How much money was awarded in case 5392415?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392415?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392415?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12853014-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5392415?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392415?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392415?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12853014-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5392415 — 14-day notice

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5392415 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

[The tenant/s] must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $28.00 immediately, being the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.

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.

Alternatively, the landlord seeks termination for a breach of the tenant’s obligations.

The periodic tenancy began on 18/12/2017 at a rent of $186.00 per week.

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour of playing and allowing music to be played loudly at the premises interferes with the peace, comfort and privacy of people residing in the neighbourhood.

In support of the claim the landlord provided copies of three anti-social behaviour notices as follows: a. Notice dated 13/8/2025 for excessive noise at the premises on 27/7/2025 leading to the Local Authority issuing an excessive noise direction. b. Notice dated 22/8/2025 for excessive noise at the premises on 15/8/2025 leading to the Local Authority issuing an excessive noise direction. c. Notice dated 11/11/2025 for loud music coming from the property on 13/10/2025 leading to the Local Authority issuing an excessive noise direction.

Further the landlord provided witness statements by two neighbours, a 14 day notice dated 12/7/2025 about disruptive behaviour in the form of loud music which interfered with the neighbour’s peace, comfort and privacy, excessive noise direction and seizure notices and a schedule of noise complaints from the Local Authority.

In addition, the landlord provided two earlier antisocial notices dated 6/1 and 27/1/2025 respectively about loud music.

While the tenant did not dispute her children played noise loudly at various times, she suggested that she was unable to control the situation.

The tenant apologised and read out a letter of apology from her teenage sons.

In addition, the tenant suggested one of the neighbours who had written a witness statement was also loud.

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 carefully considered the evidence presented by both parties.

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.

There is no dispute that loud music has emanated from the premises for several years and has increased in intensity since the beginning of 2024.

This is evidenced by the schedule of complaints from the Local Authority recording 20 call outs for noise complaints between 24/2/2024 and 21/1/2025, six excessive noise direction notices and one seizure of equipment.

The evidence of the witness and witness statements support that the effect of the loud noise at various times of the day and night has been significant and stressful and affected their wellbeing, peace and enjoyment of their homes.

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 behaviour 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 on her in making an order for termination of the tenancy.

The tenancy is terminated immediately, and possession granted to the landlord.

As the landlord has been successful in the application for termination on the grounds of anti-social behaviour it is not necessary for me to determine termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Irrespective as to whether the landlord sought the filing fee, because Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.

Suppression is granted to the tenant pursuant to section 95A(4) at the request of the landlord and because in the interests of the tenant being able to find a new tenancy, I consider it is appropriate to suppress her name.

Order