What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5510050 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 1 Te Manatu Drive, Huntington, Hamilton

How much money was awarded in case 5510050?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5510050?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5510050?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13743059-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5510050 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 1 Te Manatu Drive, Huntington, Hamilton

How much money was awarded in case 5510050?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5510050?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5510050?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13743059-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 Te Manatu Drive, Huntington, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5510050 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 1 Te Manatu Drive, Huntington, Hamilton 3210 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 am on Thursday 18 June 2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link or by telephone. A telephone call was made to the tenant. The call went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given.
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 tenant resides in semi detached premises with a garage separating the two units. Ms A is the tenant’s neighbour.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is: First Notice
The first notice is dated 16 February 2026. This notice relates to an incident on 12 February 2026 at approximately 2.20 am. The landlord provided video evidence. A neighbour was also called to give evidence. In the video, a male is seen emptying his bladder bag onto the neighbour’s front lawn. The neighbour said that the male was a frequent visitor at the tenant’s premises. The neighbour was disgusted by the behaviour. Second notice
The second notice is dated 30 March 2026 and relates to an incident on 18 March 2026. A short video was provided as evidence. A neighbour was also called to give evidence. The video does not have sound. The video shows a male standing at the roadside. The male is dressed in a pair of tracksuit pants and has socks on his feet. He does not have a shirt on. The video shows the man pacing up and down looking at the cars passing by. At one point, the male shadow boxes.
The evidence of the neighbour expanded on the video evidence. The neighbour said that the man in the video lived at the tenant’s house. He was outside at the roadside for approximately 40-50 minutes. The neighbour said that the man was stomping around, grunting, muttering and making “mongrel mob” barking noises while clenching his fists and shadow boxing in the driveway. He kicked the letterbox.
The neighbour said that she had to put her rubbish bin out on that day but felt very unsafe to do so as she would have had to walk past the male in his agitated state. The neighbour said that she could not predict how he would react after having witnessed him on previous occasions confronting people walking past, chasing and staring at vehicles and displaying gang signs at them. Third notice
The third notice is dated 24 April 2026. The notice relates to an incident on 19 April 2026 at approximately 7.26 am. The witness said that she saw the same person as referred to in the first notice once again emptying his catheter on her front lawn.
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 parties as set out above. I have no difficulty in finding that the behaviour referred to in the three notices is anti-social behind behaviour (whether intentional or not) and that that behaviour has reasonably caused distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
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. The notices have not been challenged by the tenant.
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.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at 1 Te Manatu Drive, Huntington, Hamilton 3210 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 am on Thursday 18 June 2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link or by telephone. A telephone call was made to the tenant. The call went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given.
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 tenant resides in semi detached premises with a garage separating the two units. Ms A is the tenant’s neighbour.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is: First Notice
The first notice is dated 16 February 2026. This notice relates to an incident on 12 February 2026 at approximately 2.20 am. The landlord provided video evidence. A neighbour was also called to give evidence. In the video, a male is seen emptying his bladder bag onto the neighbour’s front lawn. The neighbour said that the male was a frequent visitor at the tenant’s premises. The neighbour was disgusted by the behaviour. Second notice
The second notice is dated 30 March 2026 and relates to an incident on 18 March 2026. A short video was provided as evidence. A neighbour was also called to give evidence. The video does not have sound. The video shows a male standing at the roadside. The male is dressed in a pair of tracksuit pants and has socks on his feet. He does not have a shirt on. The video shows the man pacing up and down looking at the cars passing by. At one point, the male shadow boxes.
The evidence of the neighbour expanded on the video evidence. The neighbour said that the man in the video lived at the tenant’s house. He was outside at the roadside for approximately 40-50 minutes. The neighbour said that the man was stomping around, grunting, muttering and making “mongrel mob” barking noises while clenching his fists and shadow boxing in the driveway. He kicked the letterbox.
The neighbour said that she had to put her rubbish bin out on that day but felt very unsafe to do so as she would have had to walk past the male in his agitated state. The neighbour said that she could not predict how he would react after having witnessed him on previous occasions confronting people walking past, chasing and staring at vehicles and displaying gang signs at them. Third notice
The third notice is dated 24 April 2026. The notice relates to an incident on 19 April 2026 at approximately 7.26 am. The witness said that she saw the same person as referred to in the first notice once again emptying his catheter on her front lawn.
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 parties as set out above. I have no difficulty in finding that the behaviour referred to in the three notices is anti-social behind behaviour (whether intentional or not) and that that behaviour has reasonably caused distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
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. The notices have not been challenged by the tenant.
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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5510050 — Harassment at 1 Te Manatu Drive, Huntington, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5510050 — Harassment at 1 Te Manatu Drive, Huntington, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions