What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5500949 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 37 Willard Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

How much money was awarded in case 5500949?

2. Manaia Ormsby Is To Pay: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5500949?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5500949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13603644-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5500949 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 37 Willard Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

How much money was awarded in case 5500949?

2. Manaia Ormsby Is To Pay: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5500949?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5500949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13603644-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

37 Willard Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5500949 — Harassment

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5500949. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. Manaia Ormsby is to pay	$28.00		2. Manaia Ormsby is to pay

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 37 Willard Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, immediately.
[The tenant/s] is to pay $28.00 to Otautahi Community Housing Trust for the filing fee for this application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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, and for breach of the tenant’s obligations incapable of remedy.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is excessive noise and parties at the premises.
Between 7 February 2026 and 30 April 2026, Noise Control attended the property on 19 separate occasions in response to complaints concerning excessive noise originating from the premises. It is relevant that the respondent resides within a high-density housing complex, meaning that any excessive noise substantially impacts numerous neighbouring tenants. Most of these callouts occurred between approximately 3:00am and 5:00am, which the landlord says is a significant aggravating factor.
During these attendances, Excessive Noise Direction (END) notices were issued on five occasions. On two occasions, speakers were seized due to continued non- compliance, with Police attendance required to assist with those seizures.
The landlord submits that the respondent’s conduct has caused ongoing and significant disruption to neighbouring tenants and that the repeated nature of the behaviour demonstrates it is unlikely to be remedied.
On 10 March 2026, the tenant told the landlord that her brother was responsible for organising the parties, that she had removed him from the property, and that she would ensure no further parties occurred. However, the parties did not stop and Noise Control attended the unit on a further 15 occasions. The landlord acknowledges that tenant has recently supplied an endorsed trespass notice that has been served on the tenant’s brother.
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) or omission that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
The tenant did not dispute anything the landlord had to say.
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 tenancy is terminated on these grounds.
The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, 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 continuing to have parties and excessive noise at the premises despite repeated warnings from the landlord and multiple visits from Noise Control and Police. The tenant has caused or permitted interference with the peace, comfort, and privacy of other tenants and neighbours in a manner incapable of remedy because the disruption cannot be undone.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the whole neighbourhood has been disrupted by the goings on at the premises for months. Noise Control has records of complaints going back to early February and the noise and parties have continued unabated.
The tenancy is also terminated on these grounds.
Because Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5500949. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. Manaia Ormsby is to pay	$28.00		2. Manaia Ormsby is to pay

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 37 Willard Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, immediately.
[The tenant/s] is to pay $28.00 to Otautahi Community Housing Trust for the filing fee for this application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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, and for breach of the tenant’s obligations incapable of remedy.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is excessive noise and parties at the premises.
Between 7 February 2026 and 30 April 2026, Noise Control attended the property on 19 separate occasions in response to complaints concerning excessive noise originating from the premises. It is relevant that the respondent resides within a high-density housing complex, meaning that any excessive noise substantially impacts numerous neighbouring tenants. Most of these callouts occurred between approximately 3:00am and 5:00am, which the landlord says is a significant aggravating factor.
During these attendances, Excessive Noise Direction (END) notices were issued on five occasions. On two occasions, speakers were seized due to continued non- compliance, with Police attendance required to assist with those seizures.
The landlord submits that the respondent’s conduct has caused ongoing and significant disruption to neighbouring tenants and that the repeated nature of the behaviour demonstrates it is unlikely to be remedied.
On 10 March 2026, the tenant told the landlord that her brother was responsible for organising the parties, that she had removed him from the property, and that she would ensure no further parties occurred. However, the parties did not stop and Noise Control attended the unit on a further 15 occasions. The landlord acknowledges that tenant has recently supplied an endorsed trespass notice that has been served on the tenant’s brother.
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) or omission that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
The tenant did not dispute anything the landlord had to say.
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 tenancy is terminated on these grounds.
The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, 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 continuing to have parties and excessive noise at the premises despite repeated warnings from the landlord and multiple visits from Noise Control and Police. The tenant has caused or permitted interference with the peace, comfort, and privacy of other tenants and neighbours in a manner incapable of remedy because the disruption cannot be undone.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because the whole neighbourhood has been disrupted by the goings on at the premises for months. Noise Control has records of complaints going back to early February and the noise and parties have continued unabated.
The tenancy is also terminated on these grounds.
Because Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5500949 — Harassment at 37 Willard Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5500949 — Harassment at 37 Willard Street, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions