What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5167553?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Caitlin Joy Kaihou Cleworth at 6 Strid Road, Te Atatu South,

How much money was awarded in case 5167553?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167553?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11493772-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5167553?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Caitlin Joy Kaihou Cleworth at 6 Strid Road, Te Atatu South,

How much money was awarded in case 5167553?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167553?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11493772-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Strid Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5167553 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Caitlin Joy Kaihou Cleworth at 6 Strid Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to Shelter Realty Limited As Agent For Jonathan Chen, immediately.
Caitlin Joy Kaihou Cleworth must pay Shelter Realty Limited as Agent for Jonathan Chen $27.00 immediately being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Two attempts were made to phone the tenant on the number specified in the Notice of Hearing, which is also the number given by the tenant in the agreement, but she was unable to be contacted. The Notice of Hearing was duly served to the tenancy address and to the e-mail address for service given by the tenant in the agreement.
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: a. On 25 January 2025, stealing water by using a robber pipe from 8 Strid Road; b. On 7 February 2025, fighting in the street with weapons (spade) and reversing a car into neighbour’s fence; c. On 14 February 2024, burning items in a barrel in the back yard causing heavy smoke across neighbouring properties.
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 find 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.
Even if the grounds for termination of the tenancy for anti-social behaviour were not established, the Tribunal would be required to make an Order for termination under s.55(1)(b) RTA which provides that, “.....the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that...(b) the tenant has caused, or has permitted any other person to cause, or has threatened to cause, substantial damage to the premises.”
The landlord has provided a inspection report dated 13 February 2025 noting, “The property is generally in heavily damaged status, all windows have broken glass, rubbish was piled like a mountain in the back yard. One of the trees was also burnt. Kitchen walls have heavy graffiti, All bedroom doors are removed, holes are all over the place. Broken fence panel can be seen at the pool side. Back garage was opened and sign of people living in.”
The photos included with the report confirm that assessment of the condition of the property. The property manager who conducted the inspection gave evidence and confirmed that 20 windows were broken and that all the bedroom doors were removed and damaged. He notes that the garage was not part of the tenancy and was used to store owner’s belongings. When the inspection was done the garage was found to be open and the owner’s belongings gone, leading to a concern hat those belongings were the fuel for the fire found burning on the property when the inspection took place.
The evidence satisfies me that the tenant has caused or allowed substantial damage to the premises and the tenancy is terminated on that ground also.
The hearing was scheduled today to consider whether the tenancy should be terminated, as a first step. The landlord has obtained a quote for some repairs, based on the inspection photos. The property manager asks me to make an award of damages today in terms of that quote.
It is not yet known whether the landlord can or will make an insurance claim or what the outcome of any claim will be. It is also not yet known what further claims might be brought.
The property manager says that because the damage is intentional, the tenant’s liability is not limited (s.49B(1)(a)) in the same was as a tenant’s liability for careless damage, so the landlord is entitled to pursue the claim against the tenants irrespective of the position with insurance.
While the tenant’s liability is not limited for intentional damage, a landlord is only entitled to compensation for loss. If an insurance claim is brought, the landlord’s loss will be the excess payable on the claim so the insurance position is relevant information for the Tribunal’s determination of compensation claims.
My view is that the appropriate process is for the landlord to assess and quantify its losses after recovering possession of the premises and to bring a further claim in respect of those losses if it wishes to then.
Because Shelter Realty Limited as Agent for Jonathan Chen has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

The tenancy of Caitlin Joy Kaihou Cleworth at 6 Strid Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 is terminated, and possession is granted to Shelter Realty Limited As Agent For Jonathan Chen, immediately.
Caitlin Joy Kaihou Cleworth must pay Shelter Realty Limited as Agent for Jonathan Chen $27.00 immediately being the filing fee on this application.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Two attempts were made to phone the tenant on the number specified in the Notice of Hearing, which is also the number given by the tenant in the agreement, but she was unable to be contacted. The Notice of Hearing was duly served to the tenancy address and to the e-mail address for service given by the tenant in the agreement.
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: a. On 25 January 2025, stealing water by using a robber pipe from 8 Strid Road; b. On 7 February 2025, fighting in the street with weapons (spade) and reversing a car into neighbour’s fence; c. On 14 February 2024, burning items in a barrel in the back yard causing heavy smoke across neighbouring properties.
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 find 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.
Even if the grounds for termination of the tenancy for anti-social behaviour were not established, the Tribunal would be required to make an Order for termination under s.55(1)(b) RTA which provides that, “.....the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that...(b) the tenant has caused, or has permitted any other person to cause, or has threatened to cause, substantial damage to the premises.”
The landlord has provided a inspection report dated 13 February 2025 noting, “The property is generally in heavily damaged status, all windows have broken glass, rubbish was piled like a mountain in the back yard. One of the trees was also burnt. Kitchen walls have heavy graffiti, All bedroom doors are removed, holes are all over the place. Broken fence panel can be seen at the pool side. Back garage was opened and sign of people living in.”
The photos included with the report confirm that assessment of the condition of the property. The property manager who conducted the inspection gave evidence and confirmed that 20 windows were broken and that all the bedroom doors were removed and damaged. He notes that the garage was not part of the tenancy and was used to store owner’s belongings. When the inspection was done the garage was found to be open and the owner’s belongings gone, leading to a concern hat those belongings were the fuel for the fire found burning on the property when the inspection took place.
The evidence satisfies me that the tenant has caused or allowed substantial damage to the premises and the tenancy is terminated on that ground also.
The hearing was scheduled today to consider whether the tenancy should be terminated, as a first step. The landlord has obtained a quote for some repairs, based on the inspection photos. The property manager asks me to make an award of damages today in terms of that quote.
It is not yet known whether the landlord can or will make an insurance claim or what the outcome of any claim will be. It is also not yet known what further claims might be brought.
The property manager says that because the damage is intentional, the tenant’s liability is not limited (s.49B(1)(a)) in the same was as a tenant’s liability for careless damage, so the landlord is entitled to pursue the claim against the tenants irrespective of the position with insurance.
While the tenant’s liability is not limited for intentional damage, a landlord is only entitled to compensation for loss. If an insurance claim is brought, the landlord’s loss will be the excess payable on the claim so the insurance position is relevant information for the Tribunal’s determination of compensation claims.
My view is that the appropriate process is for the landlord to assess and quantify its losses after recovering possession of the premises and to bring a further claim in respect of those losses if it wishes to then.
Because Shelter Realty Limited as Agent for Jonathan Chen has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5167553 — 14-day notice at 6 Strid Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5167553 — 14-day notice at 6 Strid Road, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions