What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422650 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names of the witnesses who gave

How much money was awarded in case 5422650?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422650?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13047004-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5422650 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names of the witnesses who gave

How much money was awarded in case 5422650?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5422650?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5422650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13047004-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

46 Gowerton Place, Richmond, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5422650 — Harassment

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names of the witnesses who gave evidence at the hearing.
The tenancy of Catherine Falconer at 46 Gowerton Place, Richmond, Christchurch 8013 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59 pm on Friday 13 February 2026.
Catherine Falconer must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour involves having repeatedly disturbed neighbours, one in particular, [Neighbour 1], whose flat is below the tenant’s, by repeatedly knocking on her door, and windows, coming to her flat at inappropriate hours, throwing eggs at her bedroom window.
The landlord says that these behaviours continued despite it having been made clear to the tenant by [Neighbour 1] herself but also the landlord’s representative that it was immensely stressful to [Neighbour 1] and must stop.
The landlord issued anti-social behaviour notices on 14 December 2024, 5 January 2026 and 6 January 2026.
The landlord has provided evidence in the form of CCTV camera footage which shows repeated visits to [Neighbour 1’s] property by the tenant, sometimes in the small hours of the morning. Those recordings make it clear that the tenant heard the message [Neighbour 1] was able to have broadcast when the tenant visited, “You are trespassing, the police have been notified”. It could not have been made clearer to the tenant that her visits to [Neighbour 1’s] home, even if sometimes well intentioned, were not welcome
Despite those messages and the notices given by the landlord, the evidence shows those unwelcome visits continuing right up to the eve of the hearing.
[Neighbour 1] gave evidence, which I accept, about the other anti-social behaviour she has been subjected to from the tenant including ongoing loud noises and banging very late at night.
Her evidence makes it clear that the tenant’s behaviour meets the criteria for anti-social behaviour, being “...harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.”
I also heard evidence from [Neighbour 2] another resident at the complex who lives across from the tenant. Her evidence corroborates that of [Neighbour 1] and also notes unwelcome visits by the tenant to her flat and banging on her door.
I sought to give the tenant an opportunity to respond to the landlord’s evidence. She denied but then acknowledged throwing the eggs but, with respect, seemed to have limited understanding of the claims or evidence or to give a coherent account in reply.
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.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant. 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.
I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application
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. The tenant having continued to behave in these ways right up to the hearing can give no confidence that there will be any change. The other residents are entitled to the peaceful and private enjoyment of their homes.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy. 1 The landlord agrees that allowing some time to try and find other options for the tenant would be appreciate.
Because [The landlord/s] has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names of the witnesses who gave evidence at the hearing.
The tenancy of Catherine Falconer at 46 Gowerton Place, Richmond, Christchurch 8013 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59 pm on Friday 13 February 2026.
Catherine Falconer must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour involves having repeatedly disturbed neighbours, one in particular, [Neighbour 1], whose flat is below the tenant’s, by repeatedly knocking on her door, and windows, coming to her flat at inappropriate hours, throwing eggs at her bedroom window.
The landlord says that these behaviours continued despite it having been made clear to the tenant by [Neighbour 1] herself but also the landlord’s representative that it was immensely stressful to [Neighbour 1] and must stop.
The landlord issued anti-social behaviour notices on 14 December 2024, 5 January 2026 and 6 January 2026.
The landlord has provided evidence in the form of CCTV camera footage which shows repeated visits to [Neighbour 1’s] property by the tenant, sometimes in the small hours of the morning. Those recordings make it clear that the tenant heard the message [Neighbour 1] was able to have broadcast when the tenant visited, “You are trespassing, the police have been notified”. It could not have been made clearer to the tenant that her visits to [Neighbour 1’s] home, even if sometimes well intentioned, were not welcome
Despite those messages and the notices given by the landlord, the evidence shows those unwelcome visits continuing right up to the eve of the hearing.
[Neighbour 1] gave evidence, which I accept, about the other anti-social behaviour she has been subjected to from the tenant including ongoing loud noises and banging very late at night.
Her evidence makes it clear that the tenant’s behaviour meets the criteria for anti-social behaviour, being “...harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.”
I also heard evidence from [Neighbour 2] another resident at the complex who lives across from the tenant. Her evidence corroborates that of [Neighbour 1] and also notes unwelcome visits by the tenant to her flat and banging on her door.
I sought to give the tenant an opportunity to respond to the landlord’s evidence. She denied but then acknowledged throwing the eggs but, with respect, seemed to have limited understanding of the claims or evidence or to give a coherent account in reply.
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.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant. 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.
I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application
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. The tenant having continued to behave in these ways right up to the hearing can give no confidence that there will be any change. The other residents are entitled to the peaceful and private enjoyment of their homes.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy. 1 The landlord agrees that allowing some time to try and find other options for the tenant would be appreciate.
Because [The landlord/s] has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422650 — Harassment at 46 Gowerton Place, Richmond, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5422650 — Harassment at 46 Gowerton Place, Richmond, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions