Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5512050 — Harassment
Decided 8 Jun 2026 · Published 8 Jun 2026 · Application 5512050
- Harassment
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
G Barnett
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
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the address of the property only.
- The tenancy of Charles Sale Tuuina-Leota at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at midnight tonight Monday 08 June 2026.
Reasons
- Ms Eder has appeared for the landlord by video. The tenant did not join the video link. I made a phone call to the tenant’s contact number provided, but the call went to voicemail. I am satisfied the tenant has been advised of the date, time, and mode of hearing. The hearing has proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
- The landlord has applied to the Tribunal to terminate the periodic tenancy under section 55A (1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act) due to anti-social behaviour by the tenant or a person on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
- The landlord has provided anti-social behaviour notices: the first dated 17 March 2026, the second dated 1 April 2026, and the third dated 24 April 2026.
- The property is a unit within a complex. The occupants of the other units are also the landlord’s tenants. A diagram of the complex shows the occupants of the units live in close proximity to one another.
- The tenant is the sole occupant under the tenancy but may have visitors to stay. If a visitor stays for more than three months, the tenant must advise the landlord.
- The first notice refers to a domestic dispute involving damage to common property at 8:00 am. The second relates to a domestic dispute involving sustained yelling and repeated slamming of doors at 3:20 am. The Police attended. The third relates to a domestic dispute at 6:17 am, which involved sustained yelling, and repeated door slamming and kicking.
- The landlord has also provided a 14-day notice dated 18 February 2026 for allowing the property to be used for unlawful purposes, namely illicit drug use. Another 14-day notice dated 28 May 2026 was issued for further domestic disputes involving sustained yelling and door slamming, including an incident where someone climbed onto the roofs of nearby properties between 2:14 am and 7:30 am.
- The incidents appear to involve an individual known to the tenant who was at the property with the tenant’s permission. Law
- 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.
- Section 55A (3) states the Tribunal must not make an order if satisfied that doing so would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred, or the notices were given.
- Section 55A(5) states that under subsection (2)(a), if a tenant is in the premises at the same time as another person (other than the landlord or a person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority), the tenant is presumed to have permitted the person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that they took all reasonable steps to prevent the person from entering the premises or to eject he person from the premises.
- Section 55A (6) defines antisocial behaviour as harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor. Analysis and decision
- The landlord bears the burden of proof. The standard required is the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish that it is more likely than not that the tenant or someone at the property with the tenant’s permission has engaged in anti-social behaviour.
- Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that each notice discloses anti- social behaviour and complies with the Act.
- The landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or by a person on the property with the tenant’s permission.
- The application was made within 28 days of the third notice, issued on 24 April 2026.
- I am not satisfied that terminating the tenancy would be unfair, considering the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred, and the notices were issued.
- The anti-social behaviour took place during arguments between the tenant and an individual at the property with the tenant’s permission.
- There is no evidence that the tenant has taken steps to remove this person from the property or to discourage their visits to prevent further incidents. Name suppression
- Although the landlord has been wholly successful and is entitled to name suppression, they do not seek it.
- Section 95A (4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, may order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
- Although not required to give evidence to establish the landlord’s claim, other occupants at the complex have provided written statements. Accordingly, I order the suppression of the names of any witnesses and the property address.