What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5210011?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Lewis Ronald Grainger at 20B Beanland Avenue, Spreydon,

How much money was awarded in case 5210011?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5210011?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5210011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11721974-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5210011?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Lewis Ronald Grainger at 20B Beanland Avenue, Spreydon,

How much money was awarded in case 5210011?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5210011?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5210011?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11721974-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20B Beanland Avenue, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5210011 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Lewis Ronald Grainger at 20B Beanland Avenue, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities, at 11.59 pm on Wednesday 16 April 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not answer the calls made to his phone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, namely disturbing the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant. The date given on one of the notices is not correct so I will consider the application under section 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable – very unfair - to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) RTA.
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.
I heard witness evidence from the owners of an adjacent property and from the tenant’s housing services manager. I am persuaded that the breaches are not capable of remedy because: • there has been a persistent series of breaches • of the harmful effect of the breaches.
Section 40(2)(c) RTA states that a tenant must not disturb the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
I was provided with information from the call centre which suggests the tenant has a history of disturbing the neighbours. The housing services manager who gave evidence at the hearing has been responsible for this tenancy since November 2024. At an inspection in March 2025 the tenant ran at her three times to prevent her entering the house and swore at her. She was cornered and afraid. Two neighbours who share a back fence with the tenant gave evidence that the tenant sometimes spends hours on his deck, shouting abuse, playing loud music, and swearing. They have called the police and noise control a number of times.
It seems most likely to me there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. The landlord has served at least four notices advising the tenant to stop his antisocial behaviour which disturbs the neighbours. The housing services manager spent time with him in January explaining that a Tenancy Tribunal application would be made if he continued to yell, play loud music, and abuse his neighbours.
It seems unlikely to me that the tenant is able to comply with the requests for better behaviour.
It seems most likely to me the breaches have been deliberate. The owners of the adjacent property installed security cameras in their back garden as a way of protecting themselves. I was provided with two videos from 31 December 2024 and two from 11 March 2025. The tenant can be heard swearing at the neighbours. One of the videos is at night and loud music is playing. The tenant is loud and his tone is threatening. His comments are directed at the owners. Their evidence is the abuse continued for hours on each occasion.
It seems most likely to me the landlord has behaved appropriately. Notices have been given and support offered to the tenant.
I find the gravity of the behaviour is such that termination is an appropriate response to the persistent breaches of the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the neighbours. While the shouting in the videos is directed at the owners who gave evidence, it seems likely that other neighbours would have been disturbed.
I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. This means the tenancy will end.

Order

The tenancy of Lewis Ronald Grainger at 20B Beanland Avenue, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities, at 11.59 pm on Wednesday 16 April 2025.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not answer the calls made to his phone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, namely disturbing the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant. The date given on one of the notices is not correct so I will consider the application under section 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable – very unfair - to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) RTA.
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.
I heard witness evidence from the owners of an adjacent property and from the tenant’s housing services manager. I am persuaded that the breaches are not capable of remedy because: • there has been a persistent series of breaches • of the harmful effect of the breaches.
Section 40(2)(c) RTA states that a tenant must not disturb the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
I was provided with information from the call centre which suggests the tenant has a history of disturbing the neighbours. The housing services manager who gave evidence at the hearing has been responsible for this tenancy since November 2024. At an inspection in March 2025 the tenant ran at her three times to prevent her entering the house and swore at her. She was cornered and afraid. Two neighbours who share a back fence with the tenant gave evidence that the tenant sometimes spends hours on his deck, shouting abuse, playing loud music, and swearing. They have called the police and noise control a number of times.
It seems most likely to me there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. The landlord has served at least four notices advising the tenant to stop his antisocial behaviour which disturbs the neighbours. The housing services manager spent time with him in January explaining that a Tenancy Tribunal application would be made if he continued to yell, play loud music, and abuse his neighbours.
It seems unlikely to me that the tenant is able to comply with the requests for better behaviour.
It seems most likely to me the breaches have been deliberate. The owners of the adjacent property installed security cameras in their back garden as a way of protecting themselves. I was provided with two videos from 31 December 2024 and two from 11 March 2025. The tenant can be heard swearing at the neighbours. One of the videos is at night and loud music is playing. The tenant is loud and his tone is threatening. His comments are directed at the owners. Their evidence is the abuse continued for hours on each occasion.
It seems most likely to me the landlord has behaved appropriately. Notices have been given and support offered to the tenant.
I find the gravity of the behaviour is such that termination is an appropriate response to the persistent breaches of the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the neighbours. While the shouting in the videos is directed at the owners who gave evidence, it seems likely that other neighbours would have been disturbed.
I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. This means the tenancy will end.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5210011 — Harassment at 20B Beanland Avenue, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5210011 — Harassment at 20B Beanland Avenue, Spreydon, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions