What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5108428?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Vena Funaki at 279 Bairds Road, Otara, Auckland 2023 is

How much money was awarded in case 5108428?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5108428?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5108428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11893576-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5108428?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Vena Funaki at 279 Bairds Road, Otara, Auckland 2023 is

How much money was awarded in case 5108428?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5108428?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5108428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11893576-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

279 Bairds Road, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5108428 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Vena Funaki at 279 Bairds Road, Otara, Auckland 2023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at 5pm on 16 June 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 is verbally abusing the landlord’s staff, swearing at them and being aggressive and intimidating.
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.
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.
The first anti-social behaviour occurred in connection with the tenancy at 2pm on 13 September 2024 at the landlord’s offices where the tenant had discussed the property condition and an incident where the tenant’s dog was alleged to have attacked a tradesperson. Towards the end of the meeting, the tenant yelled “f*** you” at the two staff members, and continued using explicit language in the foyer of the Kāinga Ora office, as he left the building.
The landlord issued the first written notice to the tenant on describing clearly the specific behaviour considered to be anti-social on 25 September 2024. While the tenant denies receiving the landlord’s notice, I prefer the direct evidence of the landlord’s tenancy managers that the notice was affixed to the front door of the property on 25 September and another copy of the notice placed into the letterbox on the same day.
The second anti-social behaviour occurred in connection with the tenancy on 30 September 2024 at the property at 10am. Two Kāinga Ora staff members attended the property to check whether the tenant’s dogs had been removed, as advised in the landlord’s office on 13 September 2024. Kāinga Ora staff members knocked on the door and the came to the door and spoke to staff in an aggressive manner. During the course of the conversation, the tenant became agitated, and used explicit language with staff, advising them to f*** off.
The staff members then left your property as the tenant continued yelling. The tenant’s behaviour was aggressive and intimidating.
The landlord issued the second written notice to the tenant on describing clearly the specific behaviour considered to be anti-social on 7 October 2024. While the tenant denies receiving the landlord’s notice, I prefer the direct evidence of the landlord’s tenancy managers that the notice was affixed to the front door of the property on 7 October and another copy of the notice placed into the letterbox on the same day.
The third anti-social behaviour occurred in connection with the tenancy at tenancy on 31 October 2024 at the property at 10am. Two Kāinga Ora staff members attended the property to again check whether all dogs had been removed following a breach notice being issued, and to also discuss property condition amongst other concerns relating to the tenancy.
The Kāinga Ora staff members knocked on the door and explained the purpose of the visit. The tenant stated to the Senior Housing Support Managers that he still has dogs and will challenge Kāinga Ora in court.
During the conversation, the tenant raised his voice and despite attempts to deescalate the situation, the tenant became agitated and used unacceptable language towards the Senior Housing Support Managers, including yelling at them to “f**k off“.
As the landlord’s staff proceeded to leave the property, the tenant continued yelling abusive language towards them, specifically “f**k off” and waving his arms. The tenant’s behaviour was aggressive and intimidating.
The landlord issued the third written notice to the tenant on describing clearly the specific behaviour considered to be anti-social on 5 December 2024. The tenant acknowledges receiving the notice which was affixed to the front door of the property and another copy of the notice placed into the letterbox on the same day.
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.
I therefore accede to the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy after 21 days from today’s date.

Order

The tenancy of Vena Funaki at 279 Bairds Road, Otara, Auckland 2023 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes and Communities, at 5pm on 16 June 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
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 is verbally abusing the landlord’s staff, swearing at them and being aggressive and intimidating.
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.
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.
The first anti-social behaviour occurred in connection with the tenancy at 2pm on 13 September 2024 at the landlord’s offices where the tenant had discussed the property condition and an incident where the tenant’s dog was alleged to have attacked a tradesperson. Towards the end of the meeting, the tenant yelled “f*** you” at the two staff members, and continued using explicit language in the foyer of the Kāinga Ora office, as he left the building.
The landlord issued the first written notice to the tenant on describing clearly the specific behaviour considered to be anti-social on 25 September 2024. While the tenant denies receiving the landlord’s notice, I prefer the direct evidence of the landlord’s tenancy managers that the notice was affixed to the front door of the property on 25 September and another copy of the notice placed into the letterbox on the same day.
The second anti-social behaviour occurred in connection with the tenancy on 30 September 2024 at the property at 10am. Two Kāinga Ora staff members attended the property to check whether the tenant’s dogs had been removed, as advised in the landlord’s office on 13 September 2024. Kāinga Ora staff members knocked on the door and the came to the door and spoke to staff in an aggressive manner. During the course of the conversation, the tenant became agitated, and used explicit language with staff, advising them to f*** off.
The staff members then left your property as the tenant continued yelling. The tenant’s behaviour was aggressive and intimidating.
The landlord issued the second written notice to the tenant on describing clearly the specific behaviour considered to be anti-social on 7 October 2024. While the tenant denies receiving the landlord’s notice, I prefer the direct evidence of the landlord’s tenancy managers that the notice was affixed to the front door of the property on 7 October and another copy of the notice placed into the letterbox on the same day.
The third anti-social behaviour occurred in connection with the tenancy at tenancy on 31 October 2024 at the property at 10am. Two Kāinga Ora staff members attended the property to again check whether all dogs had been removed following a breach notice being issued, and to also discuss property condition amongst other concerns relating to the tenancy.
The Kāinga Ora staff members knocked on the door and explained the purpose of the visit. The tenant stated to the Senior Housing Support Managers that he still has dogs and will challenge Kāinga Ora in court.
During the conversation, the tenant raised his voice and despite attempts to deescalate the situation, the tenant became agitated and used unacceptable language towards the Senior Housing Support Managers, including yelling at them to “f**k off“.
As the landlord’s staff proceeded to leave the property, the tenant continued yelling abusive language towards them, specifically “f**k off” and waving his arms. The tenant’s behaviour was aggressive and intimidating.
The landlord issued the third written notice to the tenant on describing clearly the specific behaviour considered to be anti-social on 5 December 2024. The tenant acknowledges receiving the notice which was affixed to the front door of the property and another copy of the notice placed into the letterbox on the same day.
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.
I therefore accede to the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy after 21 days from today’s date.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5108428 — Harassment at 279 Bairds Road, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5108428 — Harassment at 279 Bairds Road, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions