What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5381881?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Emaraina Wahine Mei Pattison-Mackey at Unit/Flat 201, 31

How much money was awarded in case 5381881?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381881?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381881?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13267234-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5381881?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Emaraina Wahine Mei Pattison-Mackey at Unit/Flat 201, 31

How much money was awarded in case 5381881?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5381881?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5381881?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13267234-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 201, 31 Rolleston Street, Mount Cook, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5381881 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Emaraina Wahine Mei Pattison-Mackey at Unit/Flat 201, 31 Rolleston Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6021 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 on Friday 13 March 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 3 December 2025 and 11 March 2026.
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.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is ; First notice dated 7 August 2025 – Incident on 23 July 2025 at 7.15 am. Wellington City Mission staff captured on CCTV cameras two of the tenant’s visitors forcibly entering Block A/31 via the car park side of the Rolleston Street complex and proceeded directly to the tenant’s unit on Level 2, Apartment 201. The tenant acknowledged that the door was being forced open due to a lack of swipe access. However, this has reportedly occurred on multiple occasions. Wellington City Mission staff have consistently offered to escort the tenant to her unit when needed. Despite this support and repeated warnings to stop this behaviour, the tenant has continued to disregard these instructions. It has also been reported that the tenant instructed her visitors to “just barge their way through.” A tenant is liable for the behaviour of any person on the premises with the tenant’s permission (s. 55A(2) RTA). Second notice dated 16 September 2025 -incident on 27 August 2025 at approximately 1:58 am and 4:43am, loud music was played from the tenant’s unit disturbing her neighbours. Wellington City Mission staff contacted the tenant and requested for her to lower the volume, however, instead of lowering the music, the tenant turned up the music and started stomping loudly. At around 4:43am, the tenant’s neighbour Abdulla approached the unit to ask for quiet. Third notice dated 5 November 2025 – incident on 19 September 2025 at approximately 11.00 am. The tenant lay behind her support workers vehicle, preventing them from leaving. Shortly after, the tenant positioned herself between the driveway and the road, blocking the entrance and stopping other tenants from entering or exiting. Despite repeated requests from Wellington City Mission staff, and support workers to move, the tenant refused, and police were called. While the tenant did eventually move, this caused significant disruption and raised serious safety concerns for the tenant, staff and other residents. Later that day at approximately 12.00 pm the tenant was seen to spit from her balcony towards senior Kaitiaki staff.
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.
At the hearing, the tenant denied making excessive noise. No evidence was provided by the tenant in relation to either the first or third notices.
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.
This is behaviour that has occurred over a period of time, rather than a one-off incident. By way of background, the landlord provided the Tribunal with copies of previous Anti-Social Behaviour notices and 14-day breach notices that had been served on the tenant. The tenant has been provided with notices setting out the consequences of her behaviour continuing. The tenant has not changed her behaviour.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenants application for name suppression is dismissed.

Order

The tenancy of Emaraina Wahine Mei Pattison-Mackey at Unit/Flat 201, 31 Rolleston Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6021 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 on Friday 13 March 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 3 December 2025 and 11 March 2026.
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.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is ; First notice dated 7 August 2025 – Incident on 23 July 2025 at 7.15 am. Wellington City Mission staff captured on CCTV cameras two of the tenant’s visitors forcibly entering Block A/31 via the car park side of the Rolleston Street complex and proceeded directly to the tenant’s unit on Level 2, Apartment 201. The tenant acknowledged that the door was being forced open due to a lack of swipe access. However, this has reportedly occurred on multiple occasions. Wellington City Mission staff have consistently offered to escort the tenant to her unit when needed. Despite this support and repeated warnings to stop this behaviour, the tenant has continued to disregard these instructions. It has also been reported that the tenant instructed her visitors to “just barge their way through.” A tenant is liable for the behaviour of any person on the premises with the tenant’s permission (s. 55A(2) RTA). Second notice dated 16 September 2025 -incident on 27 August 2025 at approximately 1:58 am and 4:43am, loud music was played from the tenant’s unit disturbing her neighbours. Wellington City Mission staff contacted the tenant and requested for her to lower the volume, however, instead of lowering the music, the tenant turned up the music and started stomping loudly. At around 4:43am, the tenant’s neighbour Abdulla approached the unit to ask for quiet. Third notice dated 5 November 2025 – incident on 19 September 2025 at approximately 11.00 am. The tenant lay behind her support workers vehicle, preventing them from leaving. Shortly after, the tenant positioned herself between the driveway and the road, blocking the entrance and stopping other tenants from entering or exiting. Despite repeated requests from Wellington City Mission staff, and support workers to move, the tenant refused, and police were called. While the tenant did eventually move, this caused significant disruption and raised serious safety concerns for the tenant, staff and other residents. Later that day at approximately 12.00 pm the tenant was seen to spit from her balcony towards senior Kaitiaki staff.
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.
At the hearing, the tenant denied making excessive noise. No evidence was provided by the tenant in relation to either the first or third notices.
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.
This is behaviour that has occurred over a period of time, rather than a one-off incident. By way of background, the landlord provided the Tribunal with copies of previous Anti-Social Behaviour notices and 14-day breach notices that had been served on the tenant. The tenant has been provided with notices setting out the consequences of her behaviour continuing. The tenant has not changed her behaviour.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenants application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5381881 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 201, 31 Rolleston Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5381881 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 201, 31 Rolleston Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

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