What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5531189 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 8, 24 Eason Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5531189?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5531189?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5531189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13873347-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5531189 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 8, 24 Eason Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5531189?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5531189?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5531189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13873347-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 8, 24 Eason Street, Victoria, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5531189 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 8, 24 Eason Street, Victoria, Rotorua 3010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Inspire Property Management Limited, at 5pm Thursday 16 July 2026.

[The tenant/s] must pay Inspire Property Management Limited $28.00 immediately, being the application filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video conference. There was no entry into the conference by the tenant, nor any prior contact with the Registry. A call to the tenant was attempted but unsuccessful. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the call went unanswered.

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 landlord states that the anti-social behaviour has been experienced by the landlord directly, mainly verbal abuse.

The landlord served three notices, on 4 May 2026, 27 May 2026, and 23 June 2026.

The notice of 4 May related to verbal abuse of the landlord after she asked the tenant to remove “dog droppings” from a shared access deck.

The second notice on 27 May was raised after further verbal abuse of the landlord as she attempted to access the unit for a notified, routine inspection.

The final notice of 23 June related to an escalation in anti-social behaviour with verbal abuse extending to a contractor on site with the landlord, telling her to “get the f* out you c*” as recounted by the landlord who was present. The tenant then punched the front door, breaking the glass. The landlord provided a written impact statement of the tenant actions on her.

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 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 circumstances would have justified an immediate termination order, but the landlord requested the end of the tenancy align with an end date already set via a previous landlord notice to terminate. This will give the tenant longer to manage his exit that should already be underway for that notified date. The extension is for his benefit. Filing fee

Because Inspire Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 8, 24 Eason Street, Victoria, Rotorua 3010 is terminated, and possession is granted to Inspire Property Management Limited, at 5pm Thursday 16 July 2026.
[The tenant/s] must pay Inspire Property Management Limited $28.00 immediately, being the application filing fee.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video conference. There was no entry into the conference by the tenant, nor any prior contact with the Registry. A call to the tenant was attempted but unsuccessful. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the call went unanswered.
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 landlord states that the anti-social behaviour has been experienced by the landlord directly, mainly verbal abuse.
The landlord served three notices, on 4 May 2026, 27 May 2026, and 23 June 2026.
The notice of 4 May related to verbal abuse of the landlord after she asked the tenant to remove “dog droppings” from a shared access deck.
The second notice on 27 May was raised after further verbal abuse of the landlord as she attempted to access the unit for a notified, routine inspection.
The final notice of 23 June related to an escalation in anti-social behaviour with verbal abuse extending to a contractor on site with the landlord, telling her to “get the f* out you c*” as recounted by the landlord who was present. The tenant then punched the front door, breaking the glass. The landlord provided a written impact statement of the tenant actions on her.
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 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 circumstances would have justified an immediate termination order, but the landlord requested the end of the tenancy align with an end date already set via a previous landlord notice to terminate. This will give the tenant longer to manage his exit that should already be underway for that notified date. The extension is for his benefit. Filing fee
Because Inspire Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5531189 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 8, 24 Eason Street, Victoria, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5531189 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 8, 24 Eason Street, Victoria, Rotorua 3010

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