What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5372788 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 5372788?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372788?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12843188-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5372788 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 5372788?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372788?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12843188-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

14A Sussex Street, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5372788 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5372788. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
and reimbursement of the filing fee of	$28.00		and reimbursement of the filing fee of

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Matthew James Lissington at 14A Sussex Street, Levin 5510 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5 pm Tuesday 16 December 2025.
Matthew James Lissington must pay [The landlord/s] $0.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 9 December 2025 of $685.00 and reimbursement of the filing fee of $28.00.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant was telephoned twice but did not answer and messages were left.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c)(v) Residential Tenancy Act 1986 (“RTA”) on the basis that the tenant has threatened to assault a neighbour of the premises.
The landlord provided written evidence from two neighbours detailing a history of disturbances caused by the tenant’s abusive language and playing of loud music.
One of the neighbours who provided a written statement also provided audio evidence of a threat made by the tenant to seriously assault her. She also provided other audio evidence of the yelling and abuse which has repeatedly occurred at the premises.
The neighbour was telephoned and gave verbal evidence confirming her evidence as follows: a. On Friday 3 October 2025 around 10.15 am “another shouting and abusive fight” started between the tenant and his partner. The neighbour’s daughter called out to the tenant requesting that they stop the shouting and bad language as her young children were present. b. The tenant and his partner then turned their verbal abuse at the neighbour’s daughter calling her a “pakeha c***t” and “a pakeha b***h”. The tenant threatened “numerous times to come over and show her how a Pakeha c**t should be treated.” c. The neighbour recorded a segment of the tenant’s abuse which was submitted to the Tribunal. In that recording the speaker says: “I’ll come over and shoot all you f*****s. Don’t be nosey next-door lady. I’ll get you a shotgun and get your nosey bitch arse mouth.” d. The audio was played for the neighbour in the hearing and she confirmed that it was recorded on 3 October 2025, that the speaker was the tenant and that the threats were directed at her and her daughter. e. The neighbour made a complaint to the police on 6 October 2025 and followed this up on 14 October and 17 October 2025. f. The neighbour’s written statement and timeline recorded incidents of antisocial behaviour involving yelling, offensive language and verbal abuse on 10 August, 27 August, 30 August, 6 September, 27 September, 12 October, 14 October and 22 October 2025. g. In addition, the statement records complaints about loud music on 3 and 6 September 2025. On the latter occasion, the neighbour records that the tenant put a speaker on the car directed over the fence to her property for nearly two hours. The noise only stopped when the police attended the property.
Another neighbour confirmed in a written statement details of a series incidents involving loud music and abusive arguments. She had made complaints to noise control and the police. She confirmed that other neighbours had also done so.
The landlord issued a 14-day notice to the tenant on 3 September 2025 concerning the tenant’s breaches of the RTA and tenancy agreement by: a. Antisocial behaviour. b. Breaching the quiet enjoyment of the neighbours. c. Reported drug use. Discussion and decision
Section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA provides that the Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy, if it is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault any occupier or neighbour of the premises.
Section 55(2) RTA provides the Tribunal with a discretion to refuse to order termination under subsection (1) but only if,: ...it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies.
In McLeod v Housing New Zealand Ltd, High Court Auckland AP50 – SW01, 16 July 2001, the Court considered that the discretion in section 55(2) was only available to the Tribunal if all three limbs were satisfied.
In the case of Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court Christchurch, CIV – 2004 – 409 – 717, 2 July 2004, His Honour Justice Keane, accepted that an assault, or threat of assault, once made could not be remedied. His Honour’s view was that the discretion in section 55(2) RTA remained, regardless of whether the breach was capable of remedy or not. If the Court held that the breach could not be remedied, then the issue could be set aside and the Tribunal should go on to consider the two remaining factors in section 55(2) RTA, namely, whether the landlord had been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and whether it was unlikely that the tenant would commit any further breach of the same kind.
In that case, the Court noted that to “threaten to assault” means just what is says: it is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough.
In this case: a. The tenant’s words recorded by the neighbour were a threat of assault. b. The breach by the tenant cannot be remedied. A threat once uttered cannot be unuttered. c. The landlord has not been compensated for the breach. d. Given the history of the tenant in abusing the neighbours verbally, engaging in abusive arguments with his partner and playing loud music and his disregard for the landlord’s 14-day notice, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the behaviour will not continue.
The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it that the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant threatened the neighbour, the neighbour took the threat seriously by making a formal complaint to the police and that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenant will not commit the same breach again by threatening the neighbour or by similar instances of antisocial behaviour. Termination of the tenancy is an appropriate and proportional response.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5372788. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
and reimbursement of the filing fee of	$28.00		and reimbursement of the filing fee of

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Matthew James Lissington at 14A Sussex Street, Levin 5510 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5 pm Tuesday 16 December 2025.
Matthew James Lissington must pay [The landlord/s] $0.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 9 December 2025 of $685.00 and reimbursement of the filing fee of $28.00.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant was telephoned twice but did not answer and messages were left.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c)(v) Residential Tenancy Act 1986 (“RTA”) on the basis that the tenant has threatened to assault a neighbour of the premises.
The landlord provided written evidence from two neighbours detailing a history of disturbances caused by the tenant’s abusive language and playing of loud music.
One of the neighbours who provided a written statement also provided audio evidence of a threat made by the tenant to seriously assault her. She also provided other audio evidence of the yelling and abuse which has repeatedly occurred at the premises.
The neighbour was telephoned and gave verbal evidence confirming her evidence as follows: a. On Friday 3 October 2025 around 10.15 am “another shouting and abusive fight” started between the tenant and his partner. The neighbour’s daughter called out to the tenant requesting that they stop the shouting and bad language as her young children were present. b. The tenant and his partner then turned their verbal abuse at the neighbour’s daughter calling her a “pakeha c***t” and “a pakeha b***h”. The tenant threatened “numerous times to come over and show her how a Pakeha c**t should be treated.” c. The neighbour recorded a segment of the tenant’s abuse which was submitted to the Tribunal. In that recording the speaker says: “I’ll come over and shoot all you f*****s. Don’t be nosey next-door lady. I’ll get you a shotgun and get your nosey bitch arse mouth.” d. The audio was played for the neighbour in the hearing and she confirmed that it was recorded on 3 October 2025, that the speaker was the tenant and that the threats were directed at her and her daughter. e. The neighbour made a complaint to the police on 6 October 2025 and followed this up on 14 October and 17 October 2025. f. The neighbour’s written statement and timeline recorded incidents of antisocial behaviour involving yelling, offensive language and verbal abuse on 10 August, 27 August, 30 August, 6 September, 27 September, 12 October, 14 October and 22 October 2025. g. In addition, the statement records complaints about loud music on 3 and 6 September 2025. On the latter occasion, the neighbour records that the tenant put a speaker on the car directed over the fence to her property for nearly two hours. The noise only stopped when the police attended the property.
Another neighbour confirmed in a written statement details of a series incidents involving loud music and abusive arguments. She had made complaints to noise control and the police. She confirmed that other neighbours had also done so.
The landlord issued a 14-day notice to the tenant on 3 September 2025 concerning the tenant’s breaches of the RTA and tenancy agreement by: a. Antisocial behaviour. b. Breaching the quiet enjoyment of the neighbours. c. Reported drug use. Discussion and decision
Section 55(1)(c)(v) RTA provides that the Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy, if it is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted or threatened to assault any occupier or neighbour of the premises.
Section 55(2) RTA provides the Tribunal with a discretion to refuse to order termination under subsection (1) but only if,: ...it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies.
In McLeod v Housing New Zealand Ltd, High Court Auckland AP50 – SW01, 16 July 2001, the Court considered that the discretion in section 55(2) was only available to the Tribunal if all three limbs were satisfied.
In the case of Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court Christchurch, CIV – 2004 – 409 – 717, 2 July 2004, His Honour Justice Keane, accepted that an assault, or threat of assault, once made could not be remedied. His Honour’s view was that the discretion in section 55(2) RTA remained, regardless of whether the breach was capable of remedy or not. If the Court held that the breach could not be remedied, then the issue could be set aside and the Tribunal should go on to consider the two remaining factors in section 55(2) RTA, namely, whether the landlord had been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and whether it was unlikely that the tenant would commit any further breach of the same kind.
In that case, the Court noted that to “threaten to assault” means just what is says: it is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough.
In this case: a. The tenant’s words recorded by the neighbour were a threat of assault. b. The breach by the tenant cannot be remedied. A threat once uttered cannot be unuttered. c. The landlord has not been compensated for the breach. d. Given the history of the tenant in abusing the neighbours verbally, engaging in abusive arguments with his partner and playing loud music and his disregard for the landlord’s 14-day notice, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the behaviour will not continue.
The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it that the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant threatened the neighbour, the neighbour took the threat seriously by making a formal complaint to the police and that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenant will not commit the same breach again by threatening the neighbour or by similar instances of antisocial behaviour. Termination of the tenancy is an appropriate and proportional response.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5372788 — Rent arrears at 14A Sussex Street, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5372788 — Rent arrears at 14A Sussex Street, Levin 5510

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