What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5388404 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 404, 17 Putney

How much money was awarded in case 5388404?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5388404?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5388404?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12846001-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5388404 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 404, 17 Putney

How much money was awarded in case 5388404?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5388404?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5388404?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12846001-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 404, 17 Putney Way, Manukau, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5388404 — Harassment

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing by telephone. An attempt was made to join the tenant to the hearing by telephone, but the call went to voicemail.

As I am satisfied that the tenant has notice of this hearing, it proceeded in her absence.

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 as follows; a) On 10 October 2025, the tenant was yelling at the neighbouring tenant, physically grabbing her by the arm and shoving her into the corner of the elevator; b) On 13 October 2025 at the reception area to the apartment the tenant was yelling at staff, removed signage from the lobby walls and threw a retractable fence, she has warned people from entering the lobby stating that it was unsafe; c) On 6 November 2025 the neighbour from the first incident went to enter the elevator when the tenant was in there and prevented her from entering by pushing both the neighbour and her walking frame out of the elevator.

The Police attended for all three incidents. Also, the landlord provided CCTV footage which shows the behaviour carried out by the tenant. While there is no sound to the footage, I am satisfied that the actions of the tenant caused alarm, distress or nuisance, that was more than minor.

In addition, the Tribunal had the benefit of a document providing a summary of the incidents from the perspective of the neighbouring tenant. The document records that the neighbour now fears seeing the tenant in the corridors or in the lift of the apartment building.

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.

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.

I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Unit 404, 17 Putney Way, Manukau, Auckland 2104 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing by telephone. An attempt was made to join the tenant to the hearing by telephone, but the call went to voicemail.
As I am satisfied that the tenant has notice of this hearing, it proceeded in her absence.
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 as follows; a) On 10 October 2025, the tenant was yelling at the neighbouring tenant, physically grabbing her by the arm and shoving her into the corner of the elevator; b) On 13 October 2025 at the reception area to the apartment the tenant was yelling at staff, removed signage from the lobby walls and threw a retractable fence, she has warned people from entering the lobby stating that it was unsafe; c) On 6 November 2025 the neighbour from the first incident went to enter the elevator when the tenant was in there and prevented her from entering by pushing both the neighbour and her walking frame out of the elevator.
The Police attended for all three incidents. Also, the landlord provided CCTV footage which shows the behaviour carried out by the tenant. While there is no sound to the footage, I am satisfied that the actions of the tenant caused alarm, distress or nuisance, that was more than minor.
In addition, the Tribunal had the benefit of a document providing a summary of the incidents from the perspective of the neighbouring tenant. The document records that the neighbour now fears seeing the tenant in the corridors or in the lift of the apartment building.
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.
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.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5388404 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Unit 404, 17 Putney Way, Manukau, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5388404 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Unit 404, 17 Putney Way, Manukau, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions