What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5391364?

The tribunal order states: There are no orders for suppression.

How much money was awarded in case 5391364?

Inated And Possession Granted To Te…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391364?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391364?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12894461-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5391364?

The tribunal order states: There are no orders for suppression.

How much money was awarded in case 5391364?

Inated And Possession Granted To Te…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391364?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391364?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12894461-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 811, 46 Nairn Street, Mount Cook, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5391364 — 14-day notice

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5391364. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
inated and possession granted to Te Toi Mahana Community Housing at 3pm on Friday 9 January 2026. 3. Te Ariki McBride mu	$28.00		inated and possession granted to Te Toi Mahana Community Housing at 3pm on Friday 9 January 2026. 3. Te Ariki McBride mu

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5391364. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
inated and possession granted to Te Toi Mahana Community Housing at 3pm on Friday 9 January 2026. 3. Te Ariki McBride mu	$28.00		inated and possession granted to Te Toi Mahana Community Housing at 3pm on Friday 9 January 2026. 3. Te Ariki McBride mu

Order

There are no orders for suppression.
The tenancy at Unit/Flat 811, 46 Nairn Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6011 is terminated and possession granted to Te Toi Mahana Community Housing at 3pm on Friday 9 January 2026.
Te Ariki McBride must pay $28.00 to Te Toi Mahana, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing yesterday afternoon, the tenant arriving approximately 30 minutes after the hearing commenced. The landlord was represented by Mr Schalkwyk and Ms Bekele.
I acknowledge that Mr McBride conducted himself respectfully throughout the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55A for antisocial behaviour?

The landlord has issued three anti-social behaviour notices.
The anti-social behaviour described in the first anti-social behaviour notice issued on 13 October 2025 is “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 second notice, dated 16 October, refers to “ongoing deliberate noise and threatening behaviour towards neighbours”.
The third one, dated 11 November 2025, refers to “deliberate noise that is not being remedied. ongoing threatening and violent behaviour. This includes yelling in common areas, violent outbursts and intimidation.”
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.
This means that if the landlord has complied with all aspects of section 55A, and the tenant has not applied to the Tribunal objecting to the Tribunal, then the Tribunal must grant the termination order. There is no need to hear from any witnesses.
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 am satisfied that the description of the behaviour is set out in the notices amounts to antisocial behaviour.
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. The tenant did not apply to the Tribunal challenging any of the notices.
However, none of the notices complied with the requirements of section 55A(2)(b)(iii) which says that the notice must advise the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour. Instead, it recorded when the property manager had spoken to the tenant about the behaviour.
Therefore, I declined to make an order under section 55A to terminate the tenancy.

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56 of the Act?

The landlord’s application also referred to termination for breach of the tenancy agreement that is incapable of remedy.
Section 56 provides that the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that: a. The other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement or of the Act; and b. in the case of a breach capable of remedy,— i. the applicant gave to the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days; and ii. the other party failed to remedy the default within the required period; and iii. that the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The anti-social behaviour notices can still form part of the evidence that I must consider, but on their own, they are not enough to prove the breach of the tenancy agreement.

What is the alleged breach?

Section 40 of the Act sets out the obligations of every tenant.
Section 40(2) says that the tenant must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants.
This obligation is repeated in clause 15.5 of the tenancy agreement between the parties.
Ms Bekele is the tenancy advisor for this tenancy. She said that the tenancy began in April 2025 and there were no issues until August. On 26 August 2025 she received a complaint from a neighbour about a male and female fighting, and police being called.
Ms Bekele visited the Mr McBride, who apologised and said that the situation would resolve itself because his partner was moving out. It transpired that in fact, she was moving to another flat being managed by Ms Bekele and it was on the same floor as Mr McBride’s. His was 811 and his partner’s was 801.
Ms Bekele asked him to be mindful of the other tenants and said that if the behaviour continued, she would issue breach notices.
On 27 September three tenants contacted Ms Bekele complaining of aggressive yelling and fighting from the Mr McBride and his partner. She spoke with the partner and requested a meeting.
On 12 October Ms Bekele received an email from another tenant, Ms A, who lives on the 9 th floor and has lived in the apartment complex for some years. She complained about the behaviour of the tenant at 801 and 811 when she and her friend were on the 8 th floor, on a walk through the building.
Ms A was telephoned during the hearing and gave evidence over the phone. Ms A said that she and another tenant walk through the building for exercise. She said that at the 8 th floor the woman from 801 came out, slamming the door and went into 811 and slammed the door. She then came out yelling and screaming while the tenant at 811 was yelling and screaming inside. He then opened and slammed the door and threw things.
Ms A started a video on her phone to capture the noise. She sent a copy to Ms Bekele and it was played in the hearing. There are two brief videos showing the tenant at 801 coming out and knocking on Mr McBride’s door saying that that he was being videoed. He came out and told Ms A that she could not do that, that it was illegal and she was breaching his privacy. Ms A asked them to stop slamming doors. The tenant from 801 said that the doors just slammed. Mr McBride said Ms A to “Fuck off. It’s none of your business, bitch”.
Ms A told the Tribunal that she asked them to consider the neighbours. She told him that she had read an article about how Mr McBride had turned his life around and she told him to stop being a pest. Her evidence was that he said to her that five years ago, he would have smashed her head in.
Ms A said that since then she has avoided him, but the door-slamming continues, and she has reported it.
Ms Bekele texted both tenants and asked for a meeting to discuss the yelling and the threatening behaviour. The meeting took place on 13 October and both tenants were served with an antisocial behaviour notice.
After the meeting, Ms Bekele received an email from Ms A, complaining that since about 2pm there had been banging of the doors of both apartments.
Ms Bekele received a text from another neighbour, listing the times of banging doors and saying there had been fighting. At 4.06 the female tenant was calling Mr McBride disgusting names. Then he visited her, banging her door then his own when he returned to his flat. There was further loud banging and they both left. That person did not give evidence before the Tribunal, and so less weight is attached to this evidence. This is discussed further below.
On 14 October, Ms Bekele logged a maintenance job regarding the door that is always slamming.
On 14 October, Ms Bekele received a further communication from Ms A regarding banging of doors every 5 to 10 minutes during the afternoon of 13 October. She recorded all of the times. Ms A sent a similar message regarding 15 October with times recorded.
Ms Bekele phoned the tenants on 16 October regarding the noise complaints and reminded them to be mindful of their behaviour towards each other as their behaviour was affecting their neighbours, along with threats to harm their neighbours. Ms Bekele told them that their tenancy was severely at risk.
That afternoon Ms Bekele received further noise complaints from the neighbours and rang the tenant at 801. She could hear Mr McBride in the background yelling and swearing about the neighbours narking.
A second anti-social behaviour notice was issued by post. It is therefore not known what date the tenant received it.
On 18 October Ms Bekele received another complaint from Ms A who said that the door banging started around 5.15pm. She recorded door banging on 6 occasions between 6pm and 7.20pm.
Ms Bekele was then on leave. On 30 October she received a further complaint from Ms A about door banging.
On 2 November a further notification from Ms A about the door slamming. She said that she had confirmed with another tenant that the door slamming was from the woman at 801, not Mr McBride at 811.
On 4 November Ms Bekele spoke with Mr McBride and told him there had been numerous complaints from neighbours that they had heard yelling up and down the hallway between the two tenants and they continued to take their shouting to the level 4 car parks. Mr McBride offered to leave if his partner at 801 could stay. Ms Bekele said that they would be following through with a Tribunal application.
On 11 November a third antisocial behaviour notice was issued. It does not specify the time or date of the incident(s), but Ms Bekele said that it was following up from a conversation the week before.
On 17 November, Ms Bekele received complaints from two separate neighbours on the 8 th floor about the behaviour of both tenants. They complained of lots of screaming and shouting. The police had been called.
On 18 November the landlord filed an application for termination.
On 29 November Ms Bekele received an email from Ms A attaching a video. The video was played to the Tribunal. Ms A said that she filmed it from her apartment. It shows the female tenant from 801 outside in the carpark with a child. Her voice is heard clearly, yelling and using foul language. The male voice is less audible and he is not as vocal as she is, but he can be heard swearing.
On 15 December Ms Bekele received a further complaint from Ms A, who told the Tribunal that that three days before the hearing she and her friend were at the 8 th floor. Mr McBride started swearing at them. He was intoxicated. He said, You’re lucky that my daughter’s here. Otherwise...”. Ms A was uncertain of the exact words as he was mumbling. She later realised that she was being threatened.
On 16 December, Ms A reported another incident that another tenant had told her about. Because the Tribunal did not hear from that person, it has not been taken into account.
Ms A told the Tribunal that she could hear Mr McBride almost every day.
The Tribunal also heard from Ms Z, who has lived at the apartment complex since 2014.
Ms Z said that she hears both tenants at 811 using abusive language and arguing. She said that they fight in the corridor, throw things at each other down the corridor.
Ms Z said that when she is in her own kitchen or living room she can hear them shouting. They knock on each other’s doors and call the police on each other. Ms Z said that she is at work during the week but she hears them every weekend. One week she worked from home and could hear them fighting.
Ms Z said that Mr McBride knocks on her door every weekend, whenever the two tenants are having an argument. The first time he knocked was asking her to call the cops on the female tenant.
Ms Z said that Mr McBride knocked on her door and when she did not open it, he said, “I know you are behind the door. You can listen to me. Fuck you.” He also called her a dickhead.
Ms Z said she can’t do anything in her kitchen because he will hear her.
Ms Z said that Mr McBride passes remarks when she walks past. He said to his daughter, “Don’t go towards her”. He used abusive words, such as calling her a bitch.
Ms Z said that she has seen Mr McBride through things outside his partner’s door and towards her. This is baby gear including a walker, clothes, a suitcase and cans of food.
Ms Z was happy with the family that used to live at number 811. Now, she no longer feels secure. She has an 11-year-old daughter and she worries about her daughter visiting her friend one floor down or going to the laundry.
Ms Z thought that the tenant at 801 starts the fights just to provoke Mr McBride. The tenant
Mr McBride said that he had knocked on Ms Z’s door to ask for help because his partner had his phone. He apologised to Ms Z for the way he had made her feel.
Mr McBride said that he had said to his daughter, “Never mind that bitch. She didn’t want to help”.
Mr McBride accepted that he had put baby stuff out but denied throwing cans of food.
Mr McBride expressed frustration at the situation he had with his partner. He denied being intoxicated or under the influence of drugs during the tenancy. He said that he is clean and he has been trying to do the best for himself and his daughter. Other information
The landlord advised that they had also applied to the Tribunal for termination of the partner’s tenancy at apartment 801 and that an order had been made evicting her later this week.

