What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5334804 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 18 Alma Place, Shirley, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 5334804?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5334804?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5334804?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12503618-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5334804 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 18 Alma Place, Shirley, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 5334804?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5334804?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5334804?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12503618-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18 Alma Place, Shirley, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5334804 — 14-day notice

Reasons

The tenant failed to make himself available. Attempts were made to contact the tenant by his cell phone. The applicant was represented by Mr Olds. He provided me with a number for Delta Trust who he was advised would be assisting the tenant today. That number was called, and the answer phone provided a number of different numbers to connect within the organisation. Attempts were made for all of the numbers without success.

The tenant did not provide The Tribunal with an alternative number. I listened whilst Mr Old attempted to connect with the Tenant through the Delta Trust.

The absence of a party does not preclude me from hearing and determining the case. I am satisfied that every attempt was made to contact the tenant.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is repeated breaches with the tenant being intoxicated and playing music very loud late in the night. Two other tenants gave evidence. They gave evidence of being assaulted by the tenant when asking to turn down the music. The police were involved on this occasion although no charges were laid.

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 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.

I also note that regardless of the above application to terminate based on anti social behaviour, the application would also be successful under section 55 (1)(c). That is, the tenant has threatened to assault the neighbour of the premises, and on this basis alone given the evidence presented it is appropriate to terminate the tenancy.

I am satisfied having heard the evidence that the grounds for the termination have been made out accordingly.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 18 Alma Place, Shirley, Christchurch 8061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 5pm Friday 3 October 2025.

Reasons

The tenant failed to make himself available. Attempts were made to contact the tenant by his cell phone. The applicant was represented by Mr Olds. He provided me with a number for Delta Trust who he was advised would be assisting the tenant today. That number was called, and the answer phone provided a number of different numbers to connect within the organisation. Attempts were made for all of the numbers without success.
The tenant did not provide The Tribunal with an alternative number. I listened whilst Mr Old attempted to connect with the Tenant through the Delta Trust.
The absence of a party does not preclude me from hearing and determining the case. I am satisfied that every attempt was made to contact the tenant.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is repeated breaches with the tenant being intoxicated and playing music very loud late in the night. Two other tenants gave evidence. They gave evidence of being assaulted by the tenant when asking to turn down the music. The police were involved on this occasion although no charges were laid.
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 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.
I also note that regardless of the above application to terminate based on anti social behaviour, the application would also be successful under section 55 (1)(c). That is, the tenant has threatened to assault the neighbour of the premises, and on this basis alone given the evidence presented it is appropriate to terminate the tenancy.
I am satisfied having heard the evidence that the grounds for the termination have been made out accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5334804 — 14-day notice at 18 Alma Place, Shirley, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5334804 — 14-day notice at 18 Alma Place, Shirley, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions