What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5378068 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 5378068?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5378068?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5378068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12777557-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5378068 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 5378068?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5378068?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5378068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12777557-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5378068 — Harassment

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 Jessie-Leigh Te-Maro at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant. The landlord confirmed that the telephone number provided to the Tribunal was the last known number that they held for 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 or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
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 evidence, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
The tenant resides in a unit within a 13 unit complex. The units are in close proximity to each other.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is ; • On 28 October 2025 the tenant was described as loudly yelling, screaming and swearing in her unit over a period of approximately 30 to 40 minutes. The tenant told her male partner to “fuck off”. The Police were called. • On 30 October 2025 the tenant’s partner went to witness, Ms A’s unit. The partner accused Ms A of having “narked” on them. The tenant then threatened Ms A saying that “we will make your life hell”. • On 3 November 2025 Ms A said that she heard more screaming coming from the tenant’s unit. She saw the tenant run out of her front door and jump over a fence to get to the to escape . The police were called.
The witness Ms A said that the behaviour of the tenant and her partner resulted in them being very scared and anxious. Ms A had moved out of her unit to stay with friends as they didn’t feel safe and secure in their own home.
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 .It includes the behaviour of anyone on the premises with the permission of the tenant. This would include the behaviour of the tenant’s partner.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the landlord 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.
The landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy under s.55A RTA is proven.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord’s and witnesses name is ordered

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 Jessie-Leigh Te-Maro at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing.
Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant. The landlord confirmed that the telephone number provided to the Tribunal was the last known number that they held for 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 or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
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 evidence, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely.
The tenant resides in a unit within a 13 unit complex. The units are in close proximity to each other.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is ; • On 28 October 2025 the tenant was described as loudly yelling, screaming and swearing in her unit over a period of approximately 30 to 40 minutes. The tenant told her male partner to “fuck off”. The Police were called. • On 30 October 2025 the tenant’s partner went to witness, Ms A’s unit. The partner accused Ms A of having “narked” on them. The tenant then threatened Ms A saying that “we will make your life hell”. • On 3 November 2025 Ms A said that she heard more screaming coming from the tenant’s unit. She saw the tenant run out of her front door and jump over a fence to get to the to escape . The police were called.
The witness Ms A said that the behaviour of the tenant and her partner resulted in them being very scared and anxious. Ms A had moved out of her unit to stay with friends as they didn’t feel safe and secure in their own home.
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 .It includes the behaviour of anyone on the premises with the permission of the tenant. This would include the behaviour of the tenant’s partner.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the landlord 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.
The landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy under s.55A RTA is proven.
The landlord applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord’s and witnesses name is ordered

Tenancy Tribunal case 5378068 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5378068 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions