What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5498771?

The tribunal order states: David Robert Ferrier and Jenny Sarah Ferrier are granted possession of the

How much money was awarded in case 5498771?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5498771?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5498771?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13583715-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5498771?

The tribunal order states: David Robert Ferrier and Jenny Sarah Ferrier are granted possession of the

How much money was awarded in case 5498771?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5498771?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5498771?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13583715-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room "Sunnyside" Room, 64 Brougham Street, Nelson South, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5498771 — Rent arrears

Order

David Robert Ferrier and Jenny Sarah Ferrier are granted possession of the premises at Room "Sunnyside" Room, 64 Brougham Street, Nelson South, Nelson 7010 immediately.
Ian Gillespie must pay David Robert Ferrier and Jenny Sarah Ferrier $1,430.86 immediately, as shown in table below.
The tenant’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was assisted by Counsel, Mr Callum Osborne.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of this boarding housing tenancy, and rent arrears.
The tenant is seeking exemplary damages for the landlord terminating the tenancy without grounds, and harassment.
The tenant has not filed a cross application, but I will consider his claims so as not to delay this matter further.
The issues to be decided are as follows: -Is the landlord entitled to immediate possession? -Is the landlord entitled to rent arrears? -Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds? -Did the landlord harass the tenant?
The onus is on both parties to prove their claims on the balance of probabilities.

Is the landlord entitled to immediate possession?

In accordance with section 66U of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord of a boarding house may terminate a boarding house tenancy immediately, if the tenant has— (ii) endangered, or threatened to endanger, people or property; or (ii) caused, or threatened to cause, serious disruption to other tenants.
A landlord may apply to the Tribunal for a possession order if the landlord has given the tenant notice under section 66U and the tenant has not quit the premises within the period specified in the notice (section 66Y RTA).
This tenancy started on 11 April although it appears that Mr Gillespie may not have moved in until 12 April.
On 13 April 2026, two female tenants made complaints about Mr Gillespie to the landlord. Both tenants provided witness statements, and both gave direct evidence to the Tribunal.
On 13 April 2026, the landlord gave a notice terminating this tenancy under the above sections of the RTA and referred to a letter from their lawyer. The reasons given by the landlord include blocking a tenant in the laundry and preventing her from leaving causing her to fear for her safety, making threats to kill cats at the premises, and, as a result, this has caused serious disruption to other tenants as they have reported they feel unsafe and unable to comfortably occupy the premises, including within their own rooms.
On the same day, Mr Gillespie sent an email to the landlord in which he stated that he posed no threat to anyone. He also stated, “Phew! Lawyers! Never a way to settle misunderstandings, as hidden enemies use knives.”
Since then, the landlord received a further complaint from one of the tenants. She says that on 24 April, Mr Gillespie approached her while she was sitting at the outside table of the premises. He stood close by and stared at her. He then banged on the table with a closed fist, gestured at her, and said words to the effect of, “Do you understand troublemaker?”.
The tenant says this left her feeling deeply uncomfortable and unsettled and she continues to feel unsafe and uncomfortable while Mr Gillespie remains at the premises.
In summary, Mr Gillespie denies blocking the tenant in the laundry, and saying anything to her about being a troublemaker. He also denies saying anything about killing cats. Mr Gillespie says that both tenants have concocted a story to get rid of him. He says that his reference to knives in an email to the landlord was maybe ‘off’, but as an astrologer and an esoteric person, he was talking about being stabbed in the back for no reason. He says that everything has been stretched out of all proportion.
After hearing and weighing all the evidence from both parties, I find it more likely than not that Mr Gillespie blocked the exit from the laundry and stood over the tenant, and he later threatened to endanger her by banging his fist on a table and calling her a troublemaker. I also find he threatened to endanger cats at the premises. His actions and words have caused serious disruption to the other tenants.
Both tenants gave their evidence in a straightforward manner. I found their testimony to be convincing, compelling, and consistent with their complaints to the landlord on the day of the incident, and subsequent written statements. One of the tenants clarified that Mr Gillespie asked if she wanted him to break the leg of the cat or cut its throat. This left her shocked and so uncomfortable that she asked the landlord for another lock on her room.
I found the evidence of Mr Gillespie to be inconsistent. He initially stated that he met a tenant standing in the doorway of the laundry, he said sorry and walked away. He then stated that he was on the steps, and he did not speak with the tenant. He then stated that he maybe said hello and when the tenant told him she had a cochlear implant, he smiled and walked away.
Mr Gillespie said he did not remember having a conversation with the tenant at the table outside. He then changed this when he said he had decided to speak to no-one because he was feeling vulnerable and had been asked to leave, and he did not say or do anything.
I prefer the evidence of the tenant that she first met Mr Gillespie in the kitchen on her way through to the laundry, Mr Gillespie blocked her exit from the laundry and stood over her leaving her intimidated and uncomfortable. These feelings were exacerbated when Mr Gillespie approached her outside around a week later, banged his fist on a table and called her a troublemaker. This came after the complaints had been relayed to him by the landlord and he had received the notice of termination.
Mr Gillespie does not dispute that he was having a conversation with the other tenant about cats spraying inside but he denies saying anything about causing harm.
I prefer the evidence of the tenant that he talked about spraying and then talked about killing the cat. This is consistent with the text message sent by her to the landlord that day that, “It was very disturbing for me to hear when he said that he could kill the cat.”
I accept the evidence of the tenants that the actions and words of Mr Gillespie has caused serious disruption to their living conditions and has left them feeling intimidated, uncomfortable, and unsafe. Both tenants have asked the landlord for additional locks on their rooms. Both tenants had never met Mr Gillespie before therefore I find it unlikely that they conspired to invent separate stories to complain to the landlord.
I therefore find that the tenancy has been validly terminated, and the landlord is entitled to immediate possession as sought.

Is the landlord entitled to rent arrears?

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing.
Mr Gillespie has not paid any rent for nearly 5 weeks and did not provide any reasonable explanation. He says he has never felt secure at the premises, but he still has an obligation to pay rent as and when it falls due.
The landlord is entitled to rent arrears as sought.

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Under Section 60AA RTA, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
In accordance with my findings above, the landlord was entitled to give the notice to terminate the tenancy.
Accordingly, this part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

The tenant claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 66G(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act.
The landlord does not dispute that he asked Mr Gillespie not to use the lounge and dining room of the main house. The landlord says there are 7 bedrooms separate from the main house, including Mr Gillespie’s room, and they have shared use of a kitchenette and the ‘ballroom’. The landlord says there is a general expectation that the tenants who are separate from the main house use their own communal areas, although he agrees there is nothing to prevent them entering and using the communal areas of the main house.
The tenancy agreement states that the tenant has shared use of a kitchenette and washing machine. It does not refer to a ‘ballroom’ nor any lounge or dining room. There is no specific exclusion from the main house.
I do not find that the request from the landlord to Mr Gillespie not to use the lounge and dining area in the main house amounts to a breach of his quiet enjoyment that would amount to harassment. While the tenancy agreement is unclear as to whether the tenant had the use of the facilities of the main house, I find it was prudent for the landlord to ask him not to use those areas given the nature of the complaints and close proximity of the complainants.
I heard all of the text message exchanges between the parties as read out by Mr Osborne. I do not find anything ‘horrific’ as stated by Mr Gillespie. The landlord was within his rights to suggest that the tenant move on before he issued the notice of termination, and he maintained his position throughout that Mr Gillespie’s behaviour towards the females in the premises was unacceptable. The landlord passed the tenants’ complaints onto police when he became aware of other alleged incidents in the community, and he notified Mr Gillespie of his actions. When Mr Gillespie failed to leave after the notice and repeated requests, the landlord told him he was issuing a trespass notice and filed his application with the Tribunal the same day.
This part of the tenant’s claim is dismissed. Filing fee
As the landlord has succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5498771 — Rent arrears at Room "Sunnyside" Room, 64 Brougham Street, Nelson South,

Tenancy Tribunal case 5498771 — Rent arrears at Room "Sunnyside" Room, 64 Brougham Street, Nelson South,

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord entitled to immediate possession?

Is the landlord entitled to rent arrears?

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord entitled to immediate possession?

Is the landlord entitled to rent arrears?

Did the landlord terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Did the landlord harass the tenant?