What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452449 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 78A Manuroa Road, Takanini is

How much money was awarded in case 5452449?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452449?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13498881-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5452449 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 78A Manuroa Road, Takanini is

How much money was awarded in case 5452449?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5452449?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5452449?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13498881-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

78A Manuroa Road, Takanini 2112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5452449 — Harassment

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5452449. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. The bond centre is to retain the bond of	$160.00		2. The bond centre is to retain the bond of

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 78A Manuroa Road, Takanini is terminated at 11.59 pm on Friday 15 May 2026 and possession is granted immediately after that date and time to Kainga Ora- Homes and Communities.
The bond centre is to retain the bond of $160.00 at the bond centre until the end of the tenancy.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenant did not attend. The Tribunal rang the tenant twice on her mobile phone and left a message. The tenant did not answer either of the calls. The landlord advised that they had contacted the tenant yesterday to remind her of the Tribunal hearing. The tenant verbally abused the landlord when advising her of the hearing.
The Tribunal has sent the tenant a notice of hearing and followed up with a text message yesterday confirming the hearing. I consider the tenant is aware of the hearing and has chosen not to attend. I am proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the tenant.
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 landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is actual physical harm, including the use of weapons and abuse of neighbours resulting in one broken arm, dog bites and causing serious physical injury to neighbours. The tenant’s dog constantly roams the neighbourhood, lunging at people, frightening children, and actually biting neighbours on two occasions.
The police have been involved in 15 call outs between 2021 to 2023 and 10 callouts between 2024 to January 2026.
The landlord has included photos of injuries to neighbours as a result of being attacked by the tenant or her associates, police reports, medical evidence and witness statements.
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 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 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. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach were, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
However, unless the breach is serious, 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 tenant has breached their obligations by assaulting and abusing her neighbours, allowing her unauthorised dog to roam the neighbourhood lunging and attacking people, threatening and verbally abusing neighbours and Kainga- Ora staff.
The breach is not capable of remedy because the landlord has issued 5x s55A Notices and attempted to have meetings to discuss the issues. The tenant has refused to remove the unauthorised dog, attend meetings and desist in the anti- social behaviour.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The landlord believes that the anti-social behaviour is escalating, and the tenant poses an ongoing threat to her immediate neighbours and risk to Kainga Ora staff.
The tenancy is terminated, and possession is granted to the landlord on
59pm on Friday 15 th May 2026.
The bond centre is to retain the bond until the end of the tenancy in case there are vacated costs that need to be considered.
At the end of a tenancy, following an Order from the Tribunal, tenants are required to return possession of the premises to the landlord as set out on s40(1) ( e) of the Residential tenancies Act 1986. This means the tenant must vacate the property and hand back all keys. The tenant is expected to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, remove all personal belongings.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5452449. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. The bond centre is to retain the bond of	$160.00		2. The bond centre is to retain the bond of

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 78A Manuroa Road, Takanini is terminated at 11.59 pm on Friday 15 May 2026 and possession is granted immediately after that date and time to Kainga Ora- Homes and Communities.
The bond centre is to retain the bond of $160.00 at the bond centre until the end of the tenancy.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, the tenant did not attend. The Tribunal rang the tenant twice on her mobile phone and left a message. The tenant did not answer either of the calls. The landlord advised that they had contacted the tenant yesterday to remind her of the Tribunal hearing. The tenant verbally abused the landlord when advising her of the hearing.
The Tribunal has sent the tenant a notice of hearing and followed up with a text message yesterday confirming the hearing. I consider the tenant is aware of the hearing and has chosen not to attend. I am proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the tenant.
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 landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is actual physical harm, including the use of weapons and abuse of neighbours resulting in one broken arm, dog bites and causing serious physical injury to neighbours. The tenant’s dog constantly roams the neighbourhood, lunging at people, frightening children, and actually biting neighbours on two occasions.
The police have been involved in 15 call outs between 2021 to 2023 and 10 callouts between 2024 to January 2026.
The landlord has included photos of injuries to neighbours as a result of being attacked by the tenant or her associates, police reports, medical evidence and witness statements.
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 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 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. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach were, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.
However, unless the breach is serious, 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 tenant has breached their obligations by assaulting and abusing her neighbours, allowing her unauthorised dog to roam the neighbourhood lunging and attacking people, threatening and verbally abusing neighbours and Kainga- Ora staff.
The breach is not capable of remedy because the landlord has issued 5x s55A Notices and attempted to have meetings to discuss the issues. The tenant has refused to remove the unauthorised dog, attend meetings and desist in the anti- social behaviour.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. The landlord believes that the anti-social behaviour is escalating, and the tenant poses an ongoing threat to her immediate neighbours and risk to Kainga Ora staff.
The tenancy is terminated, and possession is granted to the landlord on
59pm on Friday 15 th May 2026.
The bond centre is to retain the bond until the end of the tenancy in case there are vacated costs that need to be considered.
At the end of a tenancy, following an Order from the Tribunal, tenants are required to return possession of the premises to the landlord as set out on s40(1) ( e) of the Residential tenancies Act 1986. This means the tenant must vacate the property and hand back all keys. The tenant is expected to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, remove all personal belongings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452449 — Harassment at 78A Manuroa Road, Takanini 2112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5452449 — Harassment at 78A Manuroa Road, Takanini 2112

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

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions