What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5163614 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5163614?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5163614?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5163614?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11799107-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5163614 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5163614?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5163614?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5163614?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11799107-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5163614 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants filed their application because they believe their landlord has not done enough to protect their quiet enjoyment living at the tenancy premises. They also believe the landlord entered the house without proper notice or consent. The questions I have to decide include: • Have the neighbours have breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment? • Has the landlord has taken reasonable steps to address the tenants’ concerns? • Did the landlord entered the house unlawfully? Have the neighbours have breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment?
Section 45(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that a landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
The tenant at the hearing said they have problems with three other tenancies in their five home complex and a problem with one of the tenancies in the complex next door. This is the tenants’ claim to prove which means they need to have the better evidence. The tenant said neighbours in their complex and the one next door: • had a noisy party on 31 December 2023 • threatened her via Facebook, • regularly abuse and swear at her and her partner when they go outside • often make threats • often tell her puppy to stop barking • slam doors and play music • prevent the tenants from using their allocated car parking • cornered the tenant’s partner, abused him, and assaulted him on Saturday 26 April 2025, which she has on video.
She said their house feels like a prison rather than a home. She also provided me with about a dozen police acknowledgement forms from 2024 which she said are proof the tenants felt sufficiently concerned to report threats and abuse to the police. I am not aware that the police have laid any charges against the neighbours as a result. I have copies of the Facebook messages.
I have read the documents provided with the application. The police acknowledgement forms do not help the tenants prove the neighbours are breaching their quiet enjoyment of the premises. I accept the Facebook messages could be a breach. There is no supporting evidence the neighbours are regularly abusive to the tenants and their puppy. There is no supporting evidence – such as from Noise Control – that the neighbours have been too loud.
The best evidence at the hearing was of the confrontation between the neighbour and the tenants on 26 April 2025. The tenants had security camera footage and it does look like the neighbour has cornered one of them and possibly pushed him. There is no sound on the video. We saw an abridged version and the tenants have agreed to provide the full video to the landlord. It seems most likely to me this was a breach of quiet enjoyment by the neighbour. Has the landlord has taken reasonable steps to address the tenants’ concerns?
The tenant said they felt the landlord ignored their pleas for help. She said they often raise matters anonymously because there is animosity from the neighbours. They said they feel like they are being told off when they engage with their Housing Support Manager.
Their Housing Services Manager gave evidence as a witness. The tenants pass on their complaints to the landlord, usually by telephone. They have not served the landlord with any 14 day notices. There are so many complaints that the landlord has made a special arrangement to check in with the tenants every two weeks to help the tenants and to manage the number of complaints.
The manager said a lot of the complaints were about noise in the complex which is inevitable and to be expected in a complex of about 10 houses. She has spoken with everyone in the complex about the complaints. There have been no more reports of noisy parties.
The manager said she has acted following some of the complaints. She sent 14 day notices to the other tenants after the threats on Facebook, and there have been no more messages since. She has also sent letters to everyone in the complex about quiet enjoyment and car parking.
The landlord said in the hearing it would follow up on the confrontation on 26 April.
Having considered the submissions and the evidence at the hearing it seems most likely to me the landlord has taken reasonable steps protect the tenants’ quiet enjoyment.

Did the landlord entered the house unlawfully?

The tenants claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent to check for drugs, without a warrant and without the police. If true, this would be a breach of the RTA.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenants’ consent or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
The tenants’ main complaint is that there were never any drugs in their house, but I have considered whether there was a breach of section 48 RTA because that is the claim that has been coded by Tenancy Services and served on the landlord.
I was provided with a copy of the landlord’s notice to enter the house to check that any drugs had been removed. The landlord gave 23 days notice of the date the house would be checked for compliance, which is outside of the 14 day time frame provided for in section 48(2)(c) RTA. That section states that entry: for the purpose of determining whether or not— (i) the tenant has, within the period allowed by the landlord, completed satisfactorily any work required by the landlord to be done by the tenant to remedy any breach by the tenant of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement or of this Act; or (ii) the tenant has, within the agreed period, completed satisfactorily any work agreed to be done by the tenant,— at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening on any day (after the expiry of the period allowed for the work) specified in a notice given to the tenant not less than 48 hours nor more than 14 days before the intended entry;
The 14 day timeframe was not discussed at the hearing. I raise it here because it seems most likely to me the landlord did not comply with section 48 RTA. However, it also seems likely to me from the evidence at the hearing that the tenants knew about the intended check and the date the check would take place. I do not find I should make further orders against the landlord but use this as an opportunity to remind the landlord about the 14 days. Other orders
The tenants’ application is dismissed.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because identifying the tenants and the tenancy address would also identify the neighbours. See section 95A RTA.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants filed their application because they believe their landlord has not done enough to protect their quiet enjoyment living at the tenancy premises. They also believe the landlord entered