What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4972253?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Caroline Mary Hohepa at 8 Rice Crescent, Papakura, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 4972253?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4972253?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4972253?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10839653-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4972253?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Caroline Mary Hohepa at 8 Rice Crescent, Papakura, Auckland

How much money was awarded in case 4972253?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4972253?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4972253?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10839653-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Rice Crescent, Papakura, Auckland 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4972253 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Only the landlord’s representative attended the hearing. The landlord is a social housing provider. Calls to the tenant went unanswered; the landlord says that the tenant is presently in remand at a correctional facility.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c) and section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).

On 17 July 2024, the tenant assaulted her neighbour by hurling a rock onto his face causing injury. The tenancy is hereby terminated under section 55(1)(c) RTA.

In the alternative, the tenancy is also terminated under section 55A RTA on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.

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 landlord. The tenant yelled at her neighbours, threw food over the fence, swore at neighbour’s children, committed numerous breaches of her bail conditions, yelled at the landlord’s Senior Housing Support Manager, and threw food parcels and food items at neighbours. Police were involved on those occasions and Miss Hohepa had been arrested by the police.

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.

For the above reasons, the tenancy is terminated under both sections 55(1)(c) and section 55A RTA.

Reasons

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c) and section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’).

On 17 July 2024, the tenant assaulted her neighbour by hurling a rock onto his face causing injury. The tenancy is hereby terminated under section 55(1)(c) RTA.

In the alternative, the tenancy is also terminated under section 55A RTA 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 cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.

For the above reasons, the tenancy is terminated under both sections 55(1)(c) and section 55A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4972253 — 14-day notice at 8 Rice Crescent, Papakura, Auckland 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4972253 — 14-day notice at 8 Rice Crescent, Papakura, Auckland 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions