What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5265967 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 5265967?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5265967?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5265967?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11973961-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5265967 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 5265967?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5265967?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5265967?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11973961-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5265967 — Harassment

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Te huru Peeke Anthony Michael Paratene at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at noon on Monday 16 June 2025.
Te huru Peeke Anthony Michael Paratene must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
Unfortunately, the Tribunal was unable to contact the tenant by telephone.
This is a periodic tenancy which began on 1/10/2021.
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.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is violent physical and threatening altercations which have damaged property and adversely affected other tenants in the complex.
In support of the claim the landlord provided copies of the three notices as follows: a. Notice dated 21/2/2025 for an incident on 18/2/2025 when the tenant and his partner engaged in a domestic violence altercation which escalated into the hallway and an adjourning unit risking the safety of other residents who had to intervene. b. Notice dated 3/3/2025 for an incident on 1/3/2025, which the NZ Police attended, where the tenant’s partner smashed household items against common property and broke a window. c. Notice dated 30/4/2025 for an incident on 20/4/2025, when the tenant and his partner engaged in aggressive behaviour damaging common property. Security, other residents, and the Police attempted to de-escalate the event. d. In addition, a notice dated 29/5/2025 for an incident the previous evening where Security was denied access, and Police confiscated a sound system.
Further the landlord provided ten clips of CCTV footage of the various incidents.
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 carefully considered the evidence presented by the landlord as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour, which is not minor, 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 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.
An order is made for the tenancy to end in four days time, to allow the tenant the opportunity to remove his possessions.
As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord pursuant to section 95A because they were successful with the proceedings.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Te huru Peeke Anthony Michael Paratene at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at noon on Monday 16 June 2025.
Te huru Peeke Anthony Michael Paratene must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
Unfortunately, the Tribunal was unable to contact the tenant by telephone.
This is a periodic tenancy which began on 1/10/2021.
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.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is violent physical and threatening altercations which have damaged property and adversely affected other tenants in the complex.
In support of the claim the landlord provided copies of the three notices as follows: a. Notice dated 21/2/2025 for an incident on 18/2/2025 when the tenant and his partner engaged in a domestic violence altercation which escalated into the hallway and an adjourning unit risking the safety of other residents who had to intervene. b. Notice dated 3/3/2025 for an incident on 1/3/2025, which the NZ Police attended, where the tenant’s partner smashed household items against common property and broke a window. c. Notice dated 30/4/2025 for an incident on 20/4/2025, when the tenant and his partner engaged in aggressive behaviour damaging common property. Security, other residents, and the Police attempted to de-escalate the event. d. In addition, a notice dated 29/5/2025 for an incident the previous evening where Security was denied access, and Police confiscated a sound system.
Further the landlord provided ten clips of CCTV footage of the various incidents.
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 carefully considered the evidence presented by the landlord as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour, which is not minor, 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 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.
An order is made for the tenancy to end in four days time, to allow the tenant the opportunity to remove his possessions.
As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord pursuant to section 95A because they were successful with the proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5265967 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5265967 — 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