What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5442728?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Aja Quaniece Ataahua Neho at 24E John Street, Winton,

How much money was awarded in case 5442728?

Ua Neho Is To Pay Bayleys Property M…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5442728?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5442728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13593298-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5442728?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Aja Quaniece Ataahua Neho at 24E John Street, Winton,

How much money was awarded in case 5442728?

Ua Neho Is To Pay Bayleys Property M…: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5442728?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5442728?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13593298-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24E John Street, Winton, Winton 9720 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5442728 — 14-day notice

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5442728. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ua Neho is to pay Bayleys Property Management As Agent For Ruby Donnelly & Allan Taylor As Executors Of Estate Joseph Do	$28.00		ua Neho is to pay Bayleys Property Management As Agent For Ruby Donnelly & Allan Taylor As Executors Of Estate Joseph Do

Order

The tenancy of Aja Quaniece Ataahua Neho at 24E John Street, Winton, Winton 9720 is terminated, and possession is granted to Bayleys Property Management As Agent For Ruby Donnelly & Allan Taylor As Executors Of Estate Joseph Donnelly, immediately.
Aja Quaniece Ataahua Neho is to pay Bayleys Property Management As Agent For Ruby Donnelly & Allan Taylor As Executors Of Estate Joseph Donnelly $28.00 immediately, as reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Ms Jardine, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The tenant did not join the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing and so did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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 said the tenant has breached their obligations by keeping 2 large dogs at the property without seeking the landlord’s consent, for one of the dogs having attacked a neighbour, having loud constant arguments, making loud noises that disturb the neighbours, verbally abusing the neighbours, and for permitting the man living with the tenant to trespass on the properties of neighbours and other disturbances of the neighbourhood.
The landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant, as follows: a. 9 January 2026 - for allowing the man living with the tenant at the tenancy property to trespass on a neighbour’s property at 4am, which was captured on a security camera. b. 13 January 2026 - for loud arguing at night disturbing the neighbours. c. 13 January 2026 – for keeping 2 large dogs without the landlord’s consent. The landlord said the property was not suitable for these 2 large dogs and the tenant had not sought the landlord’s consent in having pets either. d. 27 January 2026 – for verbal abuse towards a neighbour. e. 6 March 2026 – for not removing her dogs. f. 23 March 2026 – for not removing her dogs. g. 27 March 2026 – for not removing her dogs.
The landlord provided copies of all the above 14-day notices issued to the tenant and said the tenant did not remedy any of these breach notices, and some of the breach notices were incapable of remedy. The landlord provided an inspection report with photographs showing signs of the dogs in the garden at the property.
The landlord also provided 3 witness statements from neighbours. One neighbour said she captured a man who was living with the tenant, trespassing around her property, close to her young daughter’s bedroom window at 4am on 9 January 2026. The neighbour provided video footage of this, which showed a man creeping around the path outside the neighbour’s house stealthily, time stamped 4am. The neighbour reported this to police and the man was apparently arrested and charged for trespassing.
Another witness statement provided reported loud fighting from the tenant and her partner, shouting, cursing, loud noises and issues with the 2 big dogs of the tenant.
A third witness statement provided from another neighbour said that on 20 November 2025, only 15 days after the tenancy began, she was watching TV in her lounge and saw the man living at the tenant’s property looking at her in her lounge window. She said when he realised she had seen him, he took off and she saw him return to the house of the tenancy address. This neighbour said the incident made her feel very uncomfortable and concerned about her privacy and security.
The witness statements provided all reflected the stress, anxiety and concern by the neighbours that was generated by the actions of the tenant, her dogs, and the man living at her property.
The landlord provided video footage that captured the man living at the tenancy address trespassing at 4am on 9 January 2026 at a neighbour’s property. The property manager said she knew this man’s name as he had initially been put forward to also be on the tenancy agreement but later the tenant had told her only to put the tenant’s name on the tenancy agreement.
The landlord also provided video footage taken by a neighbour where loud arguments and shouting could be heard, apparently of the tenant and the man living with her.
Further, the landlord provided a police report that summarised incidents dealt with at their counter between 1 December 2025 and 3 January 2026 in relation to the tenant, her dogs and incidents with the neighbours.
The District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, at paragraph [61] set out the factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, including: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there has been persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
I will deal with each of these factors in turn, as follows: a. The tenancy started on 5 November 2025. Only 15 days later, a man living at the tenancy property was seen to be looking into the lounge window of a neighbour. There were various other incidents during December 2025 involving the tenant and her dogs, one of which attacked a neighbour in December 2025. Neighbours began to report incidents to the police in early December 2025. On 9 January 2026, the man living at the tenant’s property was captured on security camera trespassing close to a neighbour’s house at 4am. The tenant’s behaviour, including verbal abuse of a neighbour, abuse of police officers when they arrested the man living with her on 9 January 2026, loud arguments, loud noises and continuing to keep 2 large dogs at her property, without having sought any consent from the landlord and in contradiction to the landlord’s express wishes about this, show a pattern of escalating behaviour over a very short time period. b. There have been seven 14-day breach notices issued since the start of the short tenancy. The property manager said none of them have been remedied. This clearly demonstrates persistent failures by the tenant to comply after repeated warnings. c. The history of breaches, as outlined above, over a short time and with escalating and highly concerning behaviour, without any attempt at compliance or remedy, shows it is unlikely the tenant will comply with her obligations in the future. d. Given the repeated nature of the breaches, they are clearly deliberately committed. e. The landlord said they have issued breach notices, have attempted to set up calls with the tenant to address the issues, without any response from the tenant, and have tried to deal with the neighbour’s constant complaints about the tenant’s behaviour as quickly as possible with the tenant. f. One of the tenant’s dogs apparently attacked a neighbour, the man living with the tenant was found looking in one neighbour’s window watching her in November 2025, and then was captured on camera trespassing at 4am on 9 January 2026, around the path of another neighbour’s house, outside the neighbour’s young daughter’s bedroom. Tenants are responsible for the behaviour of those who live with them at the tenancy property. The tenant has verbally abused another neighbour also. The tenant apparently verbally abused the police officers arresting the man living with her for trespassing on a neighbour’s property. There are apparently constant loud arguments and fighting coming from the tenant, disturbing the neighbours. These breaches are all serious and extremely concerning for the safety, security and privacy of all the neighbours. g. Given the evidence outlined above, I find that termination is a proportionate response to the breaches.
Therefore, based on the evidence as outlined above, I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Given the safety issues for the neighbours, the tenancy is terminated immediately. Filing fee
Because Bayleys Property Management As Agent For Ruby Donnelly & Allan Taylor As Executors Of Estate Joseph Donnelly has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5442728. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
ua Neho is to pay Bayleys Property Management As Agent For Ruby Donnelly & Allan Taylor As Executors Of Estate Joseph Do	$28.00		ua Neho is to pay Bayleys Property Management As Agent For Ruby Donnelly & Allan Taylor As Executors Of Estate Joseph Do

Order

The tenancy of Aja Quaniece Ataahua Neho at 24E John Street, Winton, Winton 9720 is terminated, and possession is granted to Bayleys Property Management As Agent For Ruby Donnelly & Allan Taylor As Executors Of Estate Joseph Donnelly, immediately.
Aja Quaniece Ataahua Neho is to pay Bayleys Property Management As Agent For Ruby Donnelly & Allan Taylor As Executors Of Estate Joseph Donnelly $28.00 immediately, as reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Ms Jardine, representing the landlord, attended the video conference hearing. The tenant did not join the hearing as per the instructions in the Notice of Hearing and so did not attend the hearing. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations and for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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 said the tenant has breached their obligations by keeping 2 large dogs at the property without seeking the landlord’s consent, for one of the dogs having attacked a neighbour, having loud constant arguments, making loud noises that disturb the neighbours, verbally abusing the neighbours, and for permitting the man living with the tenant to trespass on the properties of neighbours and other disturbances of the neighbourhood.
The landlord served 14-day notices on the tenant, as follows: a. 9 January 2026 - for allowing the man living with the tenant at the tenancy property to trespass on a neighbour’s property at 4am, which was captured on a security camera. b. 13 January 2026 - for loud arguing at night disturbing the neighbours. c. 13 January 2026 – for keeping 2 large dogs without the landlord’s consent. The landlord said the property was not suitable for these 2 large dogs and the tenant had not sought the landlord’s consent in having pets either. d. 27 January 2026 – for verbal abuse towards a neighbour. e. 6 March 2026 – for not removing her dogs. f. 23 March 2026 – for not removing her dogs. g. 27 March 2026 – for not removing her dogs.
The landlord provided copies of all the above 14-day notices issued to the tenant and said the tenant did not remedy any of these breach notices, and some of the breach notices were incapable of remedy. The landlord provided an inspection report with photographs showing signs of the dogs in the garden at the property.
The landlord also provided 3 witness statements from neighbours. One neighbour said she captured a man who was living with the tenant, trespassing around her property, close to her young daughter’s bedroom window at 4am on 9 January 2026. The neighbour provided video footage of this, which showed a man creeping around the path outside the neighbour’s house stealthily, time stamped 4am. The neighbour reported this to police and the man was apparently arrested and charged for trespassing.
Another witness statement provided reported loud fighting from the tenant and her partner, shouting, cursing, loud noises and issues with the 2 big dogs of the tenant.
A third witness statement provided from another neighbour said that on 20 November 2025, only 15 days after the tenancy began, she was watching TV in her lounge and saw the man living at the tenant’s property looking at her in her lounge window. She said when he realised she had seen him, he took off and she saw him return to the house of the tenancy address. This neighbour said the incident made her feel very uncomfortable and concerned about her privacy and security.
The witness statements provided all reflected the stress, anxiety and concern by the neighbours that was generated by the actions of the tenant, her dogs, and the man living at her property.
The landlord provided video footage that captured the man living at the tenancy address trespassing at 4am on 9 January 2026 at a neighbour’s property. The property manager said she knew this man’s name as he had initially been put forward to also be on the tenancy agreement but later the tenant had told her only to put the tenant’s name on the tenancy agreement.
The landlord also provided video footage taken by a neighbour where loud arguments and shouting could be heard, apparently of the tenant and the man living with her.
Further, the landlord provided a police report that summarised incidents dealt with at their counter between 1 December 2025 and 3 January 2026 in relation to the tenant, her dogs and incidents with the neighbours.
The District Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, at paragraph [61] set out the factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy, including: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there has been persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d. Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e. The conduct of the landlord. f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
I will deal with each of these factors in turn, as follows: a. The tenancy started on 5 November 2025. Only 15 days later, a man living at the tenancy property was seen to be looking into the lounge window of a neighbour. There were various other incidents during December 2025 involving the tenant and her dogs, one of which attacked a neighbour in December 2025. Neighbours began to report incidents to the police in early December 2025. On 9 January 2026, the man living at the tenant’s property was captured on security camera trespassing close to a neighbour’s house at 4am. The tenant’s behaviour, including verbal abuse of a neighbour, abuse of police officers when they arrested the man living with her on 9 January 2026, loud arguments, loud noises and continuing to keep 2 large dogs at her property, without having sought any consent from the landlord and in contradiction to the landlord’s express wishes about this, show a pattern of escalating behaviour over a very short time period. b. There have been seven 14-day breach notices issued since the start of the short tenancy. The property manager said none of them have been remedied. This clearly demonstrates persistent failures by the tenant to comply after repeated warnings. c. The history of breaches, as outlined above, over a short time and with escalating and highly concerning behaviour, without any attempt at compliance or remedy, shows it is unlikely the tenant will comply with her obligations in the future. d. Given the repeated nature of the breaches, they are clearly deliberately committed. e. The landlord said they have issued breach notices, have attempted to set up calls with the tenant to address the issues, without any response from the tenant, and have tried to deal with the neighbour’s constant complaints about the tenant’s behaviour as quickly as possible with the tenant. f. One of the tenant’s dogs apparently attacked a neighbour, the man living with the tenant was found looking in one neighbour’s window watching her in November 2025, and then was captured on camera trespassing at 4am on 9 January 2026, around the path of another neighbour’s house, outside the neighbour’s young daughter’s bedroom. Tenants are responsible for the behaviour of those who live with them at the tenancy property. The tenant has verbally abused another neighbour also. The tenant apparently verbally abused the police officers arresting the man living with her for trespassing on a neighbour’s property. There are apparently constant loud arguments and fighting coming from the tenant, disturbing the neighbours. These breaches are all serious and extremely concerning for the safety, security and privacy of all the neighbours. g. Given the evidence outlined above, I find that termination is a proportionate response to the breaches.
Therefore, based on the evidence as outlined above, I find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. Given the safety issues for the neighbours, the tenancy is terminated immediately. Filing fee
Because Bayleys Property Management As Agent For Ruby Donnelly & Allan Taylor As Executors Of Estate Joseph Donnelly has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5442728 — 14-day notice at 24E John Street, Winton, Winton 9720

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5442728 — 14-day notice at 24E John Street, Winton, Winton 9720

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions