How much money was awarded in case 5570404?

Filing Fee: $29.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5570404?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5570404?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14168089-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5570404?

Filing Fee: $29.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5570404?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5570404?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14168089-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Alma Place, Shirley, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5570404 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5570404 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 8 Alma Place, Shirley, Christchurch 8061 is

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5570404 — 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

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 8 Alma Place, Shirley, Christchurch 8061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at

59 am on Thursday 10 September 2026.

[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 4 September 2026.

The tenancy commenced on 21 February 2024. It is a periodic tenancy.

The tenanted premises at Unit 8 (“the premises”) are part of a larger complex. There are six blocks of four units. The tenants unit adjoins the unit of Ms A. They share a common party wall.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under: • Section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”)- anti-social behaviour • Section 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA - Assaulting or threatening to assault an occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part. • Section 55(1)(b) RTA -Threatening to cause or causing substantial damage. • Section 56 RTA -Breaching the tenancy agreement or the RTA in a manner incapable of remedy. • Reimbursement of the filing fee. Anti- Social Behaviour.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is; The first anti-social behaviour notice relates to an incident involving excessive noise coming from the premises at approximately 12:05 am. Noise Control attended the property and issued an Excessive Noise Direction to the tenant. The second anti-social behaviour notice relates to an incident a few days later in which the tenant left the Excessive Noise Direction previously served on him at the doorstep of the neighbouring tenant Ms A. The tenant had written “fat ugly red head” on the notice, apparently in retaliation for what he believed was the neighbour's involvement in contacting Noise Control. The third anti-social behaviour notice relates to the tenant's conduct when the landlord’s staff attempted to serve the second anti-social behaviour notice on him in person. The tenant immediately ripped up the notice and directed extremely abusive and threatening language towards two staff members. Among other threats, the tenant stated that one of the staff members would soon be dead.

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 am satisfied that the landlord has proven to the civil standard that anti-social behaviour occurred as set out in the notices. The tenant having not filed an application with the Tribunal challenging the notices, the Tribunal may accept that the behaviour as described in the notices is deemed to have taken place.

I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant.

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 however that it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy under s.55A RTA taking into account the circumstances in which the notices were given. The purpose of the notices is twofold. They are to give the tenant the opportunity to amend their behaviour and to provide them with information on the ability to lodge a challenge to the notice.

The behaviour recorded in the third anti-social behaviour has occurred before the second anti-social behaviour notice has been served on the tenant. For that reason only, I consider that it would be unfair to terminate the evidence under the anti-social behaviour process. That application is dismissed. Section 55(1)(c)(iv) RTA

In the alternative, the landlord seeks to terminate the tenancy under s.55(1)(c)(iv) RTA. That section provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating a tenancy where it is satisfied that: “the tenant has assaulted, or threatened to assault...any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part.

In R v Meek [1981] 1 NZLR 499 (CA) the Court discussed what is meant by “threatened to assault” and considered that: “To threaten to assault means just what it says: It is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force. The fact of the threat can be enough. Even under the criminal law, there is no need to intend to act on the threat; or to have the capacity to act on it; or that it be passed on to the person to whom the threat relates.”

See also Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd [2004] NZAR 665, at [29] – [30], where the High Court, quoting the above dicta, added: “Under the criminal law, what does have to be proved is the intent that the threat be taken seriously by the person to whom it was made. But how far that applies under this Act is another question. The intent of s55 is to protect the classes of persons to whom it refers: the landlord, the landlord’s family or agents, and indeed other occupiers. In this context, the fact of a threat has to be enough.”

On 7 August 2026, the tenant sent a series of text messages to the landlord in which he made explicit and concerning threats directed towards the neighbour Ms A. Ms A was the victim of the conduct described in the three anti-social behaviour notices. The messages included: “I’m on the brink of going insane and taking everyone out with me.” and: “I’m over my life and no one will care till I smash this cry baby’s house or head in and get kicked out.”

The tenant accepted in evidence that he said this.

Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the tenant has threated to assault Ms A.

I must now consider the discretion retained in s.55(2) RTA, which provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order if but only if, the breach has been remedied (where capable of remedy) the landlord has been compensated for any loss from the breach and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which the section relates to.

In Collins v Housing New Zealand, High Court Christchurch, CIV- 2004 – 409 – 717, 2 July 2004, his Honour Judge Keane accepted that an assault, or threat of assault, once made could not be remedied. His Honour however, formed the view that the discretion under s.55(2) RTA remained, regardless of whether the breach was capable of remedy or not. The High Court held that if the breach could not be remedied, then the issue could be set aside and the Tribunal go on to consider the two remaining factors under s.55(2) RTA, namely whether the landlord had been compensated for any loss arising from the breach and whether it was unlikely that the tenant would commit any further breach.

The threats in this case having been made, could not be unmade. The landlord can not be compensated for the loss. I am left to consider whether it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach. Subsequent conduct by the tenant included threats to the landlord’s staff and threats to smash up the neighbours unit. I accept that the tenant made an apology to both Ms A and the landlord’s staff at the hearing and explained his own personal health issues. That does not make it any less likely that behaviour of this nature is likely to occur again. The tenant’s subsequent behaviour shows an escalating pattern of threatening behaviour. The tenancy is terminated.

Having ordered the termination of the tenancy under s.55(1)(c)(iv) RTA I am not required to consider the remaining alternative applications for termination of the tenancy by the landlord.

As Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5570404 — 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

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] tenant/s] at 8 Alma Place, Shirley, Christchurch 8061 is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at

59 am on Thursday 10 September 2026.

[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 4 September 2026.

The tenancy commenced on 21 February 2024. It is a periodic tenancy.

The tenanted premises at Unit 8 (“the premises”) are part of a larger complex. There are six blocks of four units. The tenants unit adjoins the unit of Ms A. They share a common party wall.

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.

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 determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant.

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 tenant accepted in evidence that he said this.

Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the tenant has threated to assault Ms A.

Having ordered the termination of the tenancy under s.55(1)(c)(iv) RTA I am not required to consider the remaining alternative applications for termination of the tenancy by the landlord.

As Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5570404 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Alma Place, Shirley, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5570404 — Tenancy dispute at 8 Alma Place, Shirley, Christchurch 8061

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.