What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5449153?

The tribunal order states: Pursuant to 12 section 138 of the District Court Act 2016, the tenancy of

How much money was awarded in case 5449153?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5449153?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5449153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13300990-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5449153?

The tribunal order states: Pursuant to 12 section 138 of the District Court Act 2016, the tenancy of

How much money was awarded in case 5449153?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5449153?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5449153?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13300990-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 39, 7 Duncan Terrace, Kilbirnie, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5449153 — 14-day notice

Order

Pursuant to 12 section 138 of the District Court Act 2016, the tenancy of Ngawai Houia at Unit/Flat Flat 39, 7 Duncan Terrace, Kilbirnie, Wellington 6022 is terminated immediately and possession is granted to Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing.
The tenant was telephoned but did not answer and a message was left directing her to join the hearing following the instructions in the Notice of Hearing. She did not join the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations under sections 55A, 55 and 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The Notice of Hearing advised the tenant of these claims.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord has not issued three notices which comply with the requirements of section 55A RTA. The landlord’s application under this section is dismissed.
Under section 56 RTA, the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
The Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate. The landlord’s evidence
The landlord gave the following evidence: a. On 16 December 2025 it issued a notice of anti-social behaviour for throwing objects from the property on the first floor, smashing items inside and shouting aggressively and abusively on 15 December 2025. This was witnessed by the landlord’s representative who was present at the hearing. b. On 8 January 2026 the tenant was sent a breach letter for breaching the other tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment. The letter asks the tenant to: “Refrain from disturbing / disrupting your neighbours at all times. Please do not throw any items outside your front door or over the balcony. Incidents on 23rd December 2025 + 8th January 2026. We can apply to the Tenancy Tribunal if this is not remedied on or before the Remedy Date.” c. On 12 February 2026 the landlord issued a further notice of anti-social behaviour when the tenant smashed a neighbour’s window: “It was reported that on 11/2/26 at 3:00 am, you intentionally damaged another neighbour’s property. As a result, the police were called and you were arrested.” d. The tenant has smashed four windows in her bed-sit unit. These have been boarded up as the landlord has been unable to have contractors safely visit the property. The tenant has also removed some of the boards and these have had to be reinstated. e. The tenant or her guests have intentionally made a number of holes in the walls, splashed paint on the walls, applied graffiti and tagging to the walls, broken the siren fire alarm, removed the smoke detectors, and broken the oven door. f. There is evidence that there has been a fire on the carpet in the unit with fire damage to the carpet and up the wall. g. The other occupants of the complex in which the premises are situated have repeatedly and persistently complained of the tenant breaching their right to quiet enjoyment throughout the tenancy. The other tenants who are vulnerable people, including the elderly, are intimidated by the tenant and her guests’ behaviour. Discussion and decision
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has breached her obligations by repeatedly and persistently breaching the quiet enjoyment of the landlord’s other tenants and has caused substantial damage to the premises.
While the damage to the premises is capable of remedy, the repeated breaches of the landlord’s other tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment cannot be remedied.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy under section 56 RTA for the following reasons: a. The breaches have been deliberately committed, have occurred over much of the tenancy and have been persistent. b. The tenant has received formal notices regarding the breaches but has persisted in her behaviour. c. There is a real threat to the premises and to the landlord’s complex caused by the removal of smoke detectors, the alarm and the lighting of a fire. d. The tenant’s failure to engage with the landlord and the Tribunal gives it no assurance that the breaches will not continue. e. The landlord has a duty to protect both the safety of its other tenants and their right to quiet enjoyment. f. Termination is not a disproportionate response to the tenant’s multiple and persistent breaches.
Alternatively, on the evidence before the Tribunal, it orders termination under section 55(1)(b) RTA on the basis that the tenant has caused, or has permitted another person to cause, and has threatened to cause, substantial damage to the premises. The evidence of nature and extent the damage as provided by the landlord’s representative who has personally inspected the property indicates that the damage is substantial and ongoing.
Section 138 of the District Court Act 2016 provides that normally an order cannot be enforced until 48 hours have expired, unless a “Judge grants leave”. Section 106(2) of the RTA which relates to enforcement of possession orders, confirms that reference to a “Judge” in section 138(1) applies as if it were reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator.
Because of the risk to the landlord’s property and the safety and peace and quiet of the other tenants, it is appropriate that leave be granted for immediate enforcement of the possession order.

Order

Pursuant to 12 section 138 of the District Court Act 2016, the tenancy of Ngawai Houia at Unit/Flat Flat 39, 7 Duncan Terrace, Kilbirnie, Wellington 6022 is terminated immediately and possession is granted to Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing.
The tenant was telephoned but did not answer and a message was left directing her to join the hearing following the instructions in the Notice of Hearing. She did not join the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations under sections 55A, 55 and 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The Notice of Hearing advised the tenant of these claims.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord has not issued three notices which comply with the requirements of section 55A RTA. The landlord’s application under this section is dismissed.
Under section 56 RTA, the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
The Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate. The landlord’s evidence
The landlord gave the following evidence: a. On 16 December 2025 it issued a notice of anti-social behaviour for throwing objects from the property on the first floor, smashing items inside and shouting aggressively and abusively on 15 December 2025. This was witnessed by the landlord’s representative who was present at the hearing. b. On 8 January 2026 the tenant was sent a breach letter for breaching the other tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment. The letter asks the tenant to: “Refrain from disturbing / disrupting your neighbours at all times. Please do not throw any items outside your front door or over the balcony. Incidents on 23rd December 2025 + 8th January 2026. We can apply to the Tenancy Tribunal if this is not remedied on or before the Remedy Date.” c. On 12 February 2026 the landlord issued a further notice of anti-social behaviour when the tenant smashed a neighbour’s window: “It was reported that on 11/2/26 at 3:00 am, you intentionally damaged another neighbour’s property. As a result, the police were called and you were arrested.” d. The tenant has smashed four windows in her bed-sit unit. These have been boarded up as the landlord has been unable to have contractors safely visit the property. The tenant has also removed some of the boards and these have had to be reinstated. e. The tenant or her guests have intentionally made a number of holes in the walls, splashed paint on the walls, applied graffiti and tagging to the walls, broken the siren fire alarm, removed the smoke detectors, and broken the oven door. f. There is evidence that there has been a fire on the carpet in the unit with fire damage to the carpet and up the wall. g. The other occupants of the complex in which the premises are situated have repeatedly and persistently complained of the tenant breaching their right to quiet enjoyment throughout the tenancy. The other tenants who are vulnerable people, including the elderly, are intimidated by the tenant and her guests’ behaviour. Discussion and decision
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has breached her obligations by repeatedly and persistently breaching the quiet enjoyment of the landlord’s other tenants and has caused substantial damage to the premises.
While the damage to the premises is capable of remedy, the repeated breaches of the landlord’s other tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment cannot be remedied.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy under section 56 RTA for the following reasons: a. The breaches have been deliberately committed, have occurred over much of the tenancy and have been persistent. b. The tenant has received formal notices regarding the breaches but has persisted in her behaviour. c. There is a real threat to the premises and to the landlord’s complex caused by the removal of smoke detectors, the alarm and the lighting of a fire. d. The tenant’s failure to engage with the landlord and the Tribunal gives it no assurance that the breaches will not continue. e. The landlord has a duty to protect both the safety of its other tenants and their right to quiet enjoyment. f. Termination is not a disproportionate response to the tenant’s multiple and persistent breaches.
Alternatively, on the evidence before the Tribunal, it orders termination under section 55(1)(b) RTA on the basis that the tenant has caused, or has permitted another person to cause, and has threatened to cause, substantial damage to the premises. The evidence of nature and extent the damage as provided by the landlord’s representative who has personally inspected the property indicates that the damage is substantial and ongoing.
Section 138 of the District Court Act 2016 provides that normally an order cannot be enforced until 48 hours have expired, unless a “Judge grants leave”. Section 106(2) of the RTA which relates to enforcement of possession orders, confirms that reference to a “Judge” in section 138(1) applies as if it were reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator.
Because of the risk to the landlord’s property and the safety and peace and quiet of the other tenants, it is appropriate that leave be granted for immediate enforcement of the possession order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5449153 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 39, 7 Duncan Terrace, Kilbirnie, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5449153 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 39, 7 Duncan Terrace, Kilbirnie, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions