What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5381041 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Ranee Rapihana at Unit/Flat Unit 10, 16A Glynnbrooke Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5381041?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381041?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381041?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12746881-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5381041 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Ranee Rapihana at Unit/Flat Unit 10, 16A Glynnbrooke Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5381041?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381041?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381041?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12746881-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 10, 16A Glynnbrooke Street, Te Atatu South, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5381041 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5381041 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

The tenancy of Ranee Rapihana at Unit/Flat Unit 10, 16A Glynnbrooke Street, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to Community Of Refuge Trust immediately.
Ranee Rapihana must pay Community Of Refuge Trust $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 20 November 2025.
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.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Where an allegation is particularly serious, the Tribunal requires evidence of a sufficiently high standard to discharge that burden. Independent witnesses are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
The tenancy commenced on 1 July 2025.
The premises are part of an 11 unit complex. Some of the other tenants of the complex have various forms of special needs.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is; • People visiting the tenant, driving up and down the communal shared driveway in the early hours of the morning at excessive speed and recklessly. • A visitor to the tenant has damaged a “walker” used by a paraplegic tenant • The tenant’s visitor doing burn outs on a motorbike in the driveway. • The tenant’s visitors parking their cars in the carparks allocated to tenants. • The tenant’s visitors asking other tenants for drugs. • The tenant removing security tags on clothing whilst in the communal area. • The tenant having visitors who appear to be under the influence of drugs. • The tenant having visitors who swear loudly whilst in the communal area. • The tenant having visitors who threatened to take a motorbike belonging to another tenant. • The tenant having visitors who have threatened the other tenants including “ I’m going to get that bitch” and “I’m going to fuck him up”. • Having a visitor yelling and screaming at the tenanted premises into the early hours. This resulted in the tenant herself calling the police. The police arrived and removed the visitor.
Supporting evidence was provided by two tenants who live in the same complex. They explained how they no longer felt safe in their own homes. The incidents had had a detrimental effect on their mental health. The incidents referred to above occurred over an extended period from 25 September 2025 to 12 November 2025.
Evidence was also provided of other incidents which I have not referred to above, including the sale of illegal drugs by the tenant. I do not accept that it has been proven to the required standard that those other alleged incidents have occurred due to a lack of supporting evidence.
The tenant issued a general denial of most of the behaviour complained of and appeared to be genuinely upset by the views expressed by her neighbours. The tenant accepted that some of her visitors were a bit rough and did swear loudly. She said that she had tried as best as she could to curb the activities of her visitors.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 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. This is not a situation where neighbouring tenants have complained about a one off incident . This has been an ongoing pattern of behaviour. It is accepted that the behaviours complained of are generally those of visitors to the tenants unit. Section 55A (2)((a) RTA incudes as relevant behaviour, the behaviour of any person in the premises with the tenant’s permission. That is precisely the situation in this matter.
I have determined that the landlord has established that it is more likely than not 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.
Section 55A RTA provides that I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
As Community Of Refuge Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant has applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application for suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5381041 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

The tenancy of Ranee Rapihana at Unit/Flat Unit 10, 16A Glynnbrooke Street, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to Community Of Refuge Trust immediately.
Ranee Rapihana must pay Community Of Refuge Trust $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 20 November 2025.
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.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Where an allegation is particularly serious, the Tribunal requires evidence of a sufficiently high standard to discharge that burden. Independent witnesses are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
The tenancy commenced on 1 July 2025.
The premises are part of an 11 unit complex. Some of the other tenants of the complex have various forms of special needs.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is; • People visiting the tenant, driving up and down the communal shared driveway in the early hours of the morning at excessive speed and recklessly. • A visitor to the tenant has damaged a “walker” used by a paraplegic tenant • The tenant’s visitor doing burn outs on a motorbike in the driveway. • The tenant’s visitors parking their cars in the carparks allocated to tenants. • The tenant’s visitors asking other tenants for drugs. • The tenant removing security tags on clothing whilst in the communal area. • The tenant having visitors who appear to be under the influence of drugs. • The tenant having visitors who swear loudly whilst in the communal area. • The tenant having visitors who threatened to take a motorbike belonging to another tenant. • The tenant having visitors who have threatened the other tenants including “ I’m going to get that bitch” and “I’m going to fuck him up”. • Having a visitor yelling and screaming at the tenanted premises into the early hours. This resulted in the tenant herself calling the police. The police arrived and removed the visitor.
Supporting evidence was provided by two tenants who live in the same complex. They explained how they no longer felt safe in their own homes. The incidents had had a detrimental effect on their mental health. The incidents referred to above occurred over an extended period from 25 September 2025 to 12 November 2025.
Evidence was also provided of other incidents which I have not referred to above, including the sale of illegal drugs by the tenant. I do not accept that it has been proven to the required standard that those other alleged incidents have occurred due to a lack of supporting evidence.
The tenant issued a general denial of most of the behaviour complained of and appeared to be genuinely upset by the views expressed by her neighbours. The tenant accepted that some of her visitors were a bit rough and did swear loudly. She said that she had tried as best as she could to curb the activities of her visitors.
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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 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. This is not a situation where neighbouring tenants have complained about a one off incident . This has been an ongoing pattern of behaviour. It is accepted that the behaviours complained of are generally those of visitors to the tenants unit. Section 55A (2)((a) RTA incudes as relevant behaviour, the behaviour of any person in the premises with the tenant’s permission. That is precisely the situation in this matter.
I have determined that the landlord has established that it is more likely than not 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.
Section 55A RTA provides that I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
As Community Of Refuge Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant has applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5381041 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 10, 16A Glynnbrooke Street, Te Atatu South,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5381041 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 10, 16A Glynnbrooke Street, Te Atatu South,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions