What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5238852?

The tribunal order states: terminating the periodic

How much money was awarded in case 5238852?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5238852?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5238852?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11860416-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5238852?

The tribunal order states: terminating the periodic

How much money was awarded in case 5238852?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5238852?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5238852?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11860416-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Gwendoline Avenue, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5238852 — Harassment

Order

terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is: a) Nine notices have been issued to the tenant between 6 August 2024 and 10 April 2025 in relation to complaints revied from the neighbouring properties. b) The tenant was referred to Sustaining Tenancies for them to provide help with this tenant on 25 February 2025, however due to the waiting list she was not contacted until 11 March 2025. c) Three notices were issued within ninety days for such behaviour, all in relation to ongoing complaints from the neighbouring residents. That being verbal abuse to a neighbour, spraying parents and children attending the neighbouring preschool and school, and for blocking a shared driveway and playing loud music.
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.
The applicant states that there have been more that one complaint of water being used and sprayed on persons including children who have walked past the property. The written statement of one complainant whose identity was suppressed due to concerns at retaliation was read.
The tenant denies doing such an act stating the hose did not reach the front of the property.
I accept that she was spoken to about this issue. She did not really recall having meetings about the complaints. She accepted she didn’t really do anything having received the previous notices.
The tenant had a support person from Sustaining Tenancies. She was somewhat critical of the fact that she was trying to support the tenant having been referred to her organisation from the applicant. However, she believed that the applicant was not interested in resolving matters and that there was another way of dealing with this matter rather than termination. That is the tenant wanted to relocate.
The applicant stated that the tenant was not eligible for relocation. I am advised that she had been at her previous house under the applicant for fifteen years and this current tenancy for almost five years. She said it was close to where she had resided previously and wanted to move away. However, she had been at this current address for almost five years.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above. It is unfortunate that a tenant has been with the applicant for almost fifteen years and that another option could not have been explored if it was possible.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant. 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 Residential Tenancies Act does not allow me to consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
Having considered all of the evidence I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claim is successful and the tenancy terminated accordingly. S Munro 19 May 2025

Order

terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is: a) Nine notices have been issued to the tenant between 6 August 2024 and 10 April 2025 in relation to complaints revied from the neighbouring properties. b) The tenant was referred to Sustaining Tenancies for them to provide help with this tenant on 25 February 2025, however due to the waiting list she was not contacted until 11 March 2025. c) Three notices were issued within ninety days for such behaviour, all in relation to ongoing complaints from the neighbouring residents. That being verbal abuse to a neighbour, spraying parents and children attending the neighbouring preschool and school, and for blocking a shared driveway and playing loud music.
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.
The applicant states that there have been more that one complaint of water being used and sprayed on persons including children who have walked past the property. The written statement of one complainant whose identity was suppressed due to concerns at retaliation was read.
The tenant denies doing such an act stating the hose did not reach the front of the property.
I accept that she was spoken to about this issue. She did not really recall having meetings about the complaints. She accepted she didn’t really do anything having received the previous notices.
The tenant had a support person from Sustaining Tenancies. She was somewhat critical of the fact that she was trying to support the tenant having been referred to her organisation from the applicant. However, she believed that the applicant was not interested in resolving matters and that there was another way of dealing with this matter rather than termination. That is the tenant wanted to relocate.
The applicant stated that the tenant was not eligible for relocation. I am advised that she had been at her previous house under the applicant for fifteen years and this current tenancy for almost five years. She said it was close to where she had resided previously and wanted to move away. However, she had been at this current address for almost five years.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above. It is unfortunate that a tenant has been with the applicant for almost fifteen years and that another option could not have been explored if it was possible.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant. 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 Residential Tenancies Act does not allow me to consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
Having considered all of the evidence I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claim is successful and the tenancy terminated accordingly. S Munro 19 May 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5238852 — Harassment at 3 Gwendoline Avenue, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5238852 — Harassment at 3 Gwendoline Avenue, Te Atatu Peninsula, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions