What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5405768 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders name suppression for all witnesses (not the parties).

How much money was awarded in case 5405768?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405768?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405768?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12889342-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5405768 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders name suppression for all witnesses (not the parties).

How much money was awarded in case 5405768?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405768?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405768?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12889342-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat A, 476 Amagh Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5405768 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal orders name suppression for all witnesses (not the parties).
The tenancy of Ian Mori Parnham and Lynda Jean Parnham at Unit/Flat A, 476 Amagh Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord seeking to terminate the tenancy on the ground of threats to assault.
Both parties appeared at the telephone hearing today, 17 December 2025.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records the tenancy as Unit A, 476 Amagh Street, Linwood, Christchurch. The two co-tenants are Ian Parnham and Lynda Parnham. The landlord is Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities. The tenancy commenced on 20 March 2024.
Things have not gone well at the tenancy, and there has been clear conflict with the neighbours, although there is a dispute from the tenants as to the extent or fact of that conflict.
There has been an earlier hearing and decision from the Tribunal which was an application from the landlord to terminate the tenancy in relation to antisocial behaviour and a threat to assault a neighbour. The first application was number 5220131. That application was heard by adjudicator Mr Armstrong, who records a number of complaints against the tenants including: a. Complaints of playing loud music, and shouting and abusing neighbours. b. Abuse being levelled at the property manager. c. Abuse directed to a neighbours barking dog and owner, including physically trying to stop the neighbour closing her door.
The adjudicator heard witness evidence, and accepted that the allegations had been proven. The adjudicator ordered a termination of the tenancy.
The tenants applied for a rehearing which was declined, and also appealed the decision to the District Court. The District Court ordered a stay on the termination order pending the appeal – which is yet to be heard. That stay was ordered on 27 June 2025.
However, further issues have arisen, although I recognise that the Parnhams dispute what is claimed. In any event, the landlord has received further complaints and has filed a fresh application to terminate the tenancy.
I record at this juncture that I am satisfied that the stay ordered in relation to Mr Armstrong’s order, would not apply to the Tribunal at this time, because the events which are the subject of this new application are fresh claims that have arisen after the stay in the District Court was ordered.
I convened a telephone hearing on 17 December 2025. Both tenants and the landlord were in attendance, and I also heard witness evidence by telephone.

WITNESS EVIDENCE

[Witness 1]’s Evidence

[Witness 1] is an immediate neighbour of the Parnhams.
On 31 October 2025 [Witness 1] provided a written statement in which she records that on Saturday 25 October 2025, the male tenant from 476A Armagh Street was being verbally abusive to his wife. [Witness 1] had visitors, and she went outside to tell the neighbour to ‘shut up’. [Witness 1] wrote: 5-10 minutes later he arrived on my doorstep, yelling at me telling me to stay out of his business. I closed the door and he left. 5 minutes later he came back pounding on my door again telling me he was sending people around to sort me out. When he left he pulled my bedroom window with force and I was on the otherside trying to shut my window. After he left the 2 nd time my visitors left as they had enough and had there 7 year old son with them. I did not hear him say he would put a crowbar through my head however my visitors did. This has left me feeling very uneasy and scared for my safety in my own home. ...The neighbour constantly drinks in his courtyard outside and its highly distressing for all the neighbours. On this occasion on the 25 th he was being so abusive to his wife and telling her to pack her shit and fuck off. This has been ongoing since they moved into the property and I believe we should be able to live happy in our homes without listening to this and being fearful.
[Witness 1] attended the hearing where she gave oral evidence. [Witness 1] advised that she was not sure how to pronounce the name of the neighbours, but confirmed it was the occupant of 476, flat A, which I accept is the Parnhams.
[Witness 1] advised that on 25 October, she was with her sister in the shed, who said she could hear arguing. [Witness 1] went out and engaged with the neighbour about him shouting at his wife. He later kicked her car wheel, and tried ramming her window. His wife was not present so she did not witness this.
[Witness 1] also referred to Mr Parnham shouting abuse and swearing to her and her sister when drinking.
[Witness 1] said that Mr Parnham said “I am going to go over there with a crowbar” and also said he will ‘send people over’, which [Witness 1] considered was a threat to assault her.
In cross-examination, Mr Parnham challenged the allegations that [Witness 1] raised and her evidence. In short, [Witness 1] maintained that her evidence was correct. [Witness 2] and [Witness 3]’s evidence
[Witness 2] and [Witness 3] also attended the hearing jointly by phone, although only [Witness 3] gave evidence.
[Witness 2] and [Witness 3] also provided an earlier statement dated 30 October 2025: On Saturday the 25/10/25 we were visiting our friend [Witness 1] we were only there for 10 min or so before we could hear her neighbour swearing and carrying on be abusive to a lady that was with him [Witness 1] had asked him to cut it out but with him obviously being intoxicated it fell on deaf ears. At that point he became more abusive say he was going to get people over to deal with [Witness 1] and her sister then became more abusive to the woman that was with him. So [Witness 1] asked again to please cut it out as there was a child over here then he hurled abuse to [Witness 1] saying to mind her fxxxing business and to shut the fxxx up before he comes over and puts a crowbar through there heads at that point we didn’t want our son listening to this sort of behaviour so we had left he seeking us walking down the drive way seen we had our son but didn’t [unreadable] still kept yelling abuse until he seen my partner then he [unreadable] went inside. Then approx 30 minutes later we got a call from [Witness 1] say shes had to call the police as hes come over bashing on her door threatening her kicking her car and trying to entice her outside.
At the hearing on 17 December, [Witness 3] advised that about three weeks ago they were visiting [Witness 1] in the afternoon, but not sure of the date, but think it was a weekend day, but later advised that they thought it was on 22 November, roughly 12:00 – 1:30pm. While there, they heard the neighbour saying he would bring “some boys over and do her over”, and he also threatened to hit her with a hammer, that he would “bash her” and her sister ([Sister]). Their concern was to leave with their child. They were there for about 90 minutes, and advised that the abuse lasted for that full time.
The tenants did not have any questions for [Witness 3].

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlord seeks an order terminating the tenancy, on the ground that Mr Parnham has threatened to assault a neighbour, who is also a tenant of the landlord.
The landlord’s position is that this application is not limited by the stay order from the District Court.

TENANTS CASE

In short, the Parnhams’ position is that the allegations made against them are false, and they say they have not met the witnesses before.
The tenants’ position is that they keep to themselves. It is disputed that there were any threats made to neighbours.
Mrs Parnham states that [Witness 1] has made up an earlier allegation in relation to a crowbar, noting that with an earlier allegation, the police arrived, and they considered this to be a false allegation.
Mrs Parnham considers this is a situation of the landlords’ case managers having it in for them.
Mrs Parnham states that they keep to themselves.
I asked Mrs Parnham why she believes [Witness 1] and the witnesses would have made up what they said? Mrs Parnham considers it was simply to get rid of them. Mrs Parnham considers that they are the innocent victims of false allegations.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
Section 55 of the RTA is a general termination provision. That includes the following: ...the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that – ... (c) the tenant has assaulted, or threatened to assault...any of the following persons: ... (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building which the premises constitute a part.

ANALYSIS

The question I must determine, is whether the Tribunal can order a termination of the tenancy on the grounds of the threat to assault [Witness 1].
I note that while the landlord has invited me to take into account the earlier claims which the Tribunal has considered, I have not done so for two reasons. a. Firstly, I recognise that the earlier decision of the Tribunal is now before the District Court, so I will not take the claims that fall within that appeal into account. b. Secondly, it is not necessary for me to do so. I have only considered the current events which occurred discussed above, and I have determined there is sufficient evidence to establish those claims, and the grounds to terminate the tenancy. Therefore it is not necessary for me to also consider the earlier (disputed) claims.
The Parnhams’ view is that the allegations from [Witness 1], [Witness 3] and [Witness 2] are false allegations. I have considered that prospect, but on balance, I accept their evidence. While there are some differences between the accounts and the evidence given at the hearing, overall they are largely consistent. It is not unusual for there to be some variation in evidence, particularly when evidence is given in a hearing further down the track, when witnesses rely on their memory. But in this case I also have very contemporaneous records of the event from both witnesses from 30 and 31 October 2025, within days of the event on 25 October 2025.
The Parnham’s said that the Police had investigated the earlier claims and ruled they were false. I have seen no evidence of that. No information has been provided from the Police supporting that to be the case, but further I note that would be an unusual conclusion for Police to reach without a substantial investigation occurring.
The evidence supports that Mr Parnham is likely to have been abusive toward [Witness 1], threatening to assault her with a weapon like a crowbar, threatening to ‘send someone around’ to sort her out, and pushing open her window which I accept would be a threatening encounter. I am satisfied that what has been described would be a threat to assault [Witness 1].
I have then considered whether the tenancy should be terminated. Section 55 provides an expectation that termination would be ordered where the statute uses the words “shall make an order terminating the tenancy” if satisfied that a threat to assault a neighbour has occurred. In this case there is a threat to assault, so the grounds to terminate are established.
It is plain that [Witness 1] has been affected and I accept she is fearful of the Parnhams, Mr Parnham at least. I am satisfied that, in the circumstances, a termination of the tenancy must be ordered, and I make that order.

NAME SUPPRESSION

Of its own motion, the Tribunal orders name suppression to apply to the names of the witnesses.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405768 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat A, 476 Amagh Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405768 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat A, 476 Amagh Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

WITNESS EVIDENCE

LANDLORDS CASE

TENANTS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

WITNESS EVIDENCE

LANDLORDS CASE

TENANTS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions