What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5147033?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jennifer Mary Ward at 33 Hospital Road, Witherlea, Blenheim

How much money was awarded in case 5147033?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5147033?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5147033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11468375-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5147033?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jennifer Mary Ward at 33 Hospital Road, Witherlea, Blenheim

How much money was awarded in case 5147033?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5147033?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5147033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11468375-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

33 Hospital Road, Witherlea, Blenheim 7201 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5147033 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Jennifer Mary Ward at 33 Hospital Road, Witherlea, Blenheim 7201 is terminated, and possession is granted to Christchurch Methodist Central Mission immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Two calls to the tenant went unanswered and to voicemail. But no message could be left. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after waiting several minutes and attempting the second call, again not answered.
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 notices follow a tenancy history of 17 tenant breaches notices. It has tried unsuccessfully to work with the tenant over the duration of the tenancy to resolve a number of these issues.
The three notices were served on 15 November 2024, 10 December 2024, and 27 January 2025.
The landlord submitted other complaints had been received. The owner had also recently expressed concerns regarding the tenancy operation and impact on their home.
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. The premises is one of two on the property, with a shared driveway. This has contributed to some of the issues leading to the complaints and another premises may be better suited to the tenant.
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. However, the landlord advised that while they sought immediate termination, it was their intention to work with the tenant over the next two weeks, as required, to assist her with her exit.
The landlord declined any return of the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of Jennifer Mary Ward at 33 Hospital Road, Witherlea, Blenheim 7201 is terminated, and possession is granted to Christchurch Methodist Central Mission immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Two calls to the tenant went unanswered and to voicemail. But no message could be left. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after waiting several minutes and attempting the second call, again not answered.
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 notices follow a tenancy history of 17 tenant breaches notices. It has tried unsuccessfully to work with the tenant over the duration of the tenancy to resolve a number of these issues.
The three notices were served on 15 November 2024, 10 December 2024, and 27 January 2025.
The landlord submitted other complaints had been received. The owner had also recently expressed concerns regarding the tenancy operation and impact on their home.
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. The premises is one of two on the property, with a shared driveway. This has contributed to some of the issues leading to the complaints and another premises may be better suited to the tenant.
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. However, the landlord advised that while they sought immediate termination, it was their intention to work with the tenant over the next two weeks, as required, to assist her with her exit.
The landlord declined any return of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5147033 — Harassment at 33 Hospital Road, Witherlea, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5147033 — Harassment at 33 Hospital Road, Witherlea, Blenheim 7201

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