Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5503769 — Tenancy dispute at 30C Bledisloe Street, Levin, Levin 5510
Decided 30 Jun 2026 · Published 30 Jun 2026 · Application 5503769
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Levin
Tribunal region
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The tenancy of Katarina Rosanna Ruruku at 30C Bledisloe Street, Levin, Levin 5510 is terminated and possession is granted to RJ Homes Group Limited, at
- 59 pm Tuesday 7 July 2026.
Reasons
- The landlord 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 repeated breaches of her tenancy. See sections 55A and 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Landlord’s application under section 55A RTA
- The landlord has issued three notices for anti-social behaviour as follows: a. Notice 1 dated 20 April 2026. On 17 April 2026 “cars were going up and down the driveway until 4 am and bottles were thrown over the fence into the neighbouring property. Your neighbour’s vehicle was allegedly hit by one of the cars...” b. Notice 2 dated 23 April 2026. On 22 April 2026 “a car was going up and down your driveway doing burnouts in the street. The occupants were being very loud and once again disturbing the neighbours on arrival at your property.” c. Notice 3 dated 10 May 2026. On 8 May 2026 people were “[playing] basketball, singing and cars up and down driveway, disturbing neighbours until 2 am.” On 9 May 2026 the “neighbours called noise control at 1 am”.
- The landlord has issued two further breach notices: a. Breach Notice 1 dated 2 June 2026. A visitor to the tenant’s property smashed the windscreen of your neighbour’s vehicle. b. Breach Notice 2 dated 8 June 2026. A visitor to the property has intentionally “destroyed the new letter box, smashed the front lounge window, kicked the front aluminium door with enough force to warp it and make it difficult to close/lock, kick[ed] the master bedroom door causing a large crack, thrown red ink around the master bedroom staining the carpet in several places.”
- The notices were supported by photographs of burnt rubber down the driveway, the broken windscreen of the neighbour’s vehicle, the broken letterbox, broken window and aluminium door, and of the red stains on the carpet.
- A neighbour gave evidence by telephone confirming the incidents in Notices 1, 2 and 3 and Breach Notice 1.
- The landlord also provided the following further evidence: a. An email from the tenant confirming that the incidents in Notice 1 occurred, that her invitees were responsible and one of them damaged the neighbour’s vehicle. b. An email from the tenant regarding Notice 2 confirming that she was getting a water blaster to clean up the driveway. c. An email from the tenant apologising for the damage to the neighbour’s car windscreen.
- 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.
- Notices 1 and 2 do not include advice of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice as required under section 55A(1)(aa)(ii) RTA. The inclusion of this information in a notice of anti-social behaviour is a statutory requirement. By being so specific and detailed, Parliament clearly intended that compliance was mandatory.
- Where there is an omission of information required by section 55A RTA, the Tribunal is unable to grant an application for termination. The landlord’s application under section 55A RTA must therefore be dismissed. Landlord’s application for termination under section 56 RTA
- 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) RTA.
- 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 landlord’s evidence has established that it is more likely than not that the tenant has: a. Caused or permitted interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of other persons residing in the neighbourhood, being the neighbours living in premises down the driveway in breach of the tenant’s obligation under section 40(2)(c) RTA. b. Intentionally or carelessly damaged or permitted another person to damage the premises by breaking the window, the letterbox and the door and by intentionally staining the carpet.
- The landlord has given written notices to the tenant of these breaches as outlined above.
- The breaches of quiet enjoyment are not capable of being remedied and the damages have not been repaired.
- It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy for the following reasons: a. All the breaches have been committed intentionally over a period of some six weeks. The breaches of quiet enjoyment have been repeated. b. While the consequences of termination on the tenant will be significant, the landlord has a legal obligation to protect the neighbours from these repeated breaches of their quiet enjoyment. The breaches have been significant and lengthy. They have included the intentional damage of a neighbour’s property and the involvement of the police. c. The damage to the premises is significant and intentional. It indicates an ongoing problem and that further damage may occur. d. Termination is a proportional response to breaches of this nature and extent. It is unacceptable for the tenant and her guests to continue to disturb the neighbours throughout the night with dangerous and destructive behaviour without any regard for the neighbours’ rights. The intentional damage to the property is significant and the landlord is reasonably concerned that it may continue.
- The landlord’s application for termination under section 56 is proven.