Has the tenant breached his obligations under the Act?

The Tribunal heard from two neighbouring tenants who are frequently troubled by noise from Mr McBride in the form of loud and abusive arguments with his partner as well as door slamming. I accept that Mr McBride’s partner is equally to blame for the noise. I also accept that it is possible that she is responsible for more of the noise and that she tries to provoke him. In the video of her yelling in the carpark, she seemed to be speaking much more than him and goading him with words such as, “Get a knife”.
However, it is not the role of the Tribunal to decide who is more to blame. Mr McBride is responsible for his own actions and reactions and for the impact of his own behaviour. The neighbours have been disturbed by his own yelling, banging of doors and throwing things.
The landlord has established that the tenant has not complied with the requirement not to cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants.

Is the breach capable of remedy?

A breach that is capable of remedy is one where the tenant can take steps to fix the problem so that the situation is restored to what it would have been if the breach had not occurred. Examples are: non-payment of rent, failure to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Where a tenant’s behaviour is the issue, the damage has been done and cannot be undone. This is particularly so when the conduct is serious and repeated.
Mr McBride’s conduct does not qualify has a breach capable of remedy. He has repeatedly upset the peace and quiet of the apartment complex. He has used abusive language to his neighbours. His actions cannot be undone.
Therefore, the landlord was not required to serve on him a notice requiring him to remedy the breach.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Although breach notices were not required, Mr McBride has nevertheless been on notice about the impact of his behaviour. Ms Bekele has spoken with him on several occasions and has sent him letters, in the form of antisocial behaviour notices. Even though they did not comply with the requirements for termination under section 55A, they are still evidence that Mr McBride was told that there had been complaints about his behaviour and that it was causing distress and disruption to neighbouring residents. He has, in fact, had several opportunities to change his behaviour. He is not responsible for the way in which his partner behaves, but he is responsible for the way in which he reacts to it.
Mr McBride also indicated that he intends to serve a trespass notice on his former partner. I also acknowledge that with her leaving the complex, the risk of further incidents may be reduced.
However, not all of the behaviour complained of directly involves Mr McBride’s partner. Ms Z has been abused for not calling the Police and for not answering the door. By his own admission, he has said to his daughter, in Ms Z’s presence, not to go near “that bitch.” Ms Z feels unsafe in her home of 11 years, not just because of the arguments between Mr McBride and his partner, but as a result of the way in which Mr McBride has treated Ms Z.
Mr McBride has also made threats to Ms A.
I have decided that the impact of Mr McBride’s behaviour on his neighbours is so unacceptable that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Not only are neighbours being disturbed by noise but because if his behaviour towards Ms Z, she does not feel secure in her own home, and I find that is with good reason. That means that the tenancy will be terminated.
I am issuing this decision on 18 December, only one week before Christmas. The significance of this is that many agencies will be closed for some time over the Christmas break. I have decided to make some allowance for the tenant to find alternative accommodation and so the tenancy will terminate on Friday 9 January 2026 at 3pm.
All of the tenant’s obligations continue up until that time.
Because the landlord has been successful, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391364 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 811, 46 Nairn Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391364 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 811, 46 Nairn Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55A for antisocial behaviour?

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56 of the Act?

What is the alleged breach?

Has the tenant breached his obligations under the Act?

Is the breach capable of remedy?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 55A for antisocial behaviour?

Should the tenancy be terminated under section 56 of the Act?

What is the alleged breach?

Has the tenant breached his obligations under the Act?

Is the breach capable of remedy?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions