What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5494349?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of WILSON STEALEY at Unit/Flat Unit 610, 6 Waikumete Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5494349?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5494349?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5494349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13575348-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5494349?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of WILSON STEALEY at Unit/Flat Unit 610, 6 Waikumete Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5494349?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5494349?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5494349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13575348-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 610, 6 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5494349 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of WILSON STEALEY at Unit/Flat Unit 610, 6 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 is terminated, and possession is granted to Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited, immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. A telephone call was made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The call went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission. In this case the behaviour is that of guests of the tenant.
The premises are on the 6th floor of a nine-level building.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is;
The first anti-social behaviour notice is dated 19 January 2026 and relates to an incident on the 18th of January 2026. On that date the tenant had visitors. A visitor had left the 6th floor where they had been visiting the tenant. The visitor then attempted to then re-enter the building. They were unable to gain entrance. The visitor kicked the entrance door and then squirted a yoghurt container full of yoghurt over the entrance door. The tenant was seen on CCTV then allowing the visitor to return to his unit. Upon leaving the premises, the visitor has set off a fire alarm causing the whole building to be evacuated.
The second anti-social behaviour notice is dated 11 March 2026 and relates to an incident on 10 March 2026. The tenant had had visitors. The visitors had left the tenant's premises and then tried to return without having a swipe entrance card. They went up the stairwell of the building and started banging on the stairwell door on the 6th level. The visitors were unable to gain entrance and then smashed a card reader in an attempt to enter. The visitors are shown on CCTV going to the tenant’s unit.
The third anti-social behaviour notice is dated 7 April 2026 and relates to an incident on 6 April 2026. The incident was reported by a neighbour on the premises. The neighbour reported that one of the tenant’s visitors was banging on the stairwell door of the sixth level attempting to gain entrance to the floor. The neighbour saw that it was not a tenant of that level and refused to open the door. The visitor abused and threatened the neighbour. The landlord confirmed that he had seen this particular visitor visiting the tenant’s unit on many occasions.
A fourth anti-social behaviour notice is dated 9 April 2026 and relates to an incident on the 8th of April 2026 when a visitor to the tenant’s unit has once again triggered the fire alarm to the premises.
Only three anti-social behaviour notice are required by the RTA. I have included this 4th notice for further background to the issues before the Tribunal.
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 landlord 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. No challenge to the notices has been raised by the tenant.
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 is terminated.

Order

The tenancy of WILSON STEALEY at Unit/Flat Unit 610, 6 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 is terminated, and possession is granted to Home In Place (New Zealand) Limited, immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the remote hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. A telephone call was made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The call went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission. In this case the behaviour is that of guests of the tenant.
The premises are on the 6th floor of a nine-level building.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is;
The first anti-social behaviour notice is dated 19 January 2026 and relates to an incident on the 18th of January 2026. On that date the tenant had visitors. A visitor had left the 6th floor where they had been visiting the tenant. The visitor then attempted to then re-enter the building. They were unable to gain entrance. The visitor kicked the entrance door and then squirted a yoghurt container full of yoghurt over the entrance door. The tenant was seen on CCTV then allowing the visitor to return to his unit. Upon leaving the premises, the visitor has set off a fire alarm causing the whole building to be evacuated.
The second anti-social behaviour notice is dated 11 March 2026 and relates to an incident on 10 March 2026. The tenant had had visitors. The visitors had left the tenant's premises and then tried to return without having a swipe entrance card. They went up the stairwell of the building and started banging on the stairwell door on the 6th level. The visitors were unable to gain entrance and then smashed a card reader in an attempt to enter. The visitors are shown on CCTV going to the tenant’s unit.
The third anti-social behaviour notice is dated 7 April 2026 and relates to an incident on 6 April 2026. The incident was reported by a neighbour on the premises. The neighbour reported that one of the tenant’s visitors was banging on the stairwell door of the sixth level attempting to gain entrance to the floor. The neighbour saw that it was not a tenant of that level and refused to open the door. The visitor abused and threatened the neighbour. The landlord confirmed that he had seen this particular visitor visiting the tenant’s unit on many occasions.
A fourth anti-social behaviour notice is dated 9 April 2026 and relates to an incident on the 8th of April 2026 when a visitor to the tenant’s unit has once again triggered the fire alarm to the premises.
Only three anti-social behaviour notice are required by the RTA. I have included this 4th notice for further background to the issues before the Tribunal.
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 landlord 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. No challenge to the notices has been raised by the tenant.
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 is terminated.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5494349 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Unit 610, 6 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5494349 — Harassment at Unit/Flat Unit 610, 6 Waikumete Road, Glen Eden,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions