What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5471376?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jasmine Christina Hanham at 27 Quinns Road, Shirley,

How much money was awarded in case 5471376?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5471376?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5471376?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13470760-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5471376?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Jasmine Christina Hanham at 27 Quinns Road, Shirley,

How much money was awarded in case 5471376?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5471376?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5471376?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13470760-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27 Quinns Road, Shirley, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5471376 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Jasmine Christina Hanham at 27 Quinns Road, Shirley, Christchurch 8013 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities, at 4pm on Friday, 8 May 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing on 20 April 2026.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of: a. Anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission. See s55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA); and/or b. Breaches of the tenant’s obligations which are incapable of remedy. Specifically, the landlord claims that the tenant is interfering with the reasonable peace, quiet and enjoyment of the neighbourhood. See ss56 and 40(2)(c) RTA.
The landlord was represented by one of its employees. Two of Ms Hanham’s neighbours gave evidence; one (Ms S) is also a tenant of the landlord and resides in a unit adjoining Ms Hanham, the other (Mr W) was a private homeowner who lives next door.
Ms Hanham had a support person with her for the second part of the hearing. She also had a witness (Ms C). Ms Hanham submitted a letter from her GP. She also provided legal submissions that had been prepared by Mr Davis, on a pro-bono basis. The Tribunal thanks Mr Davis for his assistance.
Ms Hanham advised the Tribunal that she had not received recordings that the landlord intended to rely on at the hearing. The recordings had been provided to Mr Davis and the Tribunal on 13 April on USB stick. The Tribunal had no difficulty opening the files. The recordings were played during the hearing and confirmed the oral evidence of the witnesses. Ms Hanham did not dispute the contents of the recordings but maintained that they were taken out of context. Anti-social Behaviour Notices
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 Tribunal must not make the order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that: a. doing so would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred or the notices were given; or b. in making the application, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant’s exercise or proposed exercise of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred by the tenancy agreement or by the Act or any other Act, or by any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy — i. unless the Tribunal is satisfied that the exercise or complaint was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified.
The landlord has served three anti-social behaviour notices on the tenant as follows. a. 4 December 2025 – Stickers placed all over the neighbour’s (Mr W) work vehicle accusing him of “shit” parking; b. 15 January 2026 – Abusive letter to elderly neighbour (Ms S) threatening her cats. Abusive language directed to a home care provider of the same neighbour. c. 26 February 2026 – Abusive language to the elderly neighbour including threats to her dog.
On each occasion the landlord investigated complaints made by the neighbours, including speaking with the tenant before the anti-social behaviour notices were issued. Ms Hanham has not applied for any of the notices to be set aside.
The first issue I have to determine is whether the events described are “anti- social behaviour”. Ms Hanham submits (para 31 of her submissions) that the landlord has not established that the disturbance to neighbours is “more than minor” and that all the complaints were made by Ms S. 1
The evidence establishes, by a significant margin, that Ms Hanham’s actions (whether intentional or not) would reasonably cause alarm, distress, or nuisance that is more than minor. a. Ms S is elderly, she wishes to retire “in peace” but is living in fear of Ms Hanham’s threats towards her and her pets. The language that has been directed to her and her pets is abhorrent and abusive. Alternative carers had to be arranged following an outburst by Ms Hanham. Ms S has sought medical advice to help her deal with the effects of Ms Hanham’s behaviour. 1 In fact, the first notice relates to a complaint by Mr W regarding the abusive stickers placed over his work vehicle, including the wing mirrors. b. W and his employer have been inconvenienced by the stickers which rendered the vehicle unsafe to drive while the wing mirrors were covered.
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.
I now have to consider whether either of the mandatory exceptions to making a termination order apply. Ms Hanham argues that it would be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking account of the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and that the landlord has acted in a retaliatory manner. Unfairness
Ms Hanham raises seven points in relation to unfairness. I consider each below: a. Failure to Mediate Ms Hanham claims that the landlord had a duty to attempt to mediate the dispute between her and her neighbours. No such duty exists. In any event, the landlord did offer to facilitate mediation or a discussion, but the neighbours declined. 2 b. Property Condition and Work Order Application Ms Hanham has applied for a Work Order. She alleges that the condition of the property is substandard. The landlord has acknowledged that some work and/or investigation is required. 3 There are disputes between the parties over the extent of work required and ease of access to assess and carryout the work. There is no factual overlap between the applications; whether repairs are required has nothing to do with the neighbours. Stress induced by dealing with a landlord cannot be an excuse or explanation for the behaviour Ms Hanham’s neighbours have been subjected to (as set out further below). c. Mental Health and Neurodiversity While I acknowledges Ms Hanham’s conditions, I accept the landlord’s submission that mental health issues and neurodiversity do not relieve her 2 Evidence of Mr W and landlord’s representative. of her responsibilities. She has had months to seek support to manage her conditions but has not done so. 4 I received a letter of support from Ms Hanham’s GP and have taken that into account. I have difficulty reconciling the GP’s description of Ms Hanham with the evidence (including videos and screen captures of TikToks) presented at the hearing. d. Impact on Children with Additional Needs I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order under s55A. Ms Hanham submits that the stress of parenting children with additional needs has contributed to her behaviour. All parents face varying levels of stress from time to time, more so if the children have special needs. In some instances that stress may excuse a one off “outburst” or incident of frustrated behaviour. This case involved multiple incidents of antisocial behaviour and interference with quiet enjoyment of the neighbourhood. These cannot be explained away or justified by the stress of parenting. e. Context of Neighbourhood Dispute Ms Hanham submits that the antisocial behaviour notices arise in the context of an ordinary neighbourhood dispute between two tenants of the same landlord. That is not correct. The first notice was issued in relation to the abusive stickers on Mr W’s car. The evidence also shows that Mr and Mrs W contacted the landlord, not Ms S. They did so because they were concerned for Ms S after hearing and observing Ms Hanham’s behaviour towards Ms S. f. Timing of Notices Ms Hanham submits that the timing of the antisocial behaviour notices is unfair. I reject that submission. The notices were issued after each incident of antisocial behaviour reported to the landlord. On each occasion, the landlord made proper investigations and spoke to Ms Hanham to hear her explanations before issuing a notice. I also accept the landlord’s submissions: i)That it was required to comply with the statutory timeframes for issuing notices and making this application. ii)If it had not issued the second and third notices it would very likely have been in breach of its obligations to Ms S by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent interference with her quiet enjoyment of her premises. g. Overall Assessment Ms Hanham claims that, standing back and looking at all the circumstances in which her antisocial behaviour occurred, the Tribunal must conclude that it would be unfair to terminate her tenancy. I do not agree. Rather, I accept the landlord submission that Ms Hanham lacks insight to her own behaviour and its effects on those around her and has failed to accept responsibility for her actions. Retaliatory Action by Landlord
Ms Hanham submits that the landlord’s application was motivated, at least in part, by her exercising her rights under the RTA. She has provided a chronology at paragraph 27 of her submissions and, at para 28 concludes that the correlation between her exercise of her rights and the escalation of the landlord’s response is clear.
Ms Hanham made her application in October 2025. No notices were issued before her application was filed because the landlord had not received complaints of antisocial behaviour before then. Ms Hanham’s application was assigned to one team within the landlord’s organisation. Mr W visited the landlord’s offices after his work vehicle was stickered at the start of December 2025, to see what could be done. Mr W’s complaint was assigned to a different team within the landlord’s organisation.
The work order team has continued to try to resolve Ms Hanham’s concerns. There is no factual overlap between the tenant application and the landlord application for termination. The landlord did not submit its claim as a cross- application. Both matters were scheduled at the same hearing time by Tenancy Services. It was apparent that the two teams have been working independently and, other than a passing awareness, neither was aware of the details of the other application.
I am satisfied that this application has been made solely in response to the complaints raised by Ms Hanham’s neighbours and not in retaliation to her application for work orders.
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 tenancy will terminate at 4pm on Friday 8 May 2026. The landlord sought immediate termination. I have given Ms Hanham 2 weeks to move. However, if there are further instances of antisocial behaviour before then, the landlord may submit evidence to the Tribunal and request an earlier termination date.
The landlord has also applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. Termination for Breach
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 not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
The tenant has breached their obligations by interfering with the reasonable peace and quiet of the neighbourhood. See s40(2)(c) RTA. In addition to the three incidents which led to the antisocial behaviour notices, I heard evidence (including videos and TikTok screen captures) of: a. A previous incident of stickers being placed over Mr W’s work van (on 18/19 November 2025) accusing him of “shit” parking. b. Multiple callouts to noise control. Including audio recordings of the music which led to those calls. c. Seven police complaints outlining antisocial behaviour by Ms Hanham. d. Aggressive shouting about Mr W, threatening his employment. e. Shouting offensive language, including “fuck” and “cunt”. f. TikTok posts by the tenant stating she was going to disturb the neighbours, followed by recordings by the neighbour of that disturbance. g. Loud, aggressive ranting, that can be heard inside the neighbour’s dwelling and at the far side of their property.
I have not listed all of the incidents. They are set out in detail in Mr W’s statement, supported by corroborative evidence. Ms Hanham did not dispute that any of the incidents occurred (nor could she) but claims that they have been misconstrued and taken out of context.
I cannot think of any context in which a neighbourhood could reasonably be expected to tolerate or endure Ms Hanham’s disruptions.
The breach is not capable of remedy because the effect on these neighbours is profound. It cannot be undone. At the hearing, Ms Hanham said that if she was allowed to stay at the property her behaviour would improve, and she would apologise. She has had months to do that.
It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. I have considered all of the factors raised by Ms Hanham including mental health, neurodiversity, the fact that some maintenance is required to the premises. I weigh those things against the persistent disturbance and abuse her neighbours have endured since November.
On balance, I conclude that it would be unfair and unreasonable to the neighbours to allow this tenancy to continue.
The tenancy will terminate at 4pm on Friday 8 May 2026. The landlord sought immediate termination. I have given Ms Hanham 2 weeks to move. However, if there are further instances of antisocial behaviour before then, the landlord may submit evidence to the Tribunal and request an earlier termination date.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5471376 — Harassment at 27 Quinns Road, Shirley, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5471376 — Harassment at 27 Quinns Road, Shirley, Christchurch 8013

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