen throwing items out of her second story window.
Kāinga Ora staff attended the complex the next day and saw evidence of the items and rubbish throughout the complex. Kāinga Ora staff viewed video footage of the previous night’s behaviour that showed Ms Ralph knocking on doors, yelling and screaming and throwing the belongings.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy considering the significant breaches that have occurred.
The breaches are so serious that they cannot be allowed to continue. They are causing ongoing and significant disruption, fear, distress, and anxiety for multiple neighbouring tenants and their children.
The termination order is to have immediate effect at the applicant’s request and because that is appropriate, taking account of the serious impacts on those who continue to be affected by Ms Ralph’s disruptive behaviour.
The names of the witnesses and the property managers providing statements to support the application are supressed.
The applicant did not seek name suppression and the public interest requires that the tenant’s name is published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5232171 — Tenancy dispute at 29A Gresford Street, Edgeware, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5232171 — Tenancy dispute at 29A Gresford Street, Edgeware, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions