What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5516730?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Joshua Bates at 45 Arthur Street, Seaview, Timaru 7910 is

How much money was awarded in case 5516730?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5516730?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5516730?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13750647-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5516730?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Joshua Bates at 45 Arthur Street, Seaview, Timaru 7910 is

How much money was awarded in case 5516730?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5516730?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5516730?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13750647-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

45 Arthur Street, Seaview, Timaru 7910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5516730 — Harassment

Order

The tenancy of Joshua Bates at 45 Arthur Street, Seaview, Timaru 7910 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 am on Monday 22 June 2026.

Reasons

A representative of Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities (‘KO”) attended the remote hearing.
The tenant attended the hearing.
The tenant is the sole resident of a single bedroom unit. The unit is attached to three other units in a complex operated by the landlord.
The tenancy commenced on 28 August 2023.
KO is seeking to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has breached his neighbour’s (or any other person residing in the neighbourhood’s) peace, comfort and privacy in the use of their premises and the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable for the Tribunal to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not, that the events outlined occurred. The Tribunal is not required to make a finding on the truth of what may have occurred, it is required to make a finding on what is more likely than not to have occurred. Breach of tenant obligations
Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA states that the tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants (or any other person in the neighbourhood’s) in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants or neighbours.
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.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate. KO Evidence
KO claim the tenant has breached this obligation by:
On 23 December 2024, Mr A, a tenant of the complex, was walking in front of the tenant’s unit. The tenant told Mr A to “fuck off my grass.” The grassed area was part of a communal area in front of the tenant’s unit.
On 24 December 2024, The landlord says that the tenant assaulted his next-door neighbour (“Mr A”) by tackling him to the ground and kicking him in the back. The incident ended when a friend of Mr A arrived on the scene and was able to deescalate the situation. Mr A said that the incident resulted in bruising. The tenant accepted that a fight had occurred but was unclear as to what had instigated the fight. He said that it may have been as a result of the theft of a greenstone necklace.
On 14 November 2025, a tenant from the complex had a female visitor. As the female visitor left the complex the tenant is said to have yelled ”Big black nigger whore.” The female was upset and returned to the unit that she had been visiting. The tenant from that unit gave evidence that his visitor now had to leave the complex by a makeshift ramp leading over a fence as she was too scared to confront the tenant. The tenant denied having used the specific offensive words and said that he may have called out that the visitor was a “Fucking thief.”
On 16 January 2026, the tenant was seen throwing rocks as a parked car owned by Mr A. The tenant adamantly denied having thrown the rocks.
On 15 March 2026, the tenant approached the front door of a house in an adjoining street. The house was a private rental. The tenant banged on the door.
The person living in the house (“Mr B”) gave evidence. Mr B said that two days later he was walking along a lane near the tenant’s unit. The tenant yelled out that Mr B was a “killer” and appeared to be taking a video of Mr B. Following that incident, the tenant went to Mr B’s workplace where he told the staff that Mr B was a killer. He then punctured the tyres of Mr B’s car. The matter was referred to Police.
As a result of this intimidation, Mr B moved out of his accommodation and moved to his parent’s house. He was concerned for his parents, so would park his car some distance away so as not to reveal their address. Mr B subsequently left his tenancy to avoid any ongoing harassment from the tenant.

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

I find, given the nature of the breaches and the frequency and escalation of them, that they are breaches that are not capable of remedy. I do not consider the incidents relating to the throwing of stones to have been proven on the balance of probabilities and I put that incident to one side.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

The District Court set out the several factors that can be considered in making this decision in Huff v Central City Property Management Ltd [2020] NZDC 19229: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there has been a 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.
During the period of the current tenancy, it is clear there have been numerous breaches that have escalated in nature. The tenant has received a number of warnings pursuant to s.55A RTA (although I record that that the anti-social behaviour procedure was not the basis for this application).
The incident involving the neighbour Mr B is most concerning. Mr B was not a tenant of the complex but was a private tenant in a nearby property. That incident involved abuse, damage to property and stalker like behaviour with the tenant going to the Mr B’s place of work. The tenant did not explain why this incident may have occurred.
No acceptable excuse for the abuse directed at the other tenant’s female visitor was provided, except to say that the precise language alleged was not used.
The tenant says that no further breaches have taken place since 15 March 2026. The evidence of the two witnesses, who are also tenants of the complex did not support that proposition, as they indicated that concerns with the tenant’s behaviour is ongoing. The behaviour has caused considerable distress and worry to other tenants at the complex and the neighbour and I find that termination of the tenancy is an appropriate and proportionate response to this application.
It may be that the landlord is able to find alternative accommodation for this tenant, given the difficulties that he says that he experienced at the complex. That is a matter entirely for the landlord.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter. The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Order

The tenancy of Joshua Bates at 45 Arthur Street, Seaview, Timaru 7910 is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, at 11.59 am on Monday 22 June 2026.

Reasons

A representative of Kainga Ora-Homes and Communities (‘KO”) attended the remote hearing.
The tenant attended the hearing.
The tenant is the sole resident of a single bedroom unit. The unit is attached to three other units in a complex operated by the landlord.
The tenancy commenced on 28 August 2023.
KO is seeking to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has breached his neighbour’s (or any other person residing in the neighbourhood’s) peace, comfort and privacy in the use of their premises and the breach is of such a nature or extent that it would be inequitable for the Tribunal to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that is that it is more likely than not, that the events outlined occurred. The Tribunal is not required to make a finding on the truth of what may have occurred, it is required to make a finding on what is more likely than not to have occurred. Breach of tenant obligations
Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA states that the tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants (or any other person in the neighbourhood’s) in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants or neighbours.
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.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate. KO Evidence
KO claim the tenant has breached this obligation by:
On 23 December 2024, Mr A, a tenant of the complex, was walking in front of the tenant’s unit. The tenant told Mr A to “fuck off my grass.” The grassed area was part of a communal area in front of the tenant’s unit.
On 24 December 2024, The landlord says that the tenant assaulted his next-door neighbour (“Mr A”) by tackling him to the ground and kicking him in the back. The incident ended when a friend of Mr A arrived on the scene and was able to deescalate the situation. Mr A said that the incident resulted in bruising. The tenant accepted that a fight had occurred but was unclear as to what had instigated the fight. He said that it may have been as a result of the theft of a greenstone necklace.
On 14 November 2025, a tenant from the complex had a female visitor. As the female visitor left the complex the tenant is said to have yelled ”Big black nigger whore.” The female was upset and returned to the unit that she had been visiting. The tenant from that unit gave evidence that his visitor now had to leave the complex by a makeshift ramp leading over a fence as she was too scared to confront the tenant. The tenant denied having used the specific offensive words and said that he may have called out that the visitor was a “Fucking thief.”
On 16 January 2026, the tenant was seen throwing rocks as a parked car owned by Mr A. The tenant adamantly denied having thrown the rocks.
On 15 March 2026, the tenant approached the front door of a house in an adjoining street. The house was a private rental. The tenant banged on the door.
The person living in the house (“Mr B”) gave evidence. Mr B said that two days later he was walking along a lane near the tenant’s unit. The tenant yelled out that Mr B was a “killer” and appeared to be taking a video of Mr B. Following that incident, the tenant went to Mr B’s workplace where he told the staff that Mr B was a killer. He then punctured the tyres of Mr B’s car. The matter was referred to Police.
As a result of this intimidation, Mr B moved out of his accommodation and moved to his parent’s house. He was concerned for his parents, so would park his car some distance away so as not to reveal their address. Mr B subsequently left his tenancy to avoid any ongoing harassment from the tenant.

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

I find, given the nature of the breaches and the frequency and escalation of them, that they are breaches that are not capable of remedy. I do not consider the incidents relating to the throwing of stones to have been proven on the balance of probabilities and I put that incident to one side.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

The District Court set out the several factors that can be considered in making this decision in Huff v Central City Property Management Ltd [2020] NZDC 19229: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there has been a 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.
During the period of the current tenancy, it is clear there have been numerous breaches that have escalated in nature. The tenant has received a number of warnings pursuant to s.55A RTA (although I record that that the anti-social behaviour procedure was not the basis for this application).
The incident involving the neighbour Mr B is most concerning. Mr B was not a tenant of the complex but was a private tenant in a nearby property. That incident involved abuse, damage to property and stalker like behaviour with the tenant going to the Mr B’s place of work. The tenant did not explain why this incident may have occurred.
No acceptable excuse for the abuse directed at the other tenant’s female visitor was provided, except to say that the precise language alleged was not used.
The tenant says that no further breaches have taken place since 15 March 2026. The evidence of the two witnesses, who are also tenants of the complex did not support that proposition, as they indicated that concerns with the tenant’s behaviour is ongoing. The behaviour has caused considerable distress and worry to other tenants at the complex and the neighbour and I find that termination of the tenancy is an appropriate and proportionate response to this application.
It may be that the landlord is able to find alternative accommodation for this tenant, given the difficulties that he says that he experienced at the complex. That is a matter entirely for the landlord.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter. The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5516730 — Harassment at 45 Arthur Street, Seaview, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5516730 — Harassment at 45 Arthur Street, Seaview, Timaru 7910

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the breaches capable of remedy?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions