What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5391301 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 801, 46 Nairn Street, Mount Cook,

How much money was awarded in case 5391301?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391301?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391301?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12849243-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5391301 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 801, 46 Nairn Street, Mount Cook,

How much money was awarded in case 5391301?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391301?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391301?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12849243-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 801, 46 Nairn Street, Mount Cook, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5391301 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 801, 46 Nairn Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6011, Berkeley Dallard Flats is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, being the filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, by telephone.
Unfortunately, the tenant was unable to be contacted on the telephone number provided.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.
Alternatively, the landlord seeks termination for a breach incapable of remedy.
The periodic tenancy began on 28/8/2025 at a rent of $162.00 per week.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is causing deliberate noise in the premises and ongoing threatening and violent behaviour towards other tenants.
In support of the claim the landlord provided copies of the three anti-social behaviour notices as follows: a. Notice dated 13/10/2025 for “ongoing incidents of threatening and violent behaviour, including loud verbal altercations, door slamming, and issuing threats, which are causing significant distress and disruption to neighbouring residents”. The landlord submitted these incidents occurred from 27/9/2025. b. Notice dated 16/10/2025 for “deliberate Noise that is not being remedied, and alleged threatening behaviour of neighbours” The landlord submitted these incidents occurred between 13 and 16/10/2025. c. Notice dated 11/11/2025 for “deliberate Noise that is not being remediated. ongoing threatening and violent behaviour”. The landlord submitted these incidents occurred between 10/10 and 3/12/2025.
Further the landlord provided witness statements by neighbours setting out details of their complaints since the incidents began, with timelines and a video of an altercation taken by a neighbour.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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.
The allegation is that the tenant was regularly creating unacceptable levels of noise, and verbally threatened and abused neighbours on numerous occasions, and that the Police were involved at various times.
The evidence of the neighbours was that the persistent, continuing noise and domestic abuse behaviour affected their enjoyment of their tenancies, their mental health and had caused several of them to seek transfers of their tenancies.
I have carefully considered the evidence presented by the landlord.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on numerous occasions at the premises by the tenant.
The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 behaviours arose, and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
Unfortunate as it may be for the tenant, I cannot consider the impact her, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
However, because the notices do not specify the exact dates, times and location of the breaches termination under section 55A may not be available to the landlord and I therefore need to consider the alternative application.

Should the discretion not to terminate the tenancy be exercised?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The evidence supports that the tenant breached her obligations on numerous occasions by causing or permitting, or both, an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of other of the landlord’s tenants in the use of the premises. See section 40(2)(c).
In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd CIV-2004-409-717 the High Court discussed that the preferred interpretation if a breach cannot be remedied, as is the case here, is to set that aside and consider the other two issues of compensation for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely the tenant would commit any further breach of the same kind.
There is no evidence of any loss from the breach, so no issue of compensation arises.
However, the evidence supports significant anti-social behaviour by the tenant in the form of the three anti-social behaviour notices, witness statements and video.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the Court at paragraph 61 set out the factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with her obligations in the future d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed e. The conduct of the landlord f. The gravity of the breach g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The tenancy began on 28/8/2025 and is therefore of a very short duration.
There is evidence from the landlord of discussions with the tenant about the advisability of her entering into a tenancy in close proximity to a former partner with whom domestic violence issues had occurred and the tenant wishing to proceed.
Further the evidence supports that the landlord had offered multiple support to the tenant since the beginning of the tenancy, made numerous attempts to alleviate the situation and repeatedly warned the tenant of the consequences of the breaches.
Despite the warnings, the number of similar breaches raises a presumption these were deliberately committed.
There is no evidence to suggest that the conduct of the landlord has in any way been inappropriate.
The question for the Tribunal is having established that the tenant has breached her obligations under the legislation, is whether as a matter of proportionality termination is an inequitable response having regard to the tenant’s conduct throughout the tenancy and the likelihood of her complying in the future.
Termination of a tenancy has serious consequences for a tenant.
Unfortunate as it may be for the tenant I consider having regard to the facts of this case, in particular the continued breaches throughout the term of the tenancy, that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
I consider the breaches are significant and the evidence suggests it is unlikely that the tenant will comply with her obligations in the future.
The tenancy is terminated immediately, and possession granted to the landlord.
As [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
The landlord did not ask for suppression.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 801, 46 Nairn Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6011, Berkeley Dallard Flats is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, being the filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, by telephone.
Unfortunately, the tenant was unable to be contacted on the telephone number provided.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.
Alternatively, the landlord seeks termination for a breach incapable of remedy.
The periodic tenancy began on 28/8/2025 at a rent of $162.00 per week.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is causing deliberate noise in the premises and ongoing threatening and violent behaviour towards other tenants.
In support of the claim the landlord provided copies of the three anti-social behaviour notices as follows: a. Notice dated 13/10/2025 for “ongoing incidents of threatening and violent behaviour, including loud verbal altercations, door slamming, and issuing threats, which are causing significant distress and disruption to neighbouring residents”. The landlord submitted these incidents occurred from 27/9/2025. b. Notice dated 16/10/2025 for “deliberate Noise that is not being remedied, and alleged threatening behaviour of neighbours” The landlord submitted these incidents occurred between 13 and 16/10/2025. c. Notice dated 11/11/2025 for “deliberate Noise that is not being remediated. ongoing threatening and violent behaviour”. The landlord submitted these incidents occurred between 10/10 and 3/12/2025.
Further the landlord provided witness statements by neighbours setting out details of their complaints since the incidents began, with timelines and a video of an altercation taken by a neighbour.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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.
The allegation is that the tenant was regularly creating unacceptable levels of noise, and verbally threatened and abused neighbours on numerous occasions, and that the Police were involved at various times.
The evidence of the neighbours was that the persistent, continuing noise and domestic abuse behaviour affected their enjoyment of their tenancies, their mental health and had caused several of them to seek transfers of their tenancies.
I have carefully considered the evidence presented by the landlord.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on numerous occasions at the premises by the tenant.
The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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 behaviours arose, and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
Unfortunate as it may be for the tenant, I cannot consider the impact her, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
However, because the notices do not specify the exact dates, times and location of the breaches termination under section 55A may not be available to the landlord and I therefore need to consider the alternative application.

Should the discretion not to terminate the tenancy be exercised?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The evidence supports that the tenant breached her obligations on numerous occasions by causing or permitting, or both, an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of other of the landlord’s tenants in the use of the premises. See section 40(2)(c).
In Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd CIV-2004-409-717 the High Court discussed that the preferred interpretation if a breach cannot be remedied, as is the case here, is to set that aside and consider the other two issues of compensation for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely the tenant would commit any further breach of the same kind.
There is no evidence of any loss from the breach, so no issue of compensation arises.
However, the evidence supports significant anti-social behaviour by the tenant in the form of the three anti-social behaviour notices, witness statements and video.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the Court at paragraph 61 set out the factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate a tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy b. Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with her obligations in the future d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed e. The conduct of the landlord f. The gravity of the breach g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
The tenancy began on 28/8/2025 and is therefore of a very short duration.
There is evidence from the landlord of discussions with the tenant about the advisability of her entering into a tenancy in close proximity to a former partner with whom domestic violence issues had occurred and the tenant wishing to proceed.
Further the evidence supports that the landlord had offered multiple support to the tenant since the beginning of the tenancy, made numerous attempts to alleviate the situation and repeatedly warned the tenant of the consequences of the breaches.
Despite the warnings, the number of similar breaches raises a presumption these were deliberately committed.
There is no evidence to suggest that the conduct of the landlord has in any way been inappropriate.
The question for the Tribunal is having established that the tenant has breached her obligations under the legislation, is whether as a matter of proportionality termination is an inequitable response having regard to the tenant’s conduct throughout the tenancy and the likelihood of her complying in the future.
Termination of a tenancy has serious consequences for a tenant.
Unfortunate as it may be for the tenant I consider having regard to the facts of this case, in particular the continued breaches throughout the term of the tenancy, that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
I consider the breaches are significant and the evidence suggests it is unlikely that the tenant will comply with her obligations in the future.
The tenancy is terminated immediately, and possession granted to the landlord.
As [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
The landlord did not ask for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391301 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 801, 46 Nairn Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391301 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 801, 46 Nairn Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should the discretion not to terminate the tenancy be exercised?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Should the discretion not to terminate the tenancy be exercised?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions