What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5489330 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5489330?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5489330?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5489330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13492026-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5489330 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5489330?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5489330?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5489330?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13492026-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

234 Shortland Street, Aranui, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5489330 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ name and identifying details.
The application for termination is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was conducted by video. There was no appearance for the tenant.
At the hearing, I had indicated that the order for termination would be granted, but on further review of the timing of the notices, the order cannot be made.
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 threatening comments.
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. 1
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.
The landlord produced three anti-social behaviour notices.
The first is dated 26 March 2026 and concerns a text she received that day at approximately 7.45am, in which the tenant said: As if I wouldn't be here, I wouldn't trust you in my home. I want nothing to do with you so go do what you gotta do next, I don't care, but you will.
The landlord explained that this text was sent in the context of communication about an upcoming property inspection. In the notice to the tenant, the landlord recorded, “When I raised my concern that this felt threatening, your response was that it was not your problem how I interpreted it.”
The landlord said that as a result of receiving this text, she had security cameras installed at her house.
I agree that the words, “...do what you gotta do next, I don’t care, but you will” sound like a threat.
The notice complies with section 55A.
According to emails provided by the landlord, on 8 April 2026 at 4.49pm 2 the landlord issued a second notice regarding an email she had received at
46pm: Look i have been here 4 19years all use have done is bloody lie by saying use didn't no it was being used as a sleepout nw that's a load of crap and Tracy knows that I'm not moving twice so u either wait 4 me 2 move or u can throw me 1 See section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 At the hearing, the emails were reviewed and I had wrongly interpreted that the anti-social behaviour itself was given at 1.46pm, but that is the time the email was received from the tenant. and my son on the streets after all I have done here a d use do this that's pretty upsetting so either way,your nothing but a fucken home wrecker and I will b emailing Tracy 2 its all unfair ask any1 so go do ya court thing u rude cow all of use and its ok karma works in mysterious ways and take that hw eva u won't, ill come in2 your hm and c hw u like it bet u wouldn't, oh 1 more thing your a heartless and gutless cow that can't even say something 2 me face 2 face so go ahead make my day
This email was sent after a Tribunal Order was made on 20 March 2026, declaring that the sleepout was not part of the tenancy agreement.
I agree with the landlord that the combination of the words, “ok karma works in mysterious ways and take that hw eva u won't, ill come in2 your hm and c hw u like it” and “go ahead make my day” amount to a threat.
This notice complies with section 55A.
The third notice was sent on 15 April 2026 regarding a further threatening email that was sent on 8 April 2026 to the owner. It ended with “Karma works in mysterious ways, trust me on that 1”.
However, the email that was sent to the owner was sent at 3.42pm on 8 April. The second notice anti-social notice was sent after this email had been sent to the landlord.
I do not consider that section 55A has been properly complied with. My interpretation of section 55A is that each notice must be given after the relevant incident and before the next incident for it to count towards the three-notice requirement. A tenant must have an opportunity to take on board what has been complained of, modify their behaviour, take steps to prevent a recurrence or challenge the notice before the second notice has been given.
Therefore, I am not satisfied that the landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The notice of hearing to the parties refers to two other sections of the Act which provide for grounds for termination: 55 and 56.
Section 55(1)(c) covers the situation of assault or threaten to assault a landlord. I do not find that the tenant’s actions amount to a threat to assault.
Section 56 provides for termination for breach of the tenant’s responsibilities. The conduct does not fall into a breach of section 40.
Accordingly, the grounds for termination are not met and the application is dismissed.
The tenant’s behaviour is unacceptable and may constitute an offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 or other legislation. If she continues to act in this way, there will likely be grounds to terminate under section 55A.
In any future applications, the landlord is asked to provide a full copy of the tenancy agreement and agency agreement.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ name and identifying details.
The application for termination is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was conducted by video. There was no appearance for the tenant.
At the hearing, I had indicated that the order for termination would be granted, but on further review of the timing of the notices, the order cannot be made.
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 threatening comments.
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. 1
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.
The landlord produced three anti-social behaviour notices.
The first is dated 26 March 2026 and concerns a text she received that day at approximately 7.45am, in which the tenant said: As if I wouldn't be here, I wouldn't trust you in my home. I want nothing to do with you so go do what you gotta do next, I don't care, but you will.
The landlord explained that this text was sent in the context of communication about an upcoming property inspection. In the notice to the tenant, the landlord recorded, “When I raised my concern that this felt threatening, your response was that it was not your problem how I interpreted it.”
The landlord said that as a result of receiving this text, she had security cameras installed at her house.
I agree that the words, “...do what you gotta do next, I don’t care, but you will” sound like a threat.
The notice complies with section 55A.
According to emails provided by the landlord, on 8 April 2026 at 4.49pm 2 the landlord issued a second notice regarding an email she had received at
46pm: Look i have been here 4 19years all use have done is bloody lie by saying use didn't no it was being used as a sleepout nw that's a load of crap and Tracy knows that I'm not moving twice so u either wait 4 me 2 move or u can throw me 1 See section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 At the hearing, the emails were reviewed and I had wrongly interpreted that the anti-social behaviour itself was given at 1.46pm, but that is the time the email was received from the tenant. and my son on the streets after all I have done here a d use do this that's pretty upsetting so either way,your nothing but a fucken home wrecker and I will b emailing Tracy 2 its all unfair ask any1 so go do ya court thing u rude cow all of use and its ok karma works in mysterious ways and take that hw eva u won't, ill come in2 your hm and c hw u like it bet u wouldn't, oh 1 more thing your a heartless and gutless cow that can't even say something 2 me face 2 face so go ahead make my day
This email was sent after a Tribunal Order was made on 20 March 2026, declaring that the sleepout was not part of the tenancy agreement.
I agree with the landlord that the combination of the words, “ok karma works in mysterious ways and take that hw eva u won't, ill come in2 your hm and c hw u like it” and “go ahead make my day” amount to a threat.
This notice complies with section 55A.
The third notice was sent on 15 April 2026 regarding a further threatening email that was sent on 8 April 2026 to the owner. It ended with “Karma works in mysterious ways, trust me on that 1”.
However, the email that was sent to the owner was sent at 3.42pm on 8 April. The second notice anti-social notice was sent after this email had been sent to the landlord.
I do not consider that section 55A has been properly complied with. My interpretation of section 55A is that each notice must be given after the relevant incident and before the next incident for it to count towards the three-notice requirement. A tenant must have an opportunity to take on board what has been complained of, modify their behaviour, take steps to prevent a recurrence or challenge the notice before the second notice has been given.
Therefore, I am not satisfied that the landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The notice of hearing to the parties refers to two other sections of the Act which provide for grounds for termination: 55 and 56.
Section 55(1)(c) covers the situation of assault or threaten to assault a landlord. I do not find that the tenant’s actions amount to a threat to assault.
Section 56 provides for termination for breach of the tenant’s responsibilities. The conduct does not fall into a breach of section 40.
Accordingly, the grounds for termination are not met and the application is dismissed.
The tenant’s behaviour is unacceptable and may constitute an offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 or other legislation. If she continues to act in this way, there will likely be grounds to terminate under section 55A.
In any future applications, the landlord is asked to provide a full copy of the tenancy agreement and agency agreement.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5489330 — 14-day notice at 234 Shortland Street, Aranui, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5489330 — 14-day notice at 234 Shortland Street, Aranui, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions