What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5561245 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 76 Palmers Road, New

How much money was awarded in case 5561245?

Filing Fee: $29.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5561245?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5561245?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14103569-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5561245 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 76 Palmers Road, New

How much money was awarded in case 5561245?

Filing Fee: $29.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5561245?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5561245?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14103569-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 6, 76 Palmers Road, New Brighton, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5561245 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5561245 — net $29.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$29.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$29.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$29.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 76 Palmers Road, New Brighton, Christchurch 8083, Fred Price Place is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59 am on Tuesday 1 September 2026.
The landlord has undertaken to deliver a copy of this order to the tenant by hand.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $29.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 24 August 2026.
The premises are in a large accommodation complex. The tenancy commenced on 25 May 2021.
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 in the alternative for a breach incapable of remedy.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is; First notice The notice is dated 7 May 2026 and relates to an incident that occurred that day at approximately 4.30.pm. The tenant’s guest (a cousin named Jason) was seen setting lime scooters on fire inside the complex. This was done in full view of other tenants and neighbours. Limited damage occurred other than the damage to the scooters. The tenant did not file an application with the Tribunal to challenge the notice. Second Notice The second notice is dated 18 May 2026 and relates to an incident which occurred the same day at approximately 10.00 pm. Jason was seen fighting with another tenant within the complex, close to the tenant’s unit. The altercation spilt onto private property and the police were called. Third notice The third notice is dated 2 August 2026 and relates to an incident that occurred that day at approximately 5 pm. Jason was parked in the communal parking lot. He revved the engine of the car and accelerated firmly causing loose gravel to fly up and hit other parked cars. The owner of a parked car asked Jason to desist in the behaviour. Jason challenged the owner to a fight.
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. No challenges were filed by the tenant with Tenancy Services. In Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited v Ciarra Kotuku [2026} NZTT 5509740, the Tribunal held that where a tenant fails to challenge any of the notices, the anti-social behaviour acts referred to in the notices are deemed to have occurred. The tenant’s potential defences are then limited to challenges that the notices were not issued, defective, unfair or retaliatory.
All the behaviour complained of in the s.55A notices, is that of Jason, the tenant’s cousin. Section 55A(5) RTA provides; “(5) In 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 the person from the premises.”
The landlord provided a recording of a telephone conversation with the tenant which occurred after the second anti-social behaviour notice was served and prior to the third notice. During the course of the conversation, it is made clear to the tenant that for her to take all reasonable steps to prevent Jason from entering the premises, she would need to arrange for a trespass notice to be served on Jason or to call the police.
The landlord's evidence was that they spoke to the tenant again on 21 August 2026, just prior to this hearing taking place. The tenant confirmed that whilst a trespass notice had been prepared, she had not arranged for service on Jason. The burden of proving that all reasonable steps have been taken to prevent Jason from entering the premises is on the tenant. To date, the tenant’s steps to prevent Jason entering the premises consist of telling him repeatedly not to. I do not consider that the tenant has proven that she has taken all reasonable steps to prevent Jason from entering the premises.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The tenant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent Jason from entering the premises. 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.
In the alternative the landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations under ss.56 and 40(2)(c) RTA. As I have already ordered termination of the tenancy, I am not required to consider that application.
As Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Neither party applied for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5561245 — net $29.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$29.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$29.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$29.00

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 76 Palmers Road, New Brighton, Christchurch 8083, Fred Price Place is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at 11.59 am on Tuesday 1 September 2026.
The landlord has undertaken to deliver a copy of this order to the tenant by hand.
[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust $29.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 24 August 2026.
The premises are in a large accommodation complex. The tenancy commenced on 25 May 2021.
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 in the alternative for a breach incapable of remedy.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is; First notice The notice is dated 7 May 2026 and relates to an incident that occurred that day at approximately 4.30.pm. The tenant’s guest (a cousin named Jason) was seen setting lime scooters on fire inside the complex. This was done in full view of other tenants and neighbours. Limited damage occurred other than the damage to the scooters. The tenant did not file an application with the Tribunal to challenge the notice. Second Notice The second notice is dated 18 May 2026 and relates to an incident which occurred the same day at approximately 10.00 pm. Jason was seen fighting with another tenant within the complex, close to the tenant’s unit. The altercation spilt onto private property and the police were called. Third notice The third notice is dated 2 August 2026 and relates to an incident that occurred that day at approximately 5 pm. Jason was parked in the communal parking lot. He revved the engine of the car and accelerated firmly causing loose gravel to fly up and hit other parked cars. The owner of a parked car asked Jason to desist in the behaviour. Jason challenged the owner to a fight.
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. No challenges were filed by the tenant with Tenancy Services. In Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited v Ciarra Kotuku [2026} NZTT 5509740, the Tribunal held that where a tenant fails to challenge any of the notices, the anti-social behaviour acts referred to in the notices are deemed to have occurred. The tenant’s potential defences are then limited to challenges that the notices were not issued, defective, unfair or retaliatory.
All the behaviour complained of in the s.55A notices, is that of Jason, the tenant’s cousin. Section 55A(5) RTA provides; “(5) In 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 the person from the premises.”
The landlord provided a recording of a telephone conversation with the tenant which occurred after the second anti-social behaviour notice was served and prior to the third notice. During the course of the conversation, it is made clear to the tenant that for her to take all reasonable steps to prevent Jason from entering the premises, she would need to arrange for a trespass notice to be served on Jason or to call the police.
The landlord's evidence was that they spoke to the tenant again on 21 August 2026, just prior to this hearing taking place. The tenant confirmed that whilst a trespass notice had been prepared, she had not arranged for service on Jason. The burden of proving that all reasonable steps have been taken to prevent Jason from entering the premises is on the tenant. To date, the tenant’s steps to prevent Jason entering the premises consist of telling him repeatedly not to. I do not consider that the tenant has proven that she has taken all reasonable steps to prevent Jason from entering the premises.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The tenant has not proven on the balance of probabilities that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent Jason from entering the premises. 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.
In the alternative the landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations under ss.56 and 40(2)(c) RTA. As I have already ordered termination of the tenancy, I am not required to consider that application.
As Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Neither party applied for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5561245 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 76 Palmers Road, New Brighton,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5561245 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 76 Palmers Road, New Brighton,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.