What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5238716?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Quinton Rihari at Unit/Flat 126, 33 Thomas Burns Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5238716?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5238716?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5238716?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11794106-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5238716?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Quinton Rihari at Unit/Flat 126, 33 Thomas Burns Street,

How much money was awarded in case 5238716?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5238716?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5238716?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11794106-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 126, 33 Thomas Burns Street, Dunedin Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5238716 — 14-day notice

Reasons

Ms Herewini attended the hearing for the landlord which was held by way of teleconference. The tenant, Mr Rihari, was phoned on the number provided but the calls went to voicemail.

The landlord has applied for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant. Ms Herewini also confirmed at the hearing that the landlord was seeking an order terminating the tenancy on the basis that Mr Rihari threatened to assault other tenants of the complex.

Section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that, 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 significant alarm, distress or nuisance.

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour by Mr Rihari includes the following: • In the early hours of 27 December 2024, Mr Rehari was fighting in the shared hallway outside his room and broke a painting that was hanging on the wall of the hall. The incident lasted from 3.30am until 5am; • On 3 February 2025, Mr Rehiri was playing loud music in his room and verbally abused other tenants when he was asked him to turn the music down; • On 14 April 2025, Mr Rehiri became angry and threw plastic chairs off a shared balcony frightening other tenants. He returned to his room and then let a 9kg LPG gas bottle off in the hallway while yelling “boom boom you can all die”. The Police were called and Mr Rehiri was removed. When he returned he again began yelling at other tenants calling them “narks”. Mr Rehiri’s girlfriend was also “screaming and yelling” at other tenants. Later that day Mr Rehiri said to another tenant, Ms Tracey Warner, that he was going to punch her head in. The police were called for a second time and Mr Rehiri was again removed by them.

The landlord issued three separate notices to Mr Rihari regarding the above three incidents. However, the three incidents did not occur within a 90-day period. The first incident occurred on 27 December 2024 and the third 108 days later, on14 April 2024. This means that the criteria in s 55A of the Act has not been satisfied and the application for termination on that ground is dismissed.

However, I am satisfied that the landlord has established the criteria in s 55(1)(c) of the Act. That section provides that the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant threatened to assault any neighbour of the premises.

On the evidence before me I find that, on 14 April 2025, Mr Rihari threatened to harm other residents who reside in rooms that run off the shared hallway when he let off the LPG gas cylinder and yelled “boom boom you can all die”. More particularly, he threatened to assault Ms Warner who is also a neighbouring tenant when he threatened to punch her in the head.

Mr Rihari’s tenancy is therefore terminated under s 55(1)(c) of the Act.

Order

The tenancy of Quinton Rihari at Unit/Flat 126, 33 Thomas Burns Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016 is terminated, and possession is granted to The Salvation Army New Zealand Trust, at 9.30am on Tuesday 6 May 2025.

Reasons

Ms Herewini attended the hearing for the landlord which was held by way of teleconference. The tenant, Mr Rihari, was phoned on the number provided but the calls went to voicemail.
The landlord has applied for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant. Ms Herewini also confirmed at the hearing that the landlord was seeking an order terminating the tenancy on the basis that Mr Rihari threatened to assault other tenants of the complex.
Section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) provides that, 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 significant alarm, distress or nuisance.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour by Mr Rihari includes the following: • In the early hours of 27 December 2024, Mr Rehari was fighting in the shared hallway outside his room and broke a painting that was hanging on the wall of the hall. The incident lasted from 3.30am until 5am; • On 3 February 2025, Mr Rehiri was playing loud music in his room and verbally abused other tenants when he was asked him to turn the music down; • On 14 April 2025, Mr Rehiri became angry and threw plastic chairs off a shared balcony frightening other tenants. He returned to his room and then let a 9kg LPG gas bottle off in the hallway while yelling “boom boom you can all die”. The Police were called and Mr Rehiri was removed. When he returned he again began yelling at other tenants calling them “narks”. Mr Rehiri’s girlfriend was also “screaming and yelling” at other tenants. Later that day Mr Rehiri said to another tenant, Ms Tracey Warner, that he was going to punch her head in. The police were called for a second time and Mr Rehiri was again removed by them.
The landlord issued three separate notices to Mr Rihari regarding the above three incidents. However, the three incidents did not occur within a 90-day period. The first incident occurred on 27 December 2024 and the third 108 days later, on14 April 2024. This means that the criteria in s 55A of the Act has not been satisfied and the application for termination on that ground is dismissed.
However, I am satisfied that the landlord has established the criteria in s 55(1)(c) of the Act. That section provides that the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant threatened to assault any neighbour of the premises.
On the evidence before me I find that, on 14 April 2025, Mr Rihari threatened to harm other residents who reside in rooms that run off the shared hallway when he let off the LPG gas cylinder and yelled “boom boom you can all die”. More particularly, he threatened to assault Ms Warner who is also a neighbouring tenant when he threatened to punch her in the head.
Mr Rihari’s tenancy is therefore terminated under s 55(1)(c) of the Act.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5238716 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 126, 33 Thomas Burns Street, Dunedin Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5238716 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat 126, 33 Thomas Burns Street, Dunedin Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions