What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5268279?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Zariah Jae Samson-Waitana at 22 Travis Street, Brockville,

How much money was awarded in case 5268279?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5268279?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268279?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11970462-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5268279?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Zariah Jae Samson-Waitana at 22 Travis Street, Brockville,

How much money was awarded in case 5268279?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5268279?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5268279?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11970462-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

22 Travis Street, Brockville, Dunedin 9011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5268279 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Zariah Jae Samson-Waitana at 22 Travis Street, Brockville, Dunedin 9011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at noon on Thursday 3 July 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy is a periodic tenancy which began on 19/1/2022.
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 disturbing the peace and quiet of the tenant’s neighbours with excessive noise on numerous occasions.
In support of the claim the landlord provided copies of the three notices as follows: a. Notice dated 18/3/2025 for an incident on 10/3/2025 when Dunedin City Council noise control officers and the NZ Police attended, and 10 incidents between 1 January 2025 and 17 March 2025 when noise control officers attended and issued four ‘excessive noise directions’. b. Notice dated 4/4/2025 for incidents where noise control officers attended on 20/3/2025, 26/3/2025 and 28/3/2025. An excessive noise direction was issued on 28/3/2025. The Police also attended on 26/3/2025. c. Notice dated 2/5/2025 for incidents on 16/4/2025, 17/4/2025 when noise control officers attended and on the latter occasion issued an excessive noise direction. Also, an incident on 23/4/2025 when a roaming dog was impounded by the Dunedin City Council.
Further the landlord provided three witness statements by neighbours setting out details of their complaints since the tenant arrived in 2022, with timelines.
While not disputing that she had played loud music at different times of the day and night the tenant submitted that she had personal issues, music was part of her therapy, and she was unaware she could not play the music loudly after 10pm.
In addition, the tenant felt one neighbour’s complaints were excessive, due to personal matters with family members.
Although acknowledging that she received the notices from the landlord the tenant said she did not understand her tenancy could be terminated and she had now learnt her lesson, particularly as her stereo had been confiscated.
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 allegation is that the tenant was creating an unacceptable level of noise on numerous occasions, such that noise control officers and the Police were involved, resulting in excessive noise directions and ultimately the removal of the tenant’s stereo.
The evidence of the neighbours was that the persistent occurrences of loud noise was affecting their health and well being in particular due to lack of sleep during the night and one neighbour was considering selling their property.
The tenant did not dispute she played her stereo loudly at all hours, albeit that she had not intentionally wanted to disturb her neighbours.
I have carefully considered the evidence presented by both parties.
I have determined that the landlord has established, just, that anti-social behaviour has occurred at the premises by the tenant.
The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The application to the Tribunal was made on 2/5/2025, that is 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.
Unfortunate as it may be for the tenant, I cannot consider the impact on her, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
An order is made for the tenancy to end in 21 days time.

Order

The tenancy of Zariah Jae Samson-Waitana at 22 Travis Street, Brockville, Dunedin 9011 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at noon on Thursday 3 July 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy is a periodic tenancy which began on 19/1/2022.
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 disturbing the peace and quiet of the tenant’s neighbours with excessive noise on numerous occasions.
In support of the claim the landlord provided copies of the three notices as follows: a. Notice dated 18/3/2025 for an incident on 10/3/2025 when Dunedin City Council noise control officers and the NZ Police attended, and 10 incidents between 1 January 2025 and 17 March 2025 when noise control officers attended and issued four ‘excessive noise directions’. b. Notice dated 4/4/2025 for incidents where noise control officers attended on 20/3/2025, 26/3/2025 and 28/3/2025. An excessive noise direction was issued on 28/3/2025. The Police also attended on 26/3/2025. c. Notice dated 2/5/2025 for incidents on 16/4/2025, 17/4/2025 when noise control officers attended and on the latter occasion issued an excessive noise direction. Also, an incident on 23/4/2025 when a roaming dog was impounded by the Dunedin City Council.
Further the landlord provided three witness statements by neighbours setting out details of their complaints since the tenant arrived in 2022, with timelines.
While not disputing that she had played loud music at different times of the day and night the tenant submitted that she had personal issues, music was part of her therapy, and she was unaware she could not play the music loudly after 10pm.
In addition, the tenant felt one neighbour’s complaints were excessive, due to personal matters with family members.
Although acknowledging that she received the notices from the landlord the tenant said she did not understand her tenancy could be terminated and she had now learnt her lesson, particularly as her stereo had been confiscated.
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 allegation is that the tenant was creating an unacceptable level of noise on numerous occasions, such that noise control officers and the Police were involved, resulting in excessive noise directions and ultimately the removal of the tenant’s stereo.
The evidence of the neighbours was that the persistent occurrences of loud noise was affecting their health and well being in particular due to lack of sleep during the night and one neighbour was considering selling their property.
The tenant did not dispute she played her stereo loudly at all hours, albeit that she had not intentionally wanted to disturb her neighbours.
I have carefully considered the evidence presented by both parties.
I have determined that the landlord has established, just, that anti-social behaviour has occurred at the premises by the tenant.
The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The application to the Tribunal was made on 2/5/2025, that is 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.
Unfortunate as it may be for the tenant, I cannot consider the impact on her, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
An order is made for the tenancy to end in 21 days time.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268279 — Harassment at 22 Travis Street, Brockville, Dunedin 9011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5268279 — Harassment at 22 Travis Street, Brockville, Dunedin 9011

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