Tenancy Terminated for Repeated Anti-Social Behaviour and Breaches

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5160651 1

[2025] NZTT 5160651

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA

APPLICANT: [redacted]

Landlord

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Tenant

TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ORDER

1. The tenancy of [NAME] at [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons:

1. A representative of [COMPANY] (‘[NAME]’) attended the hearing conducted remotely. The tenant was phoned but the call went to answer phone. I am satisfied she had been served with notice of the hearing and the hearing proceeded in her absence. The occupant from 63B Hei hei Road also attended during the hearing and gave oral evidence.

2. The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission and on the basis of a breach of tenant responsibilities by interfering 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 neighbours .

3. [NAME]’s tenancy at [ADDRESS], Christchurch began in March 2005. She is the sole tenant of the tenancy and resides at the address with

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5160651 2

her boarder/partner, [NAME]. [NAME]’s premises is one of three [NAME] properties at number 63. [NAME]’ s unit is the front one of the three and there is shared driveway giving access to all 3 properties.

Anti-social behaviour

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. The first incident occurred on 2 November 2024 when at approximately 12.40am [NAME] is alleged to have smashed a lounge window at 63B. Police received 2 calls about this incident and took statements form the occupants of 63B and 63C. The occupant said she was woken by a loud smash and looked out the window to see a figure walking past the window. It was dark so she could not identify the person. Shortly after that, the neighbour from 63C came over and said she had been woken by the smash and she had immediately checked her cameras which have a clear view down the driveway. She had seen [NAME] running from 63B, and back into her address at 63A. She was unable to rewind the video as her remote was broken and it is unclear if the police have yet received a copy of that

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5160651 3

video. She was not prepared to appear as a witness at the hearing as she fears retaliation. [NAME] denied to police that it was her.

7. While I have not been able to have direct evidence from the occupant of 63C, I find on the balance of probabilities that it was more likely than not that [NAME] broke the window. I reach this conclusion from the fact that she immediately came to 63B after the noise and reported what she had seen on the video and this was consistent with the statement she made to the Police. The first notice was served on 14 November 2024.

8. The second incident occurred on 25 November 2024. The occupant of 63B had family guests and were out on the driveway. [NAME] had a verbally abusive exchange with the guests and another witness called the police as [NAME]’s partner/boarder, [NAME], had produced an axe. The police also received other concerned calls with one reporting [NAME] had let their pit bulldog loose and instructed it to attack the occupant’s guests. The occupant of 63B said [NAME] was throwing stones at them and one narrowly missed her grandson. [NAME] also threatened to get gang members and sons to shoot them. [NAME] was arrested and is in custody and [NAME] fell, hitting her head, and was taken to hospital. A second notice was served on 2 December 2024.

9. The third incident occurred on 9 January 2025. The Tribunal had the statements of the affected father in this incident, a detailed record of a phone conversation between the Police and Manager at [NAME] about this incident, Police records and photographs of the victim’s significant injuries.

10. [NAME]’s dog escaped the property and attacked another dog that was being walked by a father and daughter. The daughter was badly bitten by [NAME]’s dog. [NAME], proceeded to have a verbal exchange with the father and threatened to kill him and his dog. [NAME] got between [NAME] and the father and punched the father in the face. By the time police arrived [NAME] and [NAME] were in their house, but the dog escaped again so the Police pepper sprayed it. While Police were responding to the incident [NAME] told the neighbours she was getting a screwdriver and going to ‘deal to the police’. [NAME] and [NAME] were arrested and face various charges. [NAME] is in custody. [NAME] confirmed the events to [NAME] staff. A third notice was served on 28 January 2025.

11. I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.

12. 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.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5160651 4

13. 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.

14. I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.

Breach of tenant obligations

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA states that [NAME] shall not cause or permit any 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 of other neighbours in the area.

[NAME] Evidence

19. [NAME] claim that in addition to the above incidents, [NAME] has further breached this obligation.

20. On 27 November 2024, two days after the second section 55A incident, a neighbour’s children were leaving their property by car when [NAME] appeared and started abusing them. A video has been provided evidencing her screaming abuse close to the car and making rude gestures. The children in the car could be heard screaming and the driver was trying to reassure them.

21. This is not a breach capable of remedy.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy?

22. The District Court set out the various 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.

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5160651 5

f. The gravity of the breach. g. Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

23. In making my decision I have taken into account the ongoing incidents of antisocial behaviour and the incident on 27 November. These events have had a significant effect on the neighbours causing fear and distress. The occupant of 63B gave evidence that they have had these sorts of ongoing disturbances for a long time but she had been loath to raise them, but she has now had enough and it was time for something to happen. She said the behaviour of [NAME] is so unpredictable you never know what is going to happen and she fears for her and her son’s safety and for that of her neighbours.

24. I have taken all these factors into account and find it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

[NAME]

27 February 2025

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5160651 6

Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.

Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.

You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf

Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals

Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.

Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.

Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.

If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].

Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.

https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5160651 7

A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].

Reasons: