What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5399331 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5399331?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399331?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399331?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13160019-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5399331 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5399331?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399331?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399331?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13160019-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit 5, 55 Stanmore Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5399331 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Nakeisha Bianca Henare at Unit 5, 55 Stanmore Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlords], at 11.59pm on Friday 6 March 2026.
Nakeisha Bianca Henare must pay [The landlord] $28.00 filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
This was a rehearing of the landlord’s application. Background
This one-year fixed term tenancy began on 19 September 2025. The tenancy agreement limits the number of people who may ordinarily reside in the premises to three, being the tenant and her two children.
The premises consist of a town house that is part of a unit title development. The terraced houses in the development form a horseshoe around a shared parking area
There have been numerous complaints during the tenancy about anti-social behaviour emanating from the premises. Because this is a fixed term tenancy, the landlord is not able to serve anti-social behaviour notices on the tenant and rely on s55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) to seek a mandatory termination order from the Tribunal.
The tenant’s husband was released from prison during the tenancy and the premises became his bail address. She said that he did not live at the premises, but he did spend time there.
The tenant said that she and her children suffer from a mental health condition which means that some of the behaviour that neighbours have complained about is beyond their control. Relevant Law
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach if, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate it.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant.
Most breaches are capable to remedy but some breaches have lasting irremediable consequences, and they are not capable of remedy. Evidence, Discussion and Decision
The landlord’s property manager gave evidence about complaints from the neighbours of the premises including the following. I.The tenant shouting abuse at other tenants. II.Loud arguments and fighting heard from the premises. III.The tenant using racial slurs against her neighbours. IV.Rubbish being thrown out a window of the premises. V.Rotten meat being put in neighbours letter boxes. VI.Cars in the common parking area being damaged and taken.
Not all these complaints are supported by evidence directly linking them to the tenant or people at the premises with her permission, but they are strongly suspected of being so because of the behaviour of the tenant and the people who congregate at and about the premises.
Another property manager of seven units in the development gave evidence by telephone. She spoke of multiple complaints from her tenants including the following. I.Fights outside the premises. II.Yelling from the premises. III.Rubbish being thrown out of the top window of the premises. IV.Police attendances at the premises. V.One tenant had her car taken while she was taking her baby inside her unit and came out to find the tenant laughing about it. The tenant blamed it on the neighbouring unit. VI.The tenant admitted to one neighbour that she put rotten meat in her letter box, and she apologised for doing it. VII.Threatening notes put in letter boxes.
She said that some of her tenants have ended their tenancies due to the behaviour from the premises. She said that some of her tenants do not feel safe living in the development whereas they were happy there before the tenant arrived.
An owner occupier of one of the units gave evidence that the tenant had come to his unit and banged on the door. He arrived home at the time and the tenant used offensive language against him and his wife. They called the Police who came.
He described a group of people outside the premises smoking and staring at him. They didn’t speak but he found it intimidating.
There was other written evidence of complaints against the tenant.
The tenant accepted that she and her children were responsible for some of behaviour that neighbours have complained about. She said that she and her children suffer from ADHD. She said that she is not on the correct medication and her children do not attend school. She has a need to go outside and walk around at night after yelling out. She is under a curfew from 9pm to 7am as part of a sentence. I viewed some video showing the tenant waking outside at night yelling out.
The tenant also spoke about her background – her father was a gang member – and her learned behaviour and that of her children.
The landlord is also concerned that another adult is living at the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement. The tenant said that WINZ told her that because her husband was coming out of prison her benefit would be reduced and her husband could contribute to paying the rent. She said she had no choice in the matter and that is why rent payments come from both their benefits.
That did not strike me as being credible and I asked the tenant to provide some written evidence from WINZ to corroborate it. I pointed out that WINZ would certainly send her written advice about such a change before it took effect. The tenant agreed to provide evidence the same day or the next day.
The hearing was three days ago, and the tenant has not produced evidence of this alleged enforced change to her benefit. She has come back to the Tribunal to say that all she can do is get an appointment with WINZ to obtain a letter.
I do not accept that. Such a change would not be made without written notification. It is likely that the change has come about because the tenant agreed to the premises being used as her husband’s bail address. She has thereby agreed that her husband can live at the premises when that is not permitted by the tenancy agreement. Either that or she has misled the Corrections Department.
The tenant has been in breach of the Act by interfering with the peace, comfort and privacy of her neighbours. The frequency, duration and nature of her conduct means that it is not capable of remedy. Some of the neighbours have been felt unsafe and some have left or are in the process of leaving due to the tenant’s behaviour and the behaviour of others associated with her. The effect on these neighbours is lasting and it is likely that they have lost confidence of having a peaceful life living in the development while the tenant is there.
The extent and nature of the tenant’s breaches mean that it would be inequitable (unfair) not to terminate the tenancy. Too many people have been adversely affected by the tenant’s behaviour and I have little confidence that it will fundamentally change in a lasting way.
I acknowledge the difficulties that the tenant and her children face but my focus must be on the effect this situation has had and is continuing to have on the lives of the neighbours. It seems to me that the situation of the premises is quite unsuitable for the tenant and her family. The closeness of other households and the shared outside space courts trouble.
It is also reasonable for the landlord to be concerned about the tenant’s husband living at the premises. Not only is that a breach of the Act, but it is likely to be contributing to the degree of anti-social behaviour.
I have therefore terminated the tenancy. I have allowed the tenant 14 days to vacate the premises to enable that to be done in an orderly manner.
The landlord has succeeded and so I have awarded the filing fee.
I have also granted the landlord name suppression.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Nakeisha Bianca Henare at Unit 5, 55 Stanmore Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlords], at 11.59pm on Friday 6 March 2026.
Nakeisha Bianca Henare must pay [The landlord] $28.00 filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
This was a rehearing of the landlord’s application. Background
This one-year fixed term tenancy began on 19 September 2025. The tenancy agreement limits the number of people who may ordinarily reside in the premises to three, being the tenant and her two children.
The premises consist of a town house that is part of a unit title development. The terraced houses in the development form a horseshoe around a shared parking area
There have been numerous complaints during the tenancy about anti-social behaviour emanating from the premises. Because this is a fixed term tenancy, the landlord is not able to serve anti-social behaviour notices on the tenant and rely on s55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) to seek a mandatory termination order from the Tribunal.
The tenant’s husband was released from prison during the tenancy and the premises became his bail address. She said that he did not live at the premises, but he did spend time there.
The tenant said that she and her children suffer from a mental health condition which means that some of the behaviour that neighbours have complained about is beyond their control. Relevant Law
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach if, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate it.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant.
Most breaches are capable to remedy but some breaches have lasting irremediable consequences, and they are not capable of remedy. Evidence, Discussion and Decision
The landlord’s property manager gave evidence about complaints from the neighbours of the premises including the following. I.The tenant shouting abuse at other tenants. II.Loud arguments and fighting heard from the premises. III.The tenant using racial slurs against her neighbours. IV.Rubbish being thrown out a window of the premises. V.Rotten meat being put in neighbours letter boxes. VI.Cars in the common parking area being damaged and taken.
Not all these complaints are supported by evidence directly linking them to the tenant or people at the premises with her permission, but they are strongly suspected of being so because of the behaviour of the tenant and the people who congregate at and about the premises.
Another property manager of seven units in the development gave evidence by telephone. She spoke of multiple complaints from her tenants including the following. I.Fights outside the premises. II.Yelling from the premises. III.Rubbish being thrown out of the top window of the premises. IV.Police attendances at the premises. V.One tenant had her car taken while she was taking her baby inside her unit and came out to find the tenant laughing about it. The tenant blamed it on the neighbouring unit. VI.The tenant admitted to one neighbour that she put rotten meat in her letter box, and she apologised for doing it. VII.Threatening notes put in letter boxes.
She said that some of her tenants have ended their tenancies due to the behaviour from the premises. She said that some of her tenants do not feel safe living in the development whereas they were happy there before the tenant arrived.
An owner occupier of one of the units gave evidence that the tenant had come to his unit and banged on the door. He arrived home at the time and the tenant used offensive language against him and his wife. They called the Police who came.
He described a group of people outside the premises smoking and staring at him. They didn’t speak but he found it intimidating.
There was other written evidence of complaints against the tenant.
The tenant accepted that she and her children were responsible for some of behaviour that neighbours have complained about. She said that she and her children suffer from ADHD. She said that she is not on the correct medication and her children do not attend school. She has a need to go outside and walk around at night after yelling out. She is under a curfew from 9pm to 7am as part of a sentence. I viewed some video showing the tenant waking outside at night yelling out.
The tenant also spoke about her background – her father was a gang member – and her learned behaviour and that of her children.
The landlord is also concerned that another adult is living at the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement. The tenant said that WINZ told her that because her husband was coming out of prison her benefit would be reduced and her husband could contribute to paying the rent. She said she had no choice in the matter and that is why rent payments come from both their benefits.
That did not strike me as being credible and I asked the tenant to provide some written evidence from WINZ to corroborate it. I pointed out that WINZ would certainly send her written advice about such a change before it took effect. The tenant agreed to provide evidence the same day or the next day.
The hearing was three days ago, and the tenant has not produced evidence of this alleged enforced change to her benefit. She has come back to the Tribunal to say that all she can do is get an appointment with WINZ to obtain a letter.
I do not accept that. Such a change would not be made without written notification. It is likely that the change has come about because the tenant agreed to the premises being used as her husband’s bail address. She has thereby agreed that her husband can live at the premises when that is not permitted by the tenancy agreement. Either that or she has misled the Corrections Department.
The tenant has been in breach of the Act by interfering with the peace, comfort and privacy of her neighbours. The frequency, duration and nature of her conduct means that it is not capable of remedy. Some of the neighbours have been felt unsafe and some have left or are in the process of leaving due to the tenant’s behaviour and the behaviour of others associated with her. The effect on these neighbours is lasting and it is likely that they have lost confidence of having a peaceful life living in the development while the tenant is there.
The extent and nature of the tenant’s breaches mean that it would be inequitable (unfair) not to terminate the tenancy. Too many people have been adversely affected by the tenant’s behaviour and I have little confidence that it will fundamentally change in a lasting way.
I acknowledge the difficulties that the tenant and her children face but my focus must be on the effect this situation has had and is continuing to have on the lives of the neighbours. It seems to me that the situation of the premises is quite unsuitable for the tenant and her family. The closeness of other households and the shared outside space courts trouble.
It is also reasonable for the landlord to be concerned about the tenant’s husband living at the premises. Not only is that a breach of the Act, but it is likely to be contributing to the degree of anti-social behaviour.
I have therefore terminated the tenancy. I have allowed the tenant 14 days to vacate the premises to enable that to be done in an orderly manner.
The landlord has succeeded and so I have awarded the filing fee.
I have also granted the landlord name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5399331 — 14-day notice at Unit 5, 55 Stanmore Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5399331 — 14-day notice at Unit 5, 55 Stanmore Road, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions