What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5311719?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kirsten Doreen Jessica Clark at 5 Robson Court, Gate Pa,

How much money was awarded in case 5311719?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5311719?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5311719?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12195926-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5311719?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Kirsten Doreen Jessica Clark at 5 Robson Court, Gate Pa,

How much money was awarded in case 5311719?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5311719?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5311719?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12195926-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Robson Court, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5311719 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Kirsten Doreen Jessica Clark at 5 Robson Court, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 4pm on Thursday, 7 August 2025.

Reasons

Representatives of the landlord attended the hearing. I also heard from two witnesses who live near the tenancy premises.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by the video link provided in the Notice of Hearing. I also tried calling her three times on two different phone numbers during the hearing. None of those calls were successful.
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 fighting, arguing, loud and abusive language both within the premises and on the common driveway area which services eight homes (including the premises), multiple police call outs to the premises.
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.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. 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.
Disruptive behaviour has been a key feature of this tenancy. In the fifteen-month tenancy Kāinga Ora have received 37 neighbour complaints about disruptive behaviour, abusive language and excessive noise. On eighteen occasions Kāinga Ora requested meetings with Ms Clark to discuss concerns. Ms Clark attended 5 of those meetings but has not responded to any meeting requests since 2024.
The tenant has been issued with a total of 10 breach notices under s55A. The three relevant to this application were issued on 28 April (in respect of fighting, yelling, screaming and police call out on 7 April), 19 May (in respect of a disturbance on the early morning of 30 April), 26 June (in respect of yelling, screaming abusive language, fighting and police call out on 3 June).
The evidence I heard from two witnesses who live near the tenancy, confirms that the impact of this on-going behaviour is more than minor. I note that there are also young children residing in other units in this complex, who have been impacted by the violent and abusive behaviour. That is unacceptable and cannot continue.
The landlord also provided a full log of police callouts to the premises. There have been 19 callouts since the start of December 2024.
Disturbances have been regular and persistent since this tenancy started. Incidents seem to occur when the tenant has a regular visitor or overnight guest. In the absence of any evidence that the tenant has tried to stop this visitor coming to the property, I find that the person is at the premises with her permission. 1 One of the witnesses gave evidence of the frequency and regularity of the visits. There was also evidence that while the disturbance occurs more often when the visitor is at the property, both the tenant and visitor cause and contribute to the screaming, abusive language, and other disruptive behaviour.
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.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Other Grounds for Termination
Even if I had not found that the landlord had made out the grounds pursuant to s55A, I would have ordered termination for the tenant interfering with the peace and quiet enjoyment of others in the neighbourhood (s40 & 56 RTA).
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord has served at least four breach notices during the tenancy (in addition to the s55A notices). The most recent was on 16 July 2025 and related to incidents on 8 July and 16 July 2025. I also heard from a witness in relation to those incidents, and the witness’ valid concern that the behaviour appears to be escalating. 1 See Landlord v Tenant [2023] NZTT 4513769
The evidence establishes that the tenant (and her guest) are interfering with the peace, quiet and enjoyment of other residents of the neighbourhood and have been doing so for a sustained period of time. I also heard evidence of steps that the landlord has taken to address the disturbances. Due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
The landlord suggested a 7-day period for the tenant to make alternative arrangements and I have made the order accordingly.

Order

The tenancy of Kirsten Doreen Jessica Clark at 5 Robson Court, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 4pm on Thursday, 7 August 2025.

Reasons

Representatives of the landlord attended the hearing. I also heard from two witnesses who live near the tenancy premises.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by the video link provided in the Notice of Hearing. I also tried calling her three times on two different phone numbers during the hearing. None of those calls were successful.
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 fighting, arguing, loud and abusive language both within the premises and on the common driveway area which services eight homes (including the premises), multiple police call outs to the premises.
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.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. 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.
Disruptive behaviour has been a key feature of this tenancy. In the fifteen-month tenancy Kāinga Ora have received 37 neighbour complaints about disruptive behaviour, abusive language and excessive noise. On eighteen occasions Kāinga Ora requested meetings with Ms Clark to discuss concerns. Ms Clark attended 5 of those meetings but has not responded to any meeting requests since 2024.
The tenant has been issued with a total of 10 breach notices under s55A. The three relevant to this application were issued on 28 April (in respect of fighting, yelling, screaming and police call out on 7 April), 19 May (in respect of a disturbance on the early morning of 30 April), 26 June (in respect of yelling, screaming abusive language, fighting and police call out on 3 June).
The evidence I heard from two witnesses who live near the tenancy, confirms that the impact of this on-going behaviour is more than minor. I note that there are also young children residing in other units in this complex, who have been impacted by the violent and abusive behaviour. That is unacceptable and cannot continue.
The landlord also provided a full log of police callouts to the premises. There have been 19 callouts since the start of December 2024.
Disturbances have been regular and persistent since this tenancy started. Incidents seem to occur when the tenant has a regular visitor or overnight guest. In the absence of any evidence that the tenant has tried to stop this visitor coming to the property, I find that the person is at the premises with her permission. 1 One of the witnesses gave evidence of the frequency and regularity of the visits. There was also evidence that while the disturbance occurs more often when the visitor is at the property, both the tenant and visitor cause and contribute to the screaming, abusive language, and other disruptive behaviour.
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.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Other Grounds for Termination
Even if I had not found that the landlord had made out the grounds pursuant to s55A, I would have ordered termination for the tenant interfering with the peace and quiet enjoyment of others in the neighbourhood (s40 & 56 RTA).
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord has served at least four breach notices during the tenancy (in addition to the s55A notices). The most recent was on 16 July 2025 and related to incidents on 8 July and 16 July 2025. I also heard from a witness in relation to those incidents, and the witness’ valid concern that the behaviour appears to be escalating. 1 See Landlord v Tenant [2023] NZTT 4513769
The evidence establishes that the tenant (and her guest) are interfering with the peace, quiet and enjoyment of other residents of the neighbourhood and have been doing so for a sustained period of time. I also heard evidence of steps that the landlord has taken to address the disturbances. Due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
The landlord suggested a 7-day period for the tenant to make alternative arrangements and I have made the order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5311719 — 14-day notice at 5 Robson Court, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5311719 — 14-day notice at 5 Robson Court, Gate Pa, Tauranga 3112

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