What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288921 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 5288921?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288921?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288921?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12587152-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5288921 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 5288921?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5288921?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5288921?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12587152-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 20, 183 Strickland Street, Addington, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5288921 — Harassment

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Flat 20, 183 Strickland Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024, Norman Kirk Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Monday 27 October 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 October 2025. The tenant’s partner represented her (with approval) although the tenant mostly addressed her response to the landlord’s application.
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 tenant’s cross application is a defence to the landlord’s application. She raised issues about the state of the premises and what she considers has been harassment by other tenants in this social housing complex.
I cannot address the issues concerning the state of the premises. That would require an application addressing those issues, with evidence.
Nor can I address the allegations of bullying and harassment by other tenants. Those allegations do not act to set aside the landlord’s application. If the tenant considers that the landlord has failed to prevent its other tenants from interfering with her reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises, she can make an application with supporting evidence. The landlord’s application
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour comprises one incident where a person at the premises with the tenant’s consent (her aunt) screamed loudly and aggressively to her husband in such a manner that alarmed and distressed other tenants. The landlord played an audio of the incident. The tenant who recorded the audio gave evidence about the event. It happened on 11 August 2025.
The second and third incidents (14 August and 3 September 2025) involved the tenant’s dogs barking and whining seeming to be in distress in the afternoon, at night, and in the early hours of the morning. The SPCA became involved.
There has been a further anti-social breach notice issued for an incident on 5 September 2025 when a person at the tenant’s premises abused 2 neighbours about a letter the SPCS had left. The police became involved. The law
Section 59A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out what is required to terminate a tenancy for anti-social behaviour. 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. In this case the application was amended to include termination for anti-social behaviour within the required timeframe.
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. Discussion
I have considered the evidence presented by the landlord and the tenant’s response to it.
I heard evidence from 3 witnesses for the landlord, 2 other tenants and an employee of the landlord. The tenants described how this tenant’s dogs continually bark and often sound in distress. They state that this has severely affected their mental health because they are concerned for the dogs. They are anxious and suffer from lack of sleep due to the continual barking.
The landlord’s employee described her interactions with the tenant’s immediate neighbour whose mental health has been so badly impacted he has withdrawn, threatened harm and as a result could not attend the hearing to give evidence.
The evidence includes barking dog record sheets which one of the tenant witnesses completed together with his own log of events. The audio evidence confirmed that the barking is more than a nuisance. It is distressing and impacts the other tenants to an extend that is totally unreasonable and unacceptable.
The tenant’s evidence did not adequately address the landlord’s anti-social breach notices. Her complaints were about how she has felt treated by the landlord. That is not the focus of an application such as this.
Nor did the tenant or her representative questions of any of the witnesses when invited to do so. Their evidence was uncontested.
The tenant appears to believe that her dogs cause little or no disruption and that her medical need for companion animals over-rides the quiet enjoyment of the landlord’s other tenants whom she believes have a vendetta against her and who deliberately ‘rark up’ her dogs. I did not find that convincing.
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 by the RTA, and the application to the Tribunal (the amendment) was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy considering 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 59A RTA does not allow that. Result
There is some urgency about this application given that the anti-social behaviour (the dogs barking) is continuing and some of the affected tenants are at their wits end. But I need to balance that with this tenant’s vulnerability.
I therefore terminate the tenancy with possession to pass to the landlord at
59pm on Monday 27 October 2025. That allows the tenant time to make arrangements to move.
As the application is successful, the tenant must pay the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression. Ordinarily she would not be entitled to a name suppression order as her defence to the application is unsuccessful.
However, the tenant has a history of self-harm, and she stated she would either self-harm or suicide if her tenancy were terminated.
I have therefore decided to grant the tenant name suppression.
I have also arranged through the Court manager for the Police to be notified of the tenant’s threat to self-harm.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Flat 20, 183 Strickland Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024, Norman Kirk Courts is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Monday 27 October 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 17 October 2025. The tenant’s partner represented her (with approval) although the tenant mostly addressed her response to the landlord’s application.
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 tenant’s cross application is a defence to the landlord’s application. She raised issues about the state of the premises and what she considers has been harassment by other tenants in this social housing complex.
I cannot address the issues concerning the state of the premises. That would require an application addressing those issues, with evidence.
Nor can I address the allegations of bullying and harassment by other tenants. Those allegations do not act to set aside the landlord’s application. If the tenant considers that the landlord has failed to prevent its other tenants from interfering with her reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises, she can make an application with supporting evidence. The landlord’s application
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour comprises one incident where a person at the premises with the tenant’s consent (her aunt) screamed loudly and aggressively to her husband in such a manner that alarmed and distressed other tenants. The landlord played an audio of the incident. The tenant who recorded the audio gave evidence about the event. It happened on 11 August 2025.
The second and third incidents (14 August and 3 September 2025) involved the tenant’s dogs barking and whining seeming to be in distress in the afternoon, at night, and in the early hours of the morning. The SPCA became involved.
There has been a further anti-social breach notice issued for an incident on 5 September 2025 when a person at the tenant’s premises abused 2 neighbours about a letter the SPCS had left. The police became involved. The law
Section 59A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out what is required to terminate a tenancy for anti-social behaviour. 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. In this case the application was amended to include termination for anti-social behaviour within the required timeframe.
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. Discussion
I have considered the evidence presented by the landlord and the tenant’s response to it.
I heard evidence from 3 witnesses for the landlord, 2 other tenants and an employee of the landlord. The tenants described how this tenant’s dogs continually bark and often sound in distress. They state that this has severely affected their mental health because they are concerned for the dogs. They are anxious and suffer from lack of sleep due to the continual barking.
The landlord’s employee described her interactions with the tenant’s immediate neighbour whose mental health has been so badly impacted he has withdrawn, threatened harm and as a result could not attend the hearing to give evidence.
The evidence includes barking dog record sheets which one of the tenant witnesses completed together with his own log of events. The audio evidence confirmed that the barking is more than a nuisance. It is distressing and impacts the other tenants to an extend that is totally unreasonable and unacceptable.
The tenant’s evidence did not adequately address the landlord’s anti-social breach notices. Her complaints were about how she has felt treated by the landlord. That is not the focus of an application such as this.
Nor did the tenant or her representative questions of any of the witnesses when invited to do so. Their evidence was uncontested.
The tenant appears to believe that her dogs cause little or no disruption and that her medical need for companion animals over-rides the quiet enjoyment of the landlord’s other tenants whom she believes have a vendetta against her and who deliberately ‘rark up’ her dogs. I did not find that convincing.
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 by the RTA, and the application to the Tribunal (the amendment) was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy considering 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 59A RTA does not allow that. Result
There is some urgency about this application given that the anti-social behaviour (the dogs barking) is continuing and some of the affected tenants are at their wits end. But I need to balance that with this tenant’s vulnerability.
I therefore terminate the tenancy with possession to pass to the landlord at
59pm on Monday 27 October 2025. That allows the tenant time to make arrangements to move.
As the application is successful, the tenant must pay the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression. Ordinarily she would not be entitled to a name suppression order as her defence to the application is unsuccessful.
However, the tenant has a history of self-harm, and she stated she would either self-harm or suicide if her tenancy were terminated.
I have therefore decided to grant the tenant name suppression.
I have also arranged through the Court manager for the Police to be notified of the tenant’s threat to self-harm.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288921 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Flat 20, 183 Strickland Street, Addington,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5288921 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Flat 20, 183 Strickland Street, Addington,

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