What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5439588?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of William Sharp at Unit/Flat Apartment 201, 71 Hopper Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5439588?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439588?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13291098-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5439588?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of William Sharp at Unit/Flat Apartment 201, 71 Hopper Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5439588?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5439588?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5439588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13291098-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Apartment 201, 71 Hopper Street, Mount Cook, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5439588 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of William Sharp at Unit/Flat Apartment 201, 71 Hopper Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Te Toi Mahana, at 11.59 pm on Tuesday 17 March 2026.
William Sharp must pay the landlord $28 immediately, which is the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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. The questions I have to decide include: • Should I adjourn the hearing? • Has the landlord proved there was antisocial behaviour? • Should I allow suppression?

Should I adjourn the hearing?

The tenant applied for an adjournment this morning because he had not had enough time to properly prepare for the hearing, he had not received the third notice, and he is missing a proper fire door, which means that normal noise in his unit travels way more than it would through a fire door.
Adjournments may be granted where there is good and sufficient reason, such as: • unforeseen illness, incapacity or genuine unavailability • genuine and recent changes in representation; • inadequate time to prepare due to late notice of the hearing; • ongoing settlement discussions and in other • other exceptional circumstances.
This was the first hearing and the matter was set down urgently because it is an application to end the tenancy. It seems likely to me that delaying the hearing would have been prejudicial to the landlord and the witness. Representation and ongoing settlement were not raised as reasons.
The tenant was available. He was served with the Tribunal documents - including the notice of hearing, application and supporting documents - on 20 February 2026. Allowing a week for service the tenant has had two weeks to prepare for the hearing, which was enough time.
The tenant said he would have brought his own witnesses had he known that was allowed. Witnesses are discussed in the notice of hearing, so this was not grounds for an adjournment. I found there were no grounds for an adjournment and we had the hearing.

Has the landlord proved there was antisocial behaviour?

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is excessive noise coming from the tenant’s unit that has disturbed the peace, comfort and privacy of other tenants. Doing so is a breach of section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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 cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The landlord had a witness. The witness explained the many times when the tenant disturbed her and her mother’s quiet enjoyment of their unit. They live immediately below the tenant. The witness has been emailing the landlord with her complaints and she confirmed these at the hearing. She said the result is she and her mother are scared. They have called the police and the police have attended many times. They have called noise control. They want the landlord to take steps to stop the excessive noise coming from the tenant’s unit, caused by the tenant and his guests.
The tenant said that he does have other people to stay in his unit sometimes and he tries to keep them quiet. He said the proper fire door has been missing since August last year and there would be no complaints if he had a proper door because they are soundproof. He said that some of the noise is because he has not had a swipe card for the building. He said there was no way the landlord could prove the people being noisy outside and around the complex were people coming to see him.
I find the tenant has a point about the people outside and around the complex, so I have only considered the notices and the evidence of noise coming directly from his unit. It seems unlikely to me the lack of a fire door is has resulted in the breaches of quiet enjoyment because the noise is going through the floor to the tenants living downstairs. I also note that fire doors are not soundproof.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above. Even if I only consider the noise which the witness states happened in the unit from 11pm to 6am there is sufficient for me to end the tenancy.
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. 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 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. Even though the tenant believes the landlord has singled him out unfairly I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Should I allow suppression?

The tenant has asked for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenant said his future tenancies will be affected if his name is published. He is also concerned that the publication of this order will affect family court proceedings. I find there is public interest in names when tenancies are terminated by the Tenancy Tribunal. Weighing both these interests I find the public interest is stronger and the tenant’s name will be published.
The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest in social housing.

Order

The tenancy of William Sharp at Unit/Flat Apartment 201, 71 Hopper Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Te Toi Mahana, at 11.59 pm on Tuesday 17 March 2026.
William Sharp must pay the landlord $28 immediately, which is the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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. The questions I have to decide include: • Should I adjourn the hearing? • Has the landlord proved there was antisocial behaviour? • Should I allow suppression?

Should I adjourn the hearing?

The tenant applied for an adjournment this morning because he had not had enough time to properly prepare for the hearing, he had not received the third notice, and he is missing a proper fire door, which means that normal noise in his unit travels way more than it would through a fire door.
Adjournments may be granted where there is good and sufficient reason, such as: • unforeseen illness, incapacity or genuine unavailability • genuine and recent changes in representation; • inadequate time to prepare due to late notice of the hearing; • ongoing settlement discussions and in other • other exceptional circumstances.
This was the first hearing and the matter was set down urgently because it is an application to end the tenancy. It seems likely to me that delaying the hearing would have been prejudicial to the landlord and the witness. Representation and ongoing settlement were not raised as reasons.
The tenant was available. He was served with the Tribunal documents - including the notice of hearing, application and supporting documents - on 20 February 2026. Allowing a week for service the tenant has had two weeks to prepare for the hearing, which was enough time.
The tenant said he would have brought his own witnesses had he known that was allowed. Witnesses are discussed in the notice of hearing, so this was not grounds for an adjournment. I found there were no grounds for an adjournment and we had the hearing.

Has the landlord proved there was antisocial behaviour?

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is excessive noise coming from the tenant’s unit that has disturbed the peace, comfort and privacy of other tenants. Doing so is a breach of section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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 cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The landlord had a witness. The witness explained the many times when the tenant disturbed her and her mother’s quiet enjoyment of their unit. They live immediately below the tenant. The witness has been emailing the landlord with her complaints and she confirmed these at the hearing. She said the result is she and her mother are scared. They have called the police and the police have attended many times. They have called noise control. They want the landlord to take steps to stop the excessive noise coming from the tenant’s unit, caused by the tenant and his guests.
The tenant said that he does have other people to stay in his unit sometimes and he tries to keep them quiet. He said the proper fire door has been missing since August last year and there would be no complaints if he had a proper door because they are soundproof. He said that some of the noise is because he has not had a swipe card for the building. He said there was no way the landlord could prove the people being noisy outside and around the complex were people coming to see him.
I find the tenant has a point about the people outside and around the complex, so I have only considered the notices and the evidence of noise coming directly from his unit. It seems unlikely to me the lack of a fire door is has resulted in the breaches of quiet enjoyment because the noise is going through the floor to the tenants living downstairs. I also note that fire doors are not soundproof.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above. Even if I only consider the noise which the witness states happened in the unit from 11pm to 6am there is sufficient for me to end the tenancy.
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. 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 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. Even though the tenant believes the landlord has singled him out unfairly I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Should I allow suppression?

The tenant has asked for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenant said his future tenancies will be affected if his name is published. He is also concerned that the publication of this order will affect family court proceedings. I find there is public interest in names when tenancies are terminated by the Tenancy Tribunal. Weighing both these interests I find the public interest is stronger and the tenant’s name will be published.
The landlord’s name will be published because there is public interest in social housing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439588 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Apartment 201, 71 Hopper Street, Mount Cook,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5439588 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Apartment 201, 71 Hopper Street, Mount Cook,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should I adjourn the hearing?

Has the landlord proved there was antisocial behaviour?

Should I allow suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should I adjourn the hearing?

Has the landlord proved there was antisocial behaviour?

Should I allow suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions