What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5282601 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 5282601?

s], at 11:59pm on Friday 8 August 20…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282601?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282601?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12150031-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5282601 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 5282601?

s], at 11:59pm on Friday 8 August 20…: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5282601?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5282601?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12150031-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5282601 — Harassment

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5282601. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
s], at 11:59pm on Friday 8 August 2025. 3. Nga Whetu Michaela Joss, Donna Paul and Cosi Rapana are to pay [the landlord/	$27.00		s], at 11:59pm on Friday 8 August 2025. 3. Nga Whetu Michaela Joss, Donna Paul and Cosi Rapana are to pay [the landlord

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
The tenancy of Nga Whetu Michaela Joss, Donna Paul and Cosi Rapana at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [the landlord/s], at 11:59pm on Friday 8 August 2025.
Nga Whetu Michaela Joss, Donna Paul and Cosi Rapana are to pay [the landlord/s], $27.00, immediately, as reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord, and Ms Paul, representing the tenants, attended the teleconference hearing. Another tenant, Ms Joss, was present with Ms Paul also for part of the hearing.
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, and on the grounds the tenant failed to remedy a breach of the tenancy agreement not to allow pets at the property without the landlord’s consent.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is that the tenant has been making excessive noise by playing loud music, shouting and swearing at night and other times and has had a dog at the property, contrary to the tenancy agreement, and the dog has been barking and roaming loose on the street.
The first notice of anti-social behaviour issued by the landlord was dated 17 May 2025 and described incidents on 3 May 2025 and on 10 May 2025 where there was noise, shouting and swearing heard from the unit at night.
The second notice of anti-social behaviour issued by the landlord was dated 9 June 2025 describing an incident on 31 May 2025 where there was loud noise, shouting and partying until 2am.
The third notice of anti-social behaviour issued by the landlord was also dated 9 June 2025 but described another incident on 7 June 2025 with noise and dog barking.
The landlord said that, from the time the tenants moved into the property in early March 2025, there were constant complaints from the neighbours, which increased daily, with late night calls from neighbours and pictures of the dog to the landlord, about the excessive noise coming from the property and the issues with the dog barking and roaming. The landlord said the neighbours were afraid to come out of their properties due to the dog. The landlord said there were neighbours who worked at night and slept during the day who were also disturbed by excessive noise from the tenants.
The tenant acknowledged that, in the first week of their tenancy, there was a lot of noise, loud music, partying and shouting. Ms Paul said that then her cousin, who had mental health issues, came to stay from 14 May 2025 to 15 June 2025, and that during that time she and her cousin were arguing, there was shouting, and both played loud music. She thought her cousin’s behaviour was the issue here, and said things had been calmer since he left. Ms Paul did not recall the incidents described in each of the anti-social behaviour notices, nor did she recall the neighbours complaining about their behaviour regularly and consistently from the time they moved in.
I pointed out to Ms Paul that she had acknowledged loud music, partying and shouting in the first week of the tenancy, when her cousin was not at the property, and that the two incidents on 3 May 2025 and 10 May 2025, described in the first notice of anti-social behaviour were before her cousin moved in also. She acknowledged that she did play loud music, sometimes at night, but denied playing it at 2am. She said after a neighbour who slept during the day because of work shifts complained to her about her loud music played during the day, she respected his request to turn off her music. Ms Paul said the units/townhouses were very close together and you could hear a lot from neighbours easily. She was keen to eventually move to another area that was less quiet.
Ms Paul said they do not have a dog, but her aunty came over twice with her dog, that Ms Paul told her aunty there were no dogs allowed at the property, and that after that she thought her aunty might have brought the dog over when Ms Paul was not at home perhaps. Ms Paul did not have an explanation for why the neighbours were constantly complaining about the dog barking and roaming and sending pictures of the dog to the landlord, if her aunty had only brought the dog over to the property twice.
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 find it likely that the tenant was making excessive noise, playing loud music, shouting and swearing, consistently from the start of the tenancy, and that the dog that the tenant allowed to be at the property caused issues for the neighbours with barking and being allowed to roam.
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 in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, 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.
The landlord said they were open to any termination of the tenancy being within a 1–3-week period from the hearing. The tenant requested a longer period, should there be any termination of the tenancy.
I find it reasonable that the tenancy be terminated at 11:59pm on Friday 8 August 2025 in the circumstances. Filing fee
Because [the landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Both parties requested name suppression. As the landlord has been successful with the claim, they are entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.
The tenants did not provide any evidence as to why their interests outweighed the public interest in not publishing their names. To the contrary, it is in the public interest for other landlords to be aware of tenants who are involved in anti-social behaviour in their tenancies. Therefore, I do not grant name suppression to the tenants. See section 95A(4) RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5282601. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
s], at 11:59pm on Friday 8 August 2025. 3. Nga Whetu Michaela Joss, Donna Paul and Cosi Rapana are to pay [the landlord/	$27.00		s], at 11:59pm on Friday 8 August 2025. 3. Nga Whetu Michaela Joss, Donna Paul and Cosi Rapana are to pay [the landlord

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
The tenancy of Nga Whetu Michaela Joss, Donna Paul and Cosi Rapana at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [the landlord/s], at 11:59pm on Friday 8 August 2025.
Nga Whetu Michaela Joss, Donna Paul and Cosi Rapana are to pay [the landlord/s], $27.00, immediately, as reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord, and Ms Paul, representing the tenants, attended the teleconference hearing. Another tenant, Ms Joss, was present with Ms Paul also for part of the hearing.
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, and on the grounds the tenant failed to remedy a breach of the tenancy agreement not to allow pets at the property without the landlord’s consent.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is that the tenant has been making excessive noise by playing loud music, shouting and swearing at night and other times and has had a dog at the property, contrary to the tenancy agreement, and the dog has been barking and roaming loose on the street.
The first notice of anti-social behaviour issued by the landlord was dated 17 May 2025 and described incidents on 3 May 2025 and on 10 May 2025 where there was noise, shouting and swearing heard from the unit at night.
The second notice of anti-social behaviour issued by the landlord was dated 9 June 2025 describing an incident on 31 May 2025 where there was loud noise, shouting and partying until 2am.
The third notice of anti-social behaviour issued by the landlord was also dated 9 June 2025 but described another incident on 7 June 2025 with noise and dog barking.
The landlord said that, from the time the tenants moved into the property in early March 2025, there were constant complaints from the neighbours, which increased daily, with late night calls from neighbours and pictures of the dog to the landlord, about the excessive noise coming from the property and the issues with the dog barking and roaming. The landlord said the neighbours were afraid to come out of their properties due to the dog. The landlord said there were neighbours who worked at night and slept during the day who were also disturbed by excessive noise from the tenants.
The tenant acknowledged that, in the first week of their tenancy, there was a lot of noise, loud music, partying and shouting. Ms Paul said that then her cousin, who had mental health issues, came to stay from 14 May 2025 to 15 June 2025, and that during that time she and her cousin were arguing, there was shouting, and both played loud music. She thought her cousin’s behaviour was the issue here, and said things had been calmer since he left. Ms Paul did not recall the incidents described in each of the anti-social behaviour notices, nor did she recall the neighbours complaining about their behaviour regularly and consistently from the time they moved in.
I pointed out to Ms Paul that she had acknowledged loud music, partying and shouting in the first week of the tenancy, when her cousin was not at the property, and that the two incidents on 3 May 2025 and 10 May 2025, described in the first notice of anti-social behaviour were before her cousin moved in also. She acknowledged that she did play loud music, sometimes at night, but denied playing it at 2am. She said after a neighbour who slept during the day because of work shifts complained to her about her loud music played during the day, she respected his request to turn off her music. Ms Paul said the units/townhouses were very close together and you could hear a lot from neighbours easily. She was keen to eventually move to another area that was less quiet.
Ms Paul said they do not have a dog, but her aunty came over twice with her dog, that Ms Paul told her aunty there were no dogs allowed at the property, and that after that she thought her aunty might have brought the dog over when Ms Paul was not at home perhaps. Ms Paul did not have an explanation for why the neighbours were constantly complaining about the dog barking and roaming and sending pictures of the dog to the landlord, if her aunty had only brought the dog over to the property twice.
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 find it likely that the tenant was making excessive noise, playing loud music, shouting and swearing, consistently from the start of the tenancy, and that the dog that the tenant allowed to be at the property caused issues for the neighbours with barking and being allowed to roam.
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 in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, 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.
The landlord said they were open to any termination of the tenancy being within a 1–3-week period from the hearing. The tenant requested a longer period, should there be any termination of the tenancy.
I find it reasonable that the tenancy be terminated at 11:59pm on Friday 8 August 2025 in the circumstances. Filing fee
Because [the landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Both parties requested name suppression. As the landlord has been successful with the claim, they are entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.
The tenants did not provide any evidence as to why their interests outweighed the public interest in not publishing their names. To the contrary, it is in the public interest for other landlords to be aware of tenants who are involved in anti-social behaviour in their tenancies. Therefore, I do not grant name suppression to the tenants. See section 95A(4) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5282601 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5282601 — 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