How much money was awarded in case 5489061?

Essed] Is Terminated, And Possession…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5489061?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5489061?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13583918-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5489061?

Essed] Is Terminated, And Possession…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5489061?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5489061?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13583918-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5489061 — Harassment

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5489061 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5489061. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
essed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm Monday 18 May 2026. 3. Carl Gonsalves is to	$28.00		essed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm Monday 18 May 2026. 3. Carl Gonsalves is to

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

The tenancy of Carl Gonsalves at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm Monday 18 May 2026.

Carl Gonsalves is to pay the landlord $28.00 immediately, being the application filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video conference. There was no entry into the conference by the tenant, nor any call in to the conference by one of the telephone numbers provided on the Notice of Hearing. For the avoidance of doubt, I made a call to his phone, but it went to voicemail.

After the prior hearing on 29 April 2026 the tenant was in contact with the Registry and an adjourning order was made in-lieu of a final order. The reasons in that order are copied below:

Prior to this hearing the tenant requested an adjournment on a number of grounds. No supporting evidence was provided and even if so, that may not have resulted in another adjournment given the timeline to date. The request for what would have been a second adjournment was declined.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.

This is a relatively fresh tenancy, commencing on 12 December 2025.

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviours include noise, aggressive behaviour and damage to property from the tenant or others at, or around, the premises.

There are now five ASB notices that have been served on the tenant by the landlord. These are dated 10 February 2026, 26 February 2026, 18 March 2026, 15 April 2026, and 19 April 2026.

The landlord stated the police have been called to this premises twice on ASB issues. Further, council noise control has also been involved. Emails and messages from some impacted neighbours were also provided.

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 landlord 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. Filing fee

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5489061. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
essed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm Monday 18 May 2026. 3. Carl Gonsalves is to	$28.00		essed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm Monday 18 May 2026. 3. Carl Gonsalves is to

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Carl Gonsalves at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm Monday 18 May 2026.
Carl Gonsalves is to pay the landlord $28.00 immediately, being the application filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video conference. There was no entry into the conference by the tenant, nor any call in to the conference by one of the telephone numbers provided on the Notice of Hearing. For the avoidance of doubt, I made a call to his phone, but it went to voicemail.
After the prior hearing on 29 April 2026 the tenant was in contact with the Registry and an adjourning order was made in-lieu of a final order. The reasons in that order are copied below:
Prior to this hearing the tenant requested an adjournment on a number of grounds. No supporting evidence was provided and even if so, that may not have resulted in another adjournment given the timeline to date. The request for what would have been a second adjournment was declined.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
This is a relatively fresh tenancy, commencing on 12 December 2025.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviours include noise, aggressive behaviour and damage to property from the tenant or others at, or around, the premises.
There are now five ASB notices that have been served on the tenant by the landlord. These are dated 10 February 2026, 26 February 2026, 18 March 2026, 15 April 2026, and 19 April 2026.
The landlord stated the police have been called to this premises twice on ASB issues. Further, council noise control has also been involved. Emails and messages from some impacted neighbours were also provided.
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 landlord 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. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5489061 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5489061 — Harassment

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