What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309960 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 16 Leveson Street, Strathmore Park,

How much money was awarded in case 5309960?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309960?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12292800-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5309960 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 16 Leveson Street, Strathmore Park,

How much money was awarded in case 5309960?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5309960?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5309960?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12292800-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Leveson Street, Strathmore Park, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5309960 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 16 Leveson Street, Strathmore Park, Wellington 6022 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59 on Sunday 7 September 2025. The Case:
This case concerns the tenancy of Ms [The tenant/s] at 16 Leveson Street, Strathmore Park, and the conduct of her and her adult children when present at the property. It is a difficult matter to determine, as it traverses the complex relationship between a mother and her children. When the children attend the property, their interactions with Ms Ellington frequently escalate into conflict, characterised by shouting, abusive language, and volatile arguments that extend beyond the home and significantly disturb the peace and comfort of neighbours.
The evidence establishes that these behaviours have persisted over a long period and have caused widespread distress within the neighbourhood. While I accept that Ms Ellington has, at times, attempted to prevent her children from attending the property, she has not been able to enforce these boundaries. As a mother, she has been unable to consistently trespass or exclude them, even when their presence leads to disorder and disruption, and on more than one occasion has failed to call the police when they force their way into her home.
I cannot adjudicate on the human challenges of Ms Ellington’s circumstances, nor on the personal impact that termination of this tenancy may have upon her. Section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act requires me to focus on the antisocial behaviours themselves and their consequences. I must assess the evidence that has been presented, which clearly demonstrates repeated antisocial behaviour — in the form of abusive language, raised voices, and disruptive altercations — occurring to the detriment of the wider neighbourhood over an extended period and over the course of the entire tenancy and not just the 90 day period over which Kainga ora has issued these notices.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of antisocial behaviour from the tenant or persons at the premises with her permission.
The landlord states that the antisocial behaviour has included persistent yelling, swearing, violent altercations between the tenant and her son, damage to property, repeated police callouts, trespass into neighbouring yards, and intimidating behaviour, including one incident where a machete was brandished. Neighbours have described living in constant distress, being unable to leave their homes safely, and enduring sleepless nights due to ongoing disturbances.
Section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act requires the Tribunal to order termination of a tenancy if, on three separate occasions within a 90-day period, the tenant or a person permitted on the premises has engaged in antisocial behaviour, and if, on each occasion, the landlord has served a written notice clearly describing the behaviour, identifying who was involved if known, stating the date, time, and location, recording how many prior notices had been given, and advising the tenant of their right to challenge the notice in the Tribunal. The landlord must then apply to the Tribunal within 28 days of issuing the third notice.
Kainga or has provided evidence of the following: a) On 1 March 2025, at approximately 5:00 pm, the tenant was observed yelling and swearing at her adult sons inside the property, throwing objects around the house, and creating such a disturbance that rubbish ended up strewn across the street. Neighbours reported being too frightened to leave their homes, and police attended. In response, Kāinga Ora served a written notice on 21 March 2025. This notice clearly described the antisocial behaviour, identified and those involved, and recorded the date, time, and location. It specified this was the first notice under s55A and advised the tenant of her right to challenge the notice in the Tribunal. b) On 1 April 2025, in the early morning, multiple complaints were received of loud, abusive shouting between the tenant and her sons, with profanity, door slamming, and dogs roaming free into adjoining sections. Police again attended the property. Further complaints in April described trespass and the son being seen wielding a machete while shouting. On 5 May 2025, Kāinga Ora issued the second s55A notice. This set out the specific behaviours, noted who was responsible, and provided the date, approximate time, and location. It also confirmed that one previous notice had been issued in the same 90- day period and advised the tenant of her right to contest the notice. c) On 24 May 2025, neighbours reported hours of aggressive shouting and swearing between the tenant and her son, including profanities audible inside their homes. The tenant was heard yelling accusations such as “You’re a paedophile” and “I fucken hate you,” which left neighbours feeling unsafe. Police were again called. Kāinga Ora issued a third notice on 23 June 2025. This described the antisocial behaviour, identified those involved, gave the date, time, and location, and confirmed that this was the third notice in the 90- day period. It advised the tenant of her right to apply to the Tribunal to challenge the notice.
Kāinga Ora filed its application on 21 July 2025, within 28 days of serving the third notice. Strictly speaking, the statutory prerequisites were met. However, I note with concern that Kāinga Ora waited the full 28 days before filing and did so by way of an empty application. This conduct prioritised technical compliance over urgency, leaving neighbours unprotected from the very behaviours s55A was enacted to address.
Section 55A confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act that reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor. The behaviours here plainly fall within that definition. I have taken into account the evidence presented, including multiple complaints from neighbours, reports of police intervention, and admissions from the tenant.
I am satisfied that antisocial behaviour has occurred on three or more separate occasions within a 90-day period, and that notices were issued purporting to meet the statutory requirements. Kāinga Ora’s compliance with those requirements has been, at best, technical and questionable, and I have serious concerns about the delay in bringing this application.
However, in accordance with section 85 of the Act, my role is not to determine disputes on the basis of technicalities. I must exercise the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in a manner that ensures the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants. To decline the application on a technical ground would be unfair to the people this provision was designed to protect – the neighbours and property owners who have endured the antisocial behaviours detailed in the evidence. Section 85(2) directs me to determine disputes according to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, and not to be bound by strict legal rights, obligations, or technical forms.
I am further supported in this conclusion by section 56(1)(c), which empowers the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy where the nature or extent of a breach is such that it would be inequitable to refuse to do so. The repeated and serious behaviours established on the evidence are precisely of that nature.
Accordingly, despite my concerns with Kāinga Ora’s approach, I find that the statutory grounds for termination are satisfied, and that to refuse termination would perpetuate the inequity faced by the surrounding neighbours. For these reasons, I grant the landlord’s application under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 16 Leveson Street, Strathmore Park, Wellington 6022 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11:59 on Sunday 7 September 2025. The Case:
This case concerns the tenancy of Ms [The tenant/s] at 16 Leveson Street, Strathmore Park, and the conduct of her and her adult children when present at the property. It is a difficult matter to determine, as it traverses the complex relationship between a mother and her children. When the children attend the property, their interactions with Ms Ellington frequently escalate into conflict, characterised by shouting, abusive language, and volatile arguments that extend beyond the home and significantly disturb the peace and comfort of neighbours.
The evidence establishes that these behaviours have persisted over a long period and have caused widespread distress within the neighbourhood. While I accept that Ms Ellington has, at times, attempted to prevent her children from attending the property, she has not been able to enforce these boundaries. As a mother, she has been unable to consistently trespass or exclude them, even when their presence leads to disorder and disruption, and on more than one occasion has failed to call the police when they force their way into her home.
I cannot adjudicate on the human challenges of Ms Ellington’s circumstances, nor on the personal impact that termination of this tenancy may have upon her. Section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act requires me to focus on the antisocial behaviours themselves and their consequences. I must assess the evidence that has been presented, which clearly demonstrates repeated antisocial behaviour — in the form of abusive language, raised voices, and disruptive altercations — occurring to the detriment of the wider neighbourhood over an extended period and over the course of the entire tenancy and not just the 90 day period over which Kainga ora has issued these notices.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of antisocial behaviour from the tenant or persons at the premises with her permission.
The landlord states that the antisocial behaviour has included persistent yelling, swearing, violent altercations between the tenant and her son, damage to property, repeated police callouts, trespass into neighbouring yards, and intimidating behaviour, including one incident where a machete was brandished. Neighbours have described living in constant distress, being unable to leave their homes safely, and enduring sleepless nights due to ongoing disturbances.
Section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act requires the Tribunal to order termination of a tenancy if, on three separate occasions within a 90-day period, the tenant or a person permitted on the premises has engaged in antisocial behaviour, and if, on each occasion, the landlord has served a written notice clearly describing the behaviour, identifying who was involved if known, stating the date, time, and location, recording how many prior notices had been given, and advising the tenant of their right to challenge the notice in the Tribunal. The landlord must then apply to the Tribunal within 28 days of issuing the third notice.
Kainga or has provided evidence of the following: a) On 1 March 2025, at approximately 5:00 pm, the tenant was observed yelling and swearing at her adult sons inside the property, throwing objects around the house, and creating such a disturbance that rubbish ended up strewn across the street. Neighbours reported being too frightened to leave their homes, and police attended. In response, Kāinga Ora served a written notice on 21 March 2025. This notice clearly described the antisocial behaviour, identified and those involved, and recorded the date, time, and location. It specified this was the first notice under s55A and advised the tenant of her right to challenge the notice in the Tribunal. b) On 1 April 2025, in the early morning, multiple complaints were received of loud, abusive shouting between the tenant and her sons, with profanity, door slamming, and dogs roaming free into adjoining sections. Police again attended the property. Further complaints in April described trespass and the son being seen wielding a machete while shouting. On 5 May 2025, Kāinga Ora issued the second s55A notice. This set out the specific behaviours, noted who was responsible, and provided the date, approximate time, and location. It also confirmed that one previous notice had been issued in the same 90- day period and advised the tenant of her right to contest the notice. c) On 24 May 2025, neighbours reported hours of aggressive shouting and swearing between the tenant and her son, including profanities audible inside their homes. The tenant was heard yelling accusations such as “You’re a paedophile” and “I fucken hate you,” which left neighbours feeling unsafe. Police were again called. Kāinga Ora issued a third notice on 23 June 2025. This described the antisocial behaviour, identified those involved, gave the date, time, and location, and confirmed that this was the third notice in the 90- day period. It advised the tenant of her right to apply to the Tribunal to challenge the notice.
Kāinga Ora filed its application on 21 July 2025, within 28 days of serving the third notice. Strictly speaking, the statutory prerequisites were met. However, I note with concern that Kāinga Ora waited the full 28 days before filing and did so by way of an empty application. This conduct prioritised technical compliance over urgency, leaving neighbours unprotected from the very behaviours s55A was enacted to address.
Section 55A confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act that reasonably causes alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor. The behaviours here plainly fall within that definition. I have taken into account the evidence presented, including multiple complaints from neighbours, reports of police intervention, and admissions from the tenant.
I am satisfied that antisocial behaviour has occurred on three or more separate occasions within a 90-day period, and that notices were issued purporting to meet the statutory requirements. Kāinga Ora’s compliance with those requirements has been, at best, technical and questionable, and I have serious concerns about the delay in bringing this application.
However, in accordance with section 85 of the Act, my role is not to determine disputes on the basis of technicalities. I must exercise the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in a manner that ensures the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants. To decline the application on a technical ground would be unfair to the people this provision was designed to protect – the neighbours and property owners who have endured the antisocial behaviours detailed in the evidence. Section 85(2) directs me to determine disputes according to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, and not to be bound by strict legal rights, obligations, or technical forms.
I am further supported in this conclusion by section 56(1)(c), which empowers the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy where the nature or extent of a breach is such that it would be inequitable to refuse to do so. The repeated and serious behaviours established on the evidence are precisely of that nature.
Accordingly, despite my concerns with Kāinga Ora’s approach, I find that the statutory grounds for termination are satisfied, and that to refuse termination would perpetuate the inequity faced by the surrounding neighbours. For these reasons, I grant the landlord’s application under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309960 — Harassment at 16 Leveson Street, Strathmore Park, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5309960 — Harassment at 16 Leveson Street, Strathmore Park, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions