What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5108249?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Paula Edwards at 7A Rollerson Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

How much money was awarded in case 5108249?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5108249?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5108249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11329263-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5108249?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Paula Edwards at 7A Rollerson Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

How much money was awarded in case 5108249?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5108249?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5108249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11329263-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7A Rollerson Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5108249 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Paula Edwards at 7A Rollerson Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at 11.59pm on 7 February 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Maturan- Abuid, with Mr Campbell and Mr Temu also in attendance.
This is a periodic tenancy which began on 9 October 2013. The premises is a 5- bedroom home, where the tenant resides with her children and grandchildren. There are 57 homes on this street, of which almost 50% are tenanted by the landlord’s tenants.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy under three separate grounds under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA): a. Section 55(1)(c): on the basis that the tenant has threatened to assault a neighbour of the premises. b. Section 55A: anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission. c. Section 56: breaches by the tenant of her responsibility not to interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the landlord’s other tenants and her other neighbours. Application under Section 55
Section 55 of the RTA sets out various grounds for termination for either non- payment of rent, damage, or assault. A tenancy must be terminated under section 55(1)(c) if the Tribunal is satisfied that: (c) the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any of the following persons: (i) the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family: (ii) the owner of the premises or any member of the owner’s family: (iii) any agent of the landlord: (iv) any occupier of any building of which the premises constitute a part: (v) any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part.
An assault includes an act or gesture to apply force to another person if the other person believes, on reasonable grounds, that the tenant has a present ability to give effect to his or her purpose 1 . A threat of assault is an expression of intent to do harm to another person by use of force and does not require an intention or capacity to act on the threat, and does not require the threat to be passed onto the person to whom the threat related. 2
The landlord refers to an event on 4 October 2024, where the tenant threatened to assault a neighbour’s adult son, and verbally abused the neighbour. The Police became involved, and a report was filed. However, the neighbour did not wish to pursue the matter further, fearing retribution, so no charges were laid. The landlord has provided documentary evidence, including email correspondence involving the police and the neighbour.
At the hearing, the affected neighbour attended and gave oral evidence, stating these incidents had occurred multiple times. Usually, they were triggered by the tenant’s dog barking. The neighbour detailed the threats made.
In response the tenant states the neighbour’s son had been swearing when her dog barked, she yelled at him, and accepts she was having a bad day. She was 1 Grey v Housing Corp of New Zealand DC Auckland CIV-2010-004-218, 5 May 2010, as noted in Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand by S Benson at 7.16.5, pg 201 2 Collins v Housing New Zealand [2004] NZAR 665 (HC) at [29] attending an anger management course. She denies threatening to assault the neighbour’s son. She kept a dog to provide security for her children.
In this case, the tenant accepts that she shouted at the neighbour’s son, but has denied threatening to physically assault him. There has been no direct evidence from the neighbour’s son. Overall, I find that because of the serious nature of the alleged conduct, and noting that criminal proceedings were not pursued, further and more detailed evidence is required before the Tribunal can make such a finding. Therefore, on the available evidence, the grounds for termination under this provision have not been established.
However, I consider the grounds for termination under sections 55A and 56 have been met, as set out below. Application under Section 55A
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is as follows: a. First incident, 17 October 2024: two of the landlord’s staff attended the premises to complete an annual inspection. The tenant was verbally abusive, made threats, demanded that the staff leave, which they did, both feeling unsafe. A notice was issued regarding this incident on I November 2024. b. Second incident, 7 November 2024: The tenant was aggressive and verbally abused the landlord’s two staff members, who attended the premises to discuss the tenancy (since there had been difficulties contacting the tenant by telephone). The staff retreated to their vehicles and drove away, feeling unsafe. A notice was issued following this incident on 18 November 2024. c. Third incident, 29 November 2024: The tenant attended a meeting at the landlord’s Takanini office. She was aggressive, speaking over the landlord’s staff, and calling one of the staff members by an offensive name. The tenant refused to continue with the meeting and walked out. A notice following this incident was issued on 4 December 2024.
Prior to these events, section 55A notices were issued, on 5 October 2023 concerning an incident on 6 September 2023, where the tenant was verbally abusive and made threats to a staff member of the landlord, Mr Campbell, who was at a neighbouring property. The threats included physically beating and setting her dog onto Mr Campbell. The tenant also threw stones in his direction. Police were called and a report was filed. Mr Campbell gave evidence concerning this incident at the hearing.
In her evidence, the tenant accepts these events occurred, but states she threw the stone to the side of Mr Campbell. She objected to him taking photos of her fence. Mr Campbell has explained that he was taking photos of the fence because he was concerned how secure it was, since the tenant’s dog sounded aggressive.
There was a further incident on 17 July 2024, involving noise (loud music, yelling, foul language) causing neighbours to contact noise control. An “excessive noise direction” was issued. The landlord issued a notice on 7 August 2024 concerning this event. Legal framework
Section 55A of the RTA states that, subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that: 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(7) defines anti-social behaviour as harassment, or any other act or omission (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor. Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person." 3 Analysis
Taking into account the evidence presented by the parties, as set out above, and the submissions provided, I find that the statutory requirements under section 55A have been met.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred in the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the 3 MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010. tenant’s permission. I am also satisfied that the landlord has established that the anti-social behaviour occurred on three separate occasions within the 90-day period. I further find that the tenant’s behaviour has reasonably caused alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor.
The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the RTA, the notices being dated 1 November, 18 November and 4 December 2024. The application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice, having been filed on 13 December 2024.
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. Application under section 56
The landlord has also applied under section 56 of the RTA for termination of the tenancy for breaches by the tenant of her obligations. The landlord states the tenant has been in breach of section 40(2)(c) which states:
Tenants responsibilities (2)The tenant shall not— ......(c) Cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord's other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
Under section 56(1) of the RTA, the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
Where the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone. However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
In this case, I am satisfied that the grounds for termination under section 56 of the RTA are also satisfied. The landlord has provided evidence of multiple instances involving noise complaints by neighbours to Auckland Council regarding excessive noise. There was a total of 45 noise complaints since October 2023, of which 9 resulted in excessive noise directions being served.
In addition, there is evidence of Animal Management receiving numerous complaints relating to the tenant’s dog, since November 2023. Warnings were issued. The landlord also issued a breach notice in September 2023, with the tenant agreeing to remove the dog. However, the dog has since returned.
In this case, I am satisfied that the landlord has shown that the tenant has been in breach of her obligations. This has been an ongoing issue for some time, which has impacted the tenant’s neighbours. The landlord has also received multiple complaints from neighbours regarding the tenant’s disruptive behaviour, and the impact of this behaviour on their wellbeing.
The ending of a tenancy has significant implications for the tenant and is a measure that is not taken lightly. I have already found that the requirements under section 55A have been met for termination of the tenancy. Based on the evidence before me, I also consider that the grounds for termination under section 56 are met where, due to the nature and extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, this tenancy is terminated. In terminating this tenancy, I consider it reasonable for termination to take effect at
59pm on 7 February 2025. Filing fee
The landlord does not seek the filing fee, so no order for reimbursement is made. Name suppression
While requested on her behalf by the landlord, the tenant did not seek name suppression. Therefore, there is no suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5108249 — 14-day notice at 7A Rollerson Street, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5108249 — 14-day notice at 7A Rollerson Street, Papakura, Papakura 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