Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5126549 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 13 Feb 2025 · Published 13 Feb 2025 · Application 5126549
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
New Zealand
Tribunal region
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
- The application for termination is dismissed as not proven.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing held by video conference on the 12 February 2025.
- The tenant lives in a new build home located at the rear of another property. The houses share a driveway and are relatively close together.
- Both properties are owned by the same owners and are managed by the same property management company.
- The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy pursuant to s56 of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA), on the basis that the tenant has breached s40(2)(c) RTA by causing or permitting 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 with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
- The landlord claims that the tenant has: a. Continually allowed loud noise in the shared driveway late in the evening and early mornings disrupting the front tenant’s sleep. b. That the tenant’s visitors have gone to the front house and knocked on the door late in the evening and in the early hours of the morning looking for the tenant, thereby disrupting the front house tenant. c. Allowed noise, including swearing, from her home or the shared driveway. d. That the Police have been to the property several times, which the landlord submits disrupts the peace comfort or privacy of her neighbours, who say they feel anxious about the reason for the Police’s visits. e. That the tenant’s visitors turn up late in the evening, with loud cars and music, and disturb the neighbourhood. f. That the tenant’s acquaintances broke into a car on the 1 January 2025 parked outside the property. g. That one of the tenant’s visitors backed into the mailbox causing damage. .
- At the hearing I heard from the tenant, the property managers, the tenant of the front house and I received statements from two other neighbours.
- The tenant confirmed that she was on bail and had a curfew. Therefore, the Police made regular checks at her property. She does not know when these checks will occur, they can occur early in the evening or late at night. She submits that her neighbours should not be concerned about the Police doing their lawful business. The tenant also makes the point that there is no obligation in the RTA for her to disclose her bail status to her landlord.
- The tenant accepted that she had been arrested at the property on one occasion, but that she was released that day without charge.
- The tenant addressed the concerns with noise from the property saying that the problem is the property itself. The houses (the front and rear) are so close together that she can hear normal activity including conversations that the front tenants are having in their home.
- The front tenant also agreed with this evidence saying that she can hear usual living noises from her home. The front tenant says it is the noise and people coming and going on the shared driveway at odd hours of the night that concerns her the most. She is a woman living on her own with young children and it is frightening when people turn up at her doorstep looking for the tenant, and she is on alert when cars turn up at night. She said that if the tenant plays music even at low levels, the bass reverberates through her children’s bedrooms. Two nights before the tenancy hearing, the front tenant’s children did not get any sleep because of the bass coming from the tenant’s home. The front tenant acknowledged that the sound was not loud, it was more the reverberation that occurred because her children’s bedrooms are the closest to the tenant’s home.
- There was an incident on the road outside the property on the 1 January where the neighbours were disrupted. A car was broken into and police were called. The neighbours says that this was either the tenant’s car or the tenant’s friend’s car. The tenant says that the people involved were not her friends or acquaintances. CCTV footage was provided by one of the neighbours, but it is difficult to make out with any clarity who the person is that was involved.
- I note that during the hearing, the tenant gave conflicting accounts of what occurred that evening, saying that she was at home and then that she was not at home and the sound of a door slamming was her leaving, and then later that she had been arrested in relation to this incident, but released. Despite these conflicting accounts, I am not able to conclude that it was more probable or not that the people that broke into the car on the street, and the ensuing loud noises and melee were the tenant’s friends/ invitees and if the tenant caused of permitted their behaviour. Has the tenant breached s 40(2)(c) RTA ?
- Having considered all the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant has breached the front tenant’s quiet enjoyment by allowing her visitors to make noise, including loud talking, and slamming car doors in the shared driveway very late in the evening. I am also satisfied that the tenant has sworn in the driveway and used language that has interfered with the front neighbour’s peace and comfort. I say this because the tenant admitted that she had had a regular visitor at odd hours of the night, and that she had sworn on the driveway whilst repairing a car.
- I am not satisfied that the tenant breached s40(2)(c) RTA in the other matters alleged by the landlord for the following reasons: a. Most of the noise that was complained about was usual noise from the tenant’s home. Noise control had not attended the property. The problem with the noise appears more likely to be as result of the design of the buildings and the way that each tenant wants to live in their home. In other words, there is a mismatch of living styles. I do not consider it reasonable that this tenant should not be able to play soft music at her home or have visitors to her home that park in the shared driveway. b. The tenant has no control over who knocks on the front neighbour’s door by mistake. This is an ongoing problem and illustrates an issue with the properties, the landlord has an obligation to mitigate these disturbances and confusion between the tenants properties. c. I do not consider the bail checks by Police to be an interference with a neighbour’s enjoyment. d. Whilst I appreciate that having an increased Police presence in the neighbourhood may cause increased anxiety to some neighbours, it is not a breach of those neighbour’s quiet enjoyment. Some neighbours may feel safer and less anxious by an increased Police presence in the neighbourhood. e. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenant caused or permitted the incident on the 1 January 2025. f. I am not satisfied that it was the tenant’s visitor who ran into the mailbox. Is it equitable to terminate for the breaches of s40(2)(c)?
- I have found that the tenant breached s40(2)(c) (see paragraph 13). The landlord has given the tenant notice pursuant to s 56 for these breaches. The landlord seeks termination of the tenancy for these breaches.
- The Tribunal can only order termination for the breach if it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. (see s56 (1)(c) RTA.
- In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: a. The history of the tenancy. b. Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c. Whether the history of breaches is such that it is 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.
- I do not grant termination as I do not consider that termination is an proportionate response to the breach. Whilst I note that the visitors at night is an ongoing issue, the front tenant acknowledged that this has become less in the past two weeks. I do not consider that the gravity of the breach warrants termination of the tenancy.
- That being said, the tenant has been put on notice that her neighbours have little tolerance for her behaviour and the behaviour of her visitors. If the tenant wants to avoid future breach notices being issued (and the risk of further applications), then she should consider carefully the way she is living in her home and the impact it has on those around her, especially the front neighbour. If there are ongoing breaches of a similar nature then it is more likely that termination is warranted, however minor the infraction.
- I also observe that the landlord has a role to play in preventing ongoing issues between the two tenants. There is clearly an issue with normal household noise being able to be heard between the two homes, and the landlord should consider ways to abate the noise.
- The landlord should also consider ways to deal with issues in the shared driveway, which many include cameras, designated parking spaces, not having a gravel driveway or putting up signage about keeping the noise to a minimum. The landlord should also make sure that it is clear who is living at which address so that the front tenant is not disrupted by people looking for the rear tenant. Other matters.
- Both tenants today indicated that they were happy (and wanted to) to move. The front tenant has another property to move to but needs to be released from her fixed term tenancy. The rear tenant wants to move as she appreciates that her lifestyle might mean that this is not the right property or neighbourhood for her. I urge the landlord to consider these requests favourably as it may resolve the disputes within the neighbourhood.