What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5358061 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 5C Ealing Street, Northcote, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 5358061?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358061?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358061?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12623750-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5358061 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 5C Ealing Street, Northcote, Christchurch

How much money was awarded in case 5358061?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5358061?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5358061?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12623750-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5C Ealing Street, Northcote, Christchurch 8052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5358061 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 5C Ealing Street, Northcote, Christchurch 8052 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 5 pm Wednesday 5 November 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the following grounds: a. Anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission. See section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). b. The tenant has threatened to assault a neighbouring tenant. See section 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA. c. The tenant has breached the terms of her tenancy agreement and the RTA by disturbing the peace and quiet enjoyment of her neighbours. See section 55(1) RTA. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that its claim is more likely than not. The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted. Background
The landlord issued three notices regarding anti-social behaviour to the tenant as follows: a. Notice 1: 6 August 2025 “We understand that on the 29th of July 2025, around 1:20am you were playing loud, music which disturbed your neighbours. Because you were not at home at the time, your neighbour had to jump through your window to turn the music off. The loud music along with the timing of when you decided to play the music disrupted and caused a nuisance to your neighbours. We have had multiple complaints about your behaviour and the loud disruptive music coming from your property.” b. Notice 2: 29 August 2025 “We understand that on the 13th of August 2025, around 12:37am you were playing loud, music which disturbed the neighbourhood. This was soon after you received a warning for a similar incident. On August 23rd, between 9:28pm to August 24th 12:17am there was loud banging, shouting and loud music coming from your property which caused disruption to your neighbours. Around 12:06am, there was a person who emerged from your property and appeared to be having a racially charged and offensive conversation which once again caused disruption to your neighbours. On August 24th between 12:17am to 2:00am there were multiple reports of loud music, shouting and what seemed to be altercations taking place, disrupting the neighbourhood. The police showed up to your property to diffuse the situation. On August 25th, you were heard banging on the neighbour’s door and heard saying “if she is going to talk shit about my kid, I’m going to fuck her up,” Along with “I am going to kick her door N****r. The loud music, shouting, altercations, offensive language during the early hours of the morning have caused constant disruption to the neighbourhood. We have once again received multiple complaints from different sources. The threat to your neighbour to kick down her door, is behaviour we do not tolerate.” c. Notice 3: 24 September 2025 “We understand that on the 31st of August, of August 2025, around 8:30pm, a group of individuals, some of whom were visiting your tenancy and some who were staying with you, used gasoline to deliberately ignite a fire on the driveway between the car parks of 5B, 5C and 5D Ealing. At one point, the fire appears to spiral out of control, prompting attempts by you and your associates to try and extinguish the fire. Despite efforts such as pouring water over the fire and stamping on it, the fire was only extinguished a full 6 minutes later when you took the object that was on fire and dragged it down the driveway. When the tenant at 5D Ealing came out of the property, you assumed she was on the phone to the police and you threatened her saying “she f**k**g recording bro, come the f**k outside you dumb b***h, I will knock you the f**k out, I don’t care N****r.” The actions of lighting a fire using gasoline near vehicles and residential properties constitute an extreme safety hazard. There is a tenant in the complex that has physical disabilities and uses a wheelchair, and this would severely limit his ability to evacuate quickly in the event of a fire spreading. Additionally, tenants with young children reside in the complex, heightening the potential for a tragic outcome. Your continued aggressive and threatening behaviour towards the tenant at 5D Ealing is unacceptable and contributes to an environment of fear and intimidation. This incident, combined with a pattern of repeated anti-social behavior, has created significant distress among the residents of the complex and the surrounding neighborhood. Their safety and right to peacefully enjoy their homes have been severely compromised.”
Two witnesses gave verbal evidence clarifying and confirming details of the incidents referred to in the notices and describing the significant impact of the tenant’s behaviour on them.
Witness A gave the following evidence: a. She described the music being so loud that “the whole street can hear it” and that she can feel it in her house as a loud, monotonous bass throughout the day and late into the night. b. She explained that she was at her “wits’ end” and had tried talking calmly to the tenant and had participated in the landlord’s processes of trying to come to a mutually agreed resolution with the tenant. She advised that the tenant has promised to modify her behaviour repeatedly but has failed to do so. c. In a written statement she recorded the impact of events in Notice 2 on her and her child: “This incident has added further distress to me and my daughter. She was repeatedly jolted awake throughout the night and struggled to sleep, leaving her exhausted and unsettled. It is taking a serious toll on us mentally, financially, and physically. I felt unsafe in my own home, and the repeated damage to my property has added further financial stress to my situation as a solo mum.” d. In a written statement she recorded the impact of the events in Notice 3 on her and her child: “This event was highly distressing for both me and my daughter. The fire posed a serious safety risk to our homes and vehicles, and Jade’s verbal threat left me feeling unsafe. The loud music and ongoing fighting meant my daughter was repeatedly woken and struggled to settle, leaving us both exhausted. As a solo mum, I am finding the ongoing threats, property damage, and now a fire incident extremely stressful, and they are having a significant impact on our mental, financial, and physical wellbeing. I’m really scared living next to Jade and the fact that she has shown zero respect for any of us or herself... However knowing now that jade started fires just for fun has added an extra level of anxiety I really didn’t need added.” e. She confirmed her evidence at the hearing that she was scared of living next door to the tenant.
Witness B confirmed in some detail the incidents in Notice 3 and gave the following statement regarding the impact of those incidents on him: “The events of 31 August 2025 have left my Support Workers and me concerned for our safety. Had the occupants of 5C Ealing Street lost control of the fire, the fire could have spread to the adjacent house, including my own. Due to my physical disabilities and living alone, my ability to vacate the premises quickly in a fire emergency is limited. It scares me that the individuals responsible for lighting the fire seemed oblivious to the potentially fatal ramifications of their actions. I am constantly anxious at night, with the knowledge that I live near individuals who engage in such dangerous behaviour with little regard for the houses and lives around them.”
The landlord submitted video evidence of the incidents confirming the details described in the notices and the witnesses’ evidence. The tenant’s response
The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. She accepted that the incidents occurred and that she made the threats detailed in the notices. b. The music she has been playing is not loud. She denied that it is so loud that the whole street can hear it. She listens to music to soothe her during the problems she is facing in her life. c. She believes that she is being harassed by one of the witnesses who has made multiple complaints about her. d. The fire was started by a group of teenagers who live in another part of the complex but who visit her regularly. It was not lit with her consent or knowledge and she tried to put the fire out. e. She lives in the property alone but has many visitors from other people who live in the complex as they are “family”. f. She cannot control what comes out of her mouth and “flips out when I’m mad”. She accepted that the threats and her language would be distressing. g. The consequences of her losing her home will be very serious as she is trying to regain custody of her child. Termination for anti-social behaviour
Under section 55A RTA but 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.
The Tribunal has considered the evidence presented by the parties as set out above. On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is satisfied that the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities 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 RTA, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
It would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given. There is no evidence that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
Under section 55A(4) RTA, the Tribunal cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The landlord’s application for termination under section 55A RTA is proven. Termination for threatening to assault a neighbour
Although the Tribunal has determined that the tenancy should be terminated under section 55A RTA, it is appropriate to consider the landlord’s second ground for termination in order to make it clear to the tenant that her behaviour in threatening to assault her neighbour is sufficiently serious to justify terminating her tenancy.
Section 55(1)(c) RTA provides that on any application made to it under this section by the landlord, the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has threatened to assault any occupier of any building which of which the premises constitute a part.
The Tribunal accepts the evidence of witness A and the video evidence that the tenant threatened to assault witness A on the two occasions detailed in Notices 2 and 3.
The tenant did not deny that she made the threats. Her explanation that she cannot control what comes out of her mouth is not an excuse for her behaviour. Making such threats is a serious matter with very serious consequences. The threats have intimidated and scared witness A as they were intended to do. Such behaviour cannot be tolerated and Parliament has clearly intended that issuing such threats will result in the termination of a tenancy.
The landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy under section 55(1)(c) RTA is proven. Termination for breach of the tenancy agreement and RTA
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) RTA.
Because the Tribunal has already determined that the tenancy should be terminated under both sections 55A and 55(1)(c) RTA, it is not necessary to consider the landlord’s final application for termination.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5358061 — 14-day notice at 5C Ealing Street, Northcote, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5358061 — 14-day notice at 5C Ealing Street, Northcote, Christchurch 8052

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