What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5283820?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Samantha Henrietta Sharon Tepana at 47B Marshall Road, RD

How much money was awarded in case 5283820?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5283820?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5283820?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12062316-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5283820?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Samantha Henrietta Sharon Tepana at 47B Marshall Road, RD

How much money was awarded in case 5283820?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5283820?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5283820?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12062316-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

47B Marshall Road, Kaiwaka, RD 2, Kaiwaka 0573 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5283820 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Samantha Henrietta Sharon Tepana at 47B Marshall Road, RD 2, Kaiwaka 0573 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes and Communities, at 12.00 noon on Wednesday 16 July 2025.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 12 June 2023.
The property is on Marshall Road, between Pakaraka and Moerewa. There are residential / semi-rural properties in the neighbourhood, and some commercial premises.
Ms Tepana is the sole named tenant in the tenancy. She lives at the house with her seven children.
Kāinga Ora’s application seeks termination of the tenancy on the grounds that Ms Tepana has caused or permitted an unreasonable interference with the peace, comfort, and privacy of her neighbours.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 2 July 2025. Ms Maturan-Abuid and Ms Singh represented Kāinga Ora at the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. I am satisfied that notice of the claim was sent to the tenant and the tenant did not request an adjournment of the hearing or indicate that she was unable to attend. Emails between Kāinga Ora and Ms Tepana show that she was aware that Kāinga Ora had brought an application to the Tribunal seeking termination of the tenancy. The hearing proceeded in Ms Tepana’s absence. 1 Law
Tenants may not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of any person residing in the neighbourhood. 2
The Tenancy Tribunal may make an order terminating a tenancy if: a. The tenant breaches a legal duty; and b. If the breach is capable of being remedied, the landlord has given the tenant notice of the breach and allowed the tenant a reasonable amount of time (not less than 14-days) to remedy the breach, and the tenant has failed to remedy it; and c. The nature and extent of the breach is such that it would be unreasonable to refuse the request for termination. 3 Evidence
Kāinga Ora is aware of issues at the property because of complaints received from neighbours. Kāinga Ora says that they have received 46 separate complaints from various neighbours since the start of the tenancy, 12 months ago.
The issues can be grouped under three broad headings: a. Noise and anti-social behaviour, including frequent parties, loud music, arguing and swearing. b. Roaming dogs. c. Aggression towards neighbours, including property damage, trespass, and verbal threats.
Kāinga Ora issued 6 anti-social behaviour notices and 3 breach notices.
Kāinga Ora’s written submission includes quotes from emails and telephone calls that it received from neighbours. Ms Maturan-Abuid explained that the 1 Section 92 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 40(2)(c) RTA 3 Section 56 RTA neighbours are willing to share the contents of these communications with the Tribunal, but most were not willing to give evidence due to security concerns.
I heard evidence at the hearing from one of Ms Tepana’s neighbours. It is not necessary for me to name that witness. The witness gave evidence of rubbish dumped on his property, trespass onto his property, and damage to his property coming from the occupants at 47B.
Kāinga Ora’s submissions also include: a. Information from the New Zealand Police about attendances at the property on 12 March 2024, 1 May 2024, 12 July 2024, and 21 December 2024. b. Communication from the Kaipara District Council. KDC initiated contact with Kāinga Ora in September 2024 due to “Numerous complaints from different complainants” relating to “extreme noise on a weekly basis and two to three days at a time” and “barking dogs and wandering dogs”. KDC’s record of dog control and noise control complaints and responses runs to 47 pages.
As noted above, Ms Tepana did not attend the hearing. I was provided with a copy of emails exchanged between Ms Singh and Ms Tepana about the noise and dog control issues. In one of the emails Ms Tepana comments: I feel like Kāinga Ora has set me up to fail I am a mother with 7 kids put into an environment where its [quiet] and not for Maori. We are a loud family and to put us smack bang in the middle of a quiet area with no privacy and close neighbours with shared driveway everything I didn’t ask for
If this was merely a matter of a large and loud family being in a quiet area there would no suggestion of terminating the tenancy. People in community must tolerate some amount of noise from their neighbours. However, the evidence shows that the issues at 47B are massively, exponentially, beyond this. Outcome
I am satisfied that: a. Ms Tepana caused and permitted an unreasonable interference with the peace comfort and privacy of her neighbours. b. The breaches are not capable of being remedied, but Kāinga Ora still issued breach notices and gave Ms Tepana every opportunity to address the problem. Although Ms Maturan-Abuid confirmed that the situation has improved since Kāinga Ora filed this application in June, that was too little and too late. c. The nature and extent of the breaches is such that it would unreasonable to refuse the request for termination. In making that finding I have had regard to the following factors: i. The frequency of the interferences with peace, comfort, and privacy. ii. The duration of the disruptive behaviour (one year). iii. The seriousness / extent of the incidents, in particular intentional property damage, the threat to people and animals posed by the wandering dogs, and allegations of threatening / intimidating behaviour by Ms Tepana’s partner.
The tenancy will terminate at 12.00 noon on Wednesday 16 July 2025.

Order

The tenancy of Samantha Henrietta Sharon Tepana at 47B Marshall Road, RD 2, Kaiwaka 0573 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes and Communities, at 12.00 noon on Wednesday 16 July 2025.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 12 June 2023.
The property is on Marshall Road, between Pakaraka and Moerewa. There are residential / semi-rural properties in the neighbourhood, and some commercial premises.
Ms Tepana is the sole named tenant in the tenancy. She lives at the house with her seven children.
Kāinga Ora’s application seeks termination of the tenancy on the grounds that Ms Tepana has caused or permitted an unreasonable interference with the peace, comfort, and privacy of her neighbours.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 2 July 2025. Ms Maturan-Abuid and Ms Singh represented Kāinga Ora at the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. I am satisfied that notice of the claim was sent to the tenant and the tenant did not request an adjournment of the hearing or indicate that she was unable to attend. Emails between Kāinga Ora and Ms Tepana show that she was aware that Kāinga Ora had brought an application to the Tribunal seeking termination of the tenancy. The hearing proceeded in Ms Tepana’s absence. 1 Law
Tenants may not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of any person residing in the neighbourhood. 2
The Tenancy Tribunal may make an order terminating a tenancy if: a. The tenant breaches a legal duty; and b. If the breach is capable of being remedied, the landlord has given the tenant notice of the breach and allowed the tenant a reasonable amount of time (not less than 14-days) to remedy the breach, and the tenant has failed to remedy it; and c. The nature and extent of the breach is such that it would be unreasonable to refuse the request for termination. 3 Evidence
Kāinga Ora is aware of issues at the property because of complaints received from neighbours. Kāinga Ora says that they have received 46 separate complaints from various neighbours since the start of the tenancy, 12 months ago.
The issues can be grouped under three broad headings: a. Noise and anti-social behaviour, including frequent parties, loud music, arguing and swearing. b. Roaming dogs. c. Aggression towards neighbours, including property damage, trespass, and verbal threats.
Kāinga Ora issued 6 anti-social behaviour notices and 3 breach notices.
Kāinga Ora’s written submission includes quotes from emails and telephone calls that it received from neighbours. Ms Maturan-Abuid explained that the 1 Section 92 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 40(2)(c) RTA 3 Section 56 RTA neighbours are willing to share the contents of these communications with the Tribunal, but most were not willing to give evidence due to security concerns.
I heard evidence at the hearing from one of Ms Tepana’s neighbours. It is not necessary for me to name that witness. The witness gave evidence of rubbish dumped on his property, trespass onto his property, and damage to his property coming from the occupants at 47B.
Kāinga Ora’s submissions also include: a. Information from the New Zealand Police about attendances at the property on 12 March 2024, 1 May 2024, 12 July 2024, and 21 December 2024. b. Communication from the Kaipara District Council. KDC initiated contact with Kāinga Ora in September 2024 due to “Numerous complaints from different complainants” relating to “extreme noise on a weekly basis and two to three days at a time” and “barking dogs and wandering dogs”. KDC’s record of dog control and noise control complaints and responses runs to 47 pages.
As noted above, Ms Tepana did not attend the hearing. I was provided with a copy of emails exchanged between Ms Singh and Ms Tepana about the noise and dog control issues. In one of the emails Ms Tepana comments: I feel like Kāinga Ora has set me up to fail I am a mother with 7 kids put into an environment where its [quiet] and not for Maori. We are a loud family and to put us smack bang in the middle of a quiet area with no privacy and close neighbours with shared driveway everything I didn’t ask for
If this was merely a matter of a large and loud family being in a quiet area there would no suggestion of terminating the tenancy. People in community must tolerate some amount of noise from their neighbours. However, the evidence shows that the issues at 47B are massively, exponentially, beyond this. Outcome
I am satisfied that: a. Ms Tepana caused and permitted an unreasonable interference with the peace comfort and privacy of her neighbours. b. The breaches are not capable of being remedied, but Kāinga Ora still issued breach notices and gave Ms Tepana every opportunity to address the problem. Although Ms Maturan-Abuid confirmed that the situation has improved since Kāinga Ora filed this application in June, that was too little and too late. c. The nature and extent of the breaches is such that it would unreasonable to refuse the request for termination. In making that finding I have had regard to the following factors: i. The frequency of the interferences with peace, comfort, and privacy. ii. The duration of the disruptive behaviour (one year). iii. The seriousness / extent of the incidents, in particular intentional property damage, the threat to people and animals posed by the wandering dogs, and allegations of threatening / intimidating behaviour by Ms Tepana’s partner.
The tenancy will terminate at 12.00 noon on Wednesday 16 July 2025.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5283820 — Harassment at 47B Marshall Road, Kaiwaka, RD 2, Kaiwaka 0573

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5283820 — Harassment at 47B Marshall Road, Kaiwaka, RD 2, Kaiwaka 0573

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions