How much money was awarded in case 5452343?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452343?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452343?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13225445-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5452343?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452343?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452343?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13225445-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5452343 — 14-day notice

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452343 about?

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

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name, the names and identity of any witnesses and the address of the premises.
The tenancy of Papino Paku at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.30am on Wednesday 4 March 2026.
I grant leave for the possession order to be enforced immediately on the grounds that there is a risk to the security of others or to the property if enforcement is delayed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended today’s hearing. The tenant was given notice but did not attend.
I also heard from witnesses for the landlord on the telephone.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant. Termination for antisocial behaviour
The landlord has given 3 notices of antisocial behaviour. These are as follows: a. The first was given on the 11 February 2026 (which the landlord says was delivered to the tenant’s mailbox on the 12 February 2026). That notice describes the antisocial behaviour as the tenant fighting with her partner on the 10 February and acting aggressively, yelling and swearing at he property manager on the 11 February. b. The second was given on the 17 February 2026 (which the landlord says was delivered to the tenant’s mailbox on the 18 February 2026). That notice describes the antisocial behaviour as: •Raising your voice in an aggressive and accusing manner. •Yelling and challenging the Manager publicly. •Continuing to yell after being asked to stop. •Persisting in yelling as the Manager walked away. c. The third was given on the 20 February 2026 (which the landlord says was sent via email to the tenant on the 20 February 2026 and delivered to his mailbox on the 23 February 2026). That notice describes the antisocial behaviour as: •Yelling at the top of your voice. •Aggressive and violent tone. •Continuing despite being asked to stop. •Pacing and escalating in volume. •Creating a scene visible and audible to other residents.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order, pursuant to s55A RTA, 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 RTA 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 have considered the evidence presented by the landlord, especially the accounts given by the property manager and neighbours who live at the complex. They describe behaviour that is clearly antisocial, the tenant acts aggressively, loudly yelling and swearing when confronted and has made threats to neighbours and the property manager. All the evidence shows a pattern of behaviour that is escalating and becoming bolder.
I consider that the behaviour complained of in the three notices constituted anti- social behaviour. The manager told me today that the tenant has: a. Loudly argued with her partner, including screaming and swearing in common areas around the property. Assaulted her partner by hitting him on the 10 February. b. Sworn and yelled at the manager. c. Sworn and yelled at her neighbours. d. Threatened the manager on the 17 February by acting aggressively and telling and swearing at him then saying, “what time do you get off work?” e. Blocked an elderly neighbour from reaching her home, by holding onto her walker while acting aggressively towards her. f. Threatened to physically assault a neighbour, the day that the landlord filed the application.
However, I do not consider that I can make an order terminating the tenancy pursuant to s55A because the notices given do not meet the requirements set out in the s55A(2)(b) RTA in particular that the notices do not comply with the requirement in s55A(2)(b)(iv) RTA that the notice advises the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice .
None of the notices advise the tenant that she has the right to challenge the notice and that she may make an application to the Tribunal to do that.
The law is strict with the requirements of what the notice must say, this is because the consequences of the notice- termination are serious. It is important that tenants who face such notices are told that they can challenge these notices. If the requirements of the notice in s55A(2)(b RTA are met and the tenant does not challenge the notice, then the Tribunal MUST terminate. Therefore, the Tribunal takes a strict approach to the requirements of the notice. If the notice does not meet the requirements in s55A(2) then the Tribunal cannot terminate under that section.
As the notices did not tell the tenant that he could challenge the notices, they do not meet the requirements in s55A(2)(b) and I cannot terminate under that section of the RTA.
However, having heard the evidence I consider that the tenant has breached s55(1)c) RTA. That provision allows the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy in particular circumstances including where the tenant has physically assaulted or has threatened to physically assault, another occupier of the building, the landlord or agent of the landlord or a neighbour.
That provision does not require the tenant to be given notice of the behaviour. I am satisfied that I am able to terminate under this section as the tenant was told in the Notice of Hearing that termination would be considered under s55 RTA.
Assault is defined in section 2 of the Crimes Act as “assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another...”
I am satisfied that the tenant has breached s55(1)(c) RTA by assaulting or threatened to assault a neighbour and the property manager as follows: a. On the 17 February 2026 that the tenant threatened to assault the property manager when she queried what time he got off work. In the context of the tenant’s aggression, yelling swearing and acting in an intimidating manner, I consider that such a comment was intended and meant as a threat of an assault. b. On the 20 February 2026, during an aggressive outburst by the tenant that the tenant held on to her elderly neighbour’s walker preventing her from moving forward. I consider this an intentional application of force, that was intended to prevent the neighbour from moving. The neighbour was scared for her physical safety. c. On the 23 February 2026 the tenant threatened a neighbour during another aggressive outburst by saying “I’m gonna F****n hit your head”. This is a specific threat of violence to the neighbour. The neighbour was extremely upset and frightened as a result of this threat.
I consider that it likely that the tenant will continue to act in an antisocial manner and threatened her neighbours and property manager. As detailed below, during today’s hearing witnesses told me that the tenant was once again having a loud and aggressive outburst at the complex. Possession order may be carried immediately.
Usually, a possession order cannot be enforced (an eviction actioned) until 48 hours after the order is made. However, I am able to grant leave for the order to be enforced immediately; see section 138(1) of the District Court Act 2016. Section 106(2) RTA states that s 138(1) applies as if the reference to a District Court Judge, were a reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator.
The landlord may make an immediate application for an eviction warrant so as to have bailiff and/or police assistance to obtain possession, if required.
I make this order because I consider that if there is any delay in enforcing the eviction, then it is likely that the tenant will engage in further antisocial behaviour, and there is a real risk to the safety of the 37 other vulnerable residents who reside in the property and the staff at the property. During today’s hearing whilst speaking to witnesses on the phone, they reported that the tenant was acting aggressively and yelling and swearing loudly. I could hear the commotion in the background. The witness was very frightened and had to lock themselves in their unit. Suppression.
I have granted name suppression to the landlord and to all the witnesses, this is in order to protect the safety of the other tenants at the property. The name of the complex and address of the property is also suppressed.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name, the names and identity of any witnesses and the address of the premises.

The tenancy of Papino Paku at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.30am on Wednesday 4 March 2026.

I grant leave for the possession order to be enforced immediately on the grounds that there is a risk to the security of others or to the property if enforcement is delayed.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended today’s hearing. The tenant was given notice but did not attend.

I also heard from witnesses for the landlord on the telephone.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant. Termination for antisocial behaviour

The landlord has given 3 notices of antisocial behaviour. These are as follows: a. The first was given on the 11 February 2026 (which the landlord says was delivered to the tenant’s mailbox on the 12 February 2026). That notice describes the antisocial behaviour as the tenant fighting with her partner on the 10 February and acting aggressively, yelling and swearing at he property manager on the 11 February. b. The second was given on the 17 February 2026 (which the landlord says was delivered to the tenant’s mailbox on the 18 February 2026). That notice describes the antisocial behaviour as: •Raising your voice in an aggressive and accusing manner. •Yelling and challenging the Manager publicly. •Continuing to yell after being asked to stop. •Persisting in yelling as the Manager walked away. c. The third was given on the 20 February 2026 (which the landlord says was sent via email to the tenant on the 20 February 2026 and delivered to his mailbox on the 23 February 2026). That notice describes the antisocial behaviour as: •Yelling at the top of your voice. •Aggressive and violent tone. •Continuing despite being asked to stop. •Pacing and escalating in volume. •Creating a scene visible and audible to other residents.

Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order, pursuant to s55A RTA, 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 RTA 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 have considered the evidence presented by the landlord, especially the accounts given by the property manager and neighbours who live at the complex. They describe behaviour that is clearly antisocial, the tenant acts aggressively, loudly yelling and swearing when confronted and has made threats to neighbours and the property manager. All the evidence shows a pattern of behaviour that is escalating and becoming bolder.

I consider that the behaviour complained of in the three notices constituted anti- social behaviour. The manager told me today that the tenant has: a. Loudly argued with her partner, including screaming and swearing in common areas around the property. Assaulted her partner by hitting him on the 10 February. b. Sworn and yelled at the manager. c. Sworn and yelled at her neighbours. d. Threatened the manager on the 17 February by acting aggressively and telling and swearing at him then saying, “what time do you get off work?” e. Blocked an elderly neighbour from reaching her home, by holding onto her walker while acting aggressively towards her. f. Threatened to physically assault a neighbour, the day that the landlord filed the application.

However, I do not consider that I can make an order terminating the tenancy pursuant to s55A because the notices given do not meet the requirements set out in the s55A(2)(b) RTA in particular that the notices do not comply with the requirement in s55A(2)(b)(iv) RTA that the notice advises the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice .

None of the notices advise the tenant that she has the right to challenge the notice and that she may make an application to the Tribunal to do that.

The law is strict with the requirements of what the notice must say, this is because the consequences of the notice- termination are serious. It is important that tenants who face such notices are told that they can challenge these notices. If the requirements of the notice in s55A(2)(b RTA are met and the tenant does not challenge the notice, then the Tribunal MUST terminate. Therefore, the Tribunal takes a strict approach to the requirements of the notice. If the notice does not meet the requirements in s55A(2) then the Tribunal cannot terminate under that section.

As the notices did not tell the tenant that he could challenge the notices, they do not meet the requirements in s55A(2)(b) and I cannot terminate under that section of the RTA.

However, having heard the evidence I consider that the tenant has breached s55(1)c) RTA. That provision allows the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy in particular circumstances including where the tenant has physically assaulted or has threatened to physically assault, another occupier of the building, the landlord or agent of the landlord or a neighbour.

That provision does not require the tenant to be given notice of the behaviour. I am satisfied that I am able to terminate under this section as the tenant was told in the Notice of Hearing that termination would be considered under s55 RTA.

Assault is defined in section 2 of the Crimes Act as “assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another...”

I am satisfied that the tenant has breached s55(1)(c) RTA by assaulting or threatened to assault a neighbour and the property manager as follows: a. On the 17 February 2026 that the tenant threatened to assault the property manager when she queried what time he got off work. In the context of the tenant’s aggression, yelling swearing and acting in an intimidating manner, I consider that such a comment was intended and meant as a threat of an assault. b. On the 20 February 2026, during an aggressive outburst by the tenant that the tenant held on to her elderly neighbour’s walker preventing her from moving forward. I consider this an intentional application of force, that was intended to prevent the neighbour from moving. The neighbour was scared for her physical safety. c. On the 23 February 2026 the tenant threatened a neighbour during another aggressive outburst by saying “I’m gonna F****n hit your head”. This is a specific threat of violence to the neighbour. The neighbour was extremely upset and frightened as a result of this threat.

I consider that it likely that the tenant will continue to act in an antisocial manner and threatened her neighbours and property manager. As detailed below, during today’s hearing witnesses told me that the tenant was once again having a loud and aggressive outburst at the complex. Possession order may be carried immediately.

Usually, a possession order cannot be enforced (an eviction actioned) until 48 hours after the order is made. However, I am able to grant leave for the order to be enforced immediately; see section 138(1) of the District Court Act 2016. Section 106(2) RTA states that s 138(1) applies as if the reference to a District Court Judge, were a reference to a Tenancy Adjudicator.

The landlord may make an immediate application for an eviction warrant so as to have bailiff and/or police assistance to obtain possession, if required.

I make this order because I consider that if there is any delay in enforcing the eviction, then it is likely that the tenant will engage in further antisocial behaviour, and there is a real risk to the safety of the 37 other vulnerable residents who reside in the property and the staff at the property. During today’s hearing whilst speaking to witnesses on the phone, they reported that the tenant was acting aggressively and yelling and swearing loudly. I could hear the commotion in the background. The witness was very frightened and had to lock themselves in their unit. Suppression.

I have granted name suppression to the landlord and to all the witnesses, this is in order to protect the safety of the other tenants at the property. The name of the complex and address of the property is also suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452343 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452343 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions