What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5498063?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Nina Louise Roberts at 8 Dorset Street, Levin, Levin 5510 is

How much money was awarded in case 5498063?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5498063?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5498063?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13619960-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5498063?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Nina Louise Roberts at 8 Dorset Street, Levin, Levin 5510 is

How much money was awarded in case 5498063?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5498063?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5498063?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13619960-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Dorset Street, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5498063 — 14-day notice

Order

The tenancy of Nina Louise Roberts at 8 Dorset Street, Levin, Levin 5510 is terminated and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 pm Friday 22 May 2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds that: a. The tenant has caused, or has permitted any other person to cause, substantial damage to the premises. See section 55(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). b. On three 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. See section 55A RTA. c. The tenant caused or permitted interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. See sections 40(2)(c) and 56 RTA. Claim under section 55(1)(b) RTA
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises as follows: a. All but two internal doors are missing from the premises. One of the doors remaining has been damaged beyond repair and the other has been removed from its hinges. b. The walls throughout every room of the premises have been extensively damaged with many small and large holes and gashes. By way of example only, on one wall in bedroom 2 there are four large holes which have been inexpertly patched and one of those has been subsequently smashed. In addition, there are numerous smaller holes on all the walls and a window is broken. c. There is damage to the carpet caused by dog urine and faeces.
The landlord advised that most of the window hardware has been “torn off”. The landlord explained that the damage had been escalating since November last year so that most of the damage has occurred in the last six months.
The Tribunal must consider whether the damage is “substantial”. Judge MacDonald in Morton v Barnhorn DC Dunedin TT 189/97, 27 April 1997 considered that the word “substantial” here is to be given its ordinary meaning, having regard to the circumstances involved. The Judge referred to and applied the Shorter Oxford Dictionary definition which defines “substantial” as being “of ample or considerable amount, quantity or dimensions.”
Determining whether damage is substantial involves an objective assessment of the evidence.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the nature and extent of the damage amounts to substantial damage. It is considerable in its amount, extent and quantity. In addition, the damage must have been caused intentionally by the application of considerable force. For instance, one of the surviving doors has been shattered. The number of very large holes and smaller holes in the walls will have required such a significant degree of force that must have been intentional.
Damage is intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a virtual certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. The damage being caused by the tenant’s failure to control her dog is therefore also intentional.
Section 55(2) RTA provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy, but only if it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which the section applies, namely, in this case, further substantial damage.
The breaches have not been remedied, nor the landlord compensated so that those provisions of section 55(2) RTA do not apply. The damage caused is so extensive and has continued to accumulate over such a period of time that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenant is unlikely to cause any further damage. The Tribunal therefore declines to exercise its discretion under section 55(2) RTA.
The Tribunal concludes that the tenancy must be terminated because of the substantial damage caused to the premises by the tenant or her invitees. Claim under section 55A RTA
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on three 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 (“ASB”) 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 landlord provided the following evidence in support of its application: a. An ASB notice dated 5 March 2026 relating to the tenant lighting a fire against a fence on 2 March 2026 which caused significant smoke nuisance to a neighbour and which resulted in the regional council writing to the tenant regarding smoke nuisance. b. An ASB notice dated 24 March 2026 relating to an incident involving a loud argument between the tenant and her two sons which resulted in the police attending and arresting one son. The notice confirmed that the tenant accepted that this incident occurred. c. An ASB notice dated 20 April 2026 relating to a further fire lit in the backyard and throwing a large tin can and a steel bar over the fence at the neighbour. The notice confirmed that the tenant accepted that this incident occurred. d. A written statement from a neighbour about “repeated disturbances, threats, intimidation and serious safety concerns caused by the occupants and visitors” to the premises. The neighbour claims that the tenant “often shouts abuse at me over the shared boundary fence. She used aggressive and threatening language, including telling me to ‘f*** off”, saying I ‘shouldn’t be alive’ and threatening to have her sons come and kill me. e. A written statement from another neighbour about “ongoing disturbance, intimidation and harassment” from the tenant and her family. This includes “frequent loud arguments, yelling, screaming and door slamming”, “verbal abuse” and “racial remarks”. f. Both witness statements refer to the incidents involving the tenant lighting fires in her backyard and provide confirmation of the impact that the tenant’s actions have had on their lives.
The Tribunal has considered the evidence presented by the landlord as set out above. The relevant evidence in the neighbours’ statements is that relating to the behaviour complained of by the landlord in the ASB notices.
Based on this evidence, the Tribunal has determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour as set out in the ASB notices has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the premises with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the RTA and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
It would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given. There is no evidence that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
The Tribunal cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy. Claim under section 56 RTA
As the Tribunal has determined that the tenancy should be terminated under sections 55(1)(b) and 55A, it is not necessary to determine the landlord’s application under section 56 RTA.

Order

The tenancy of Nina Louise Roberts at 8 Dorset Street, Levin, Levin 5510 is terminated and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 pm Friday 22 May 2026.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds that: a. The tenant has caused, or has permitted any other person to cause, substantial damage to the premises. See section 55(1)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). b. On three 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. See section 55A RTA. c. The tenant caused or permitted interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. See sections 40(2)(c) and 56 RTA. Claim under section 55(1)(b) RTA
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant has caused substantial damage to the premises as follows: a. All but two internal doors are missing from the premises. One of the doors remaining has been damaged beyond repair and the other has been removed from its hinges. b. The walls throughout every room of the premises have been extensively damaged with many small and large holes and gashes. By way of example only, on one wall in bedroom 2 there are four large holes which have been inexpertly patched and one of those has been subsequently smashed. In addition, there are numerous smaller holes on all the walls and a window is broken. c. There is damage to the carpet caused by dog urine and faeces.
The landlord advised that most of the window hardware has been “torn off”. The landlord explained that the damage had been escalating since November last year so that most of the damage has occurred in the last six months.
The Tribunal must consider whether the damage is “substantial”. Judge MacDonald in Morton v Barnhorn DC Dunedin TT 189/97, 27 April 1997 considered that the word “substantial” here is to be given its ordinary meaning, having regard to the circumstances involved. The Judge referred to and applied the Shorter Oxford Dictionary definition which defines “substantial” as being “of ample or considerable amount, quantity or dimensions.”
Determining whether damage is substantial involves an objective assessment of the evidence.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the nature and extent of the damage amounts to substantial damage. It is considerable in its amount, extent and quantity. In addition, the damage must have been caused intentionally by the application of considerable force. For instance, one of the surviving doors has been shattered. The number of very large holes and smaller holes in the walls will have required such a significant degree of force that must have been intentional.
Damage is intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a virtual certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. The damage being caused by the tenant’s failure to control her dog is therefore also intentional.
Section 55(2) RTA provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy, but only if it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which the section applies, namely, in this case, further substantial damage.
The breaches have not been remedied, nor the landlord compensated so that those provisions of section 55(2) RTA do not apply. The damage caused is so extensive and has continued to accumulate over such a period of time that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the tenant is unlikely to cause any further damage. The Tribunal therefore declines to exercise its discretion under section 55(2) RTA.
The Tribunal concludes that the tenancy must be terminated because of the substantial damage caused to the premises by the tenant or her invitees. Claim under section 55A RTA
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on three 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 (“ASB”) 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 landlord provided the following evidence in support of its application: a. An ASB notice dated 5 March 2026 relating to the tenant lighting a fire against a fence on 2 March 2026 which caused significant smoke nuisance to a neighbour and which resulted in the regional council writing to the tenant regarding smoke nuisance. b. An ASB notice dated 24 March 2026 relating to an incident involving a loud argument between the tenant and her two sons which resulted in the police attending and arresting one son. The notice confirmed that the tenant accepted that this incident occurred. c. An ASB notice dated 20 April 2026 relating to a further fire lit in the backyard and throwing a large tin can and a steel bar over the fence at the neighbour. The notice confirmed that the tenant accepted that this incident occurred. d. A written statement from a neighbour about “repeated disturbances, threats, intimidation and serious safety concerns caused by the occupants and visitors” to the premises. The neighbour claims that the tenant “often shouts abuse at me over the shared boundary fence. She used aggressive and threatening language, including telling me to ‘f*** off”, saying I ‘shouldn’t be alive’ and threatening to have her sons come and kill me. e. A written statement from another neighbour about “ongoing disturbance, intimidation and harassment” from the tenant and her family. This includes “frequent loud arguments, yelling, screaming and door slamming”, “verbal abuse” and “racial remarks”. f. Both witness statements refer to the incidents involving the tenant lighting fires in her backyard and provide confirmation of the impact that the tenant’s actions have had on their lives.
The Tribunal has considered the evidence presented by the landlord as set out above. The relevant evidence in the neighbours’ statements is that relating to the behaviour complained of by the landlord in the ASB notices.
Based on this evidence, the Tribunal has determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour as set out in the ASB notices has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the premises with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the RTA and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
It would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given. There is no evidence that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
The Tribunal cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy. Claim under section 56 RTA
As the Tribunal has determined that the tenancy should be terminated under sections 55(1)(b) and 55A, it is not necessary to determine the landlord’s application under section 56 RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5498063 — 14-day notice at 8 Dorset Street, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5498063 — 14-day notice at 8 Dorset Street, Levin, Levin 5510

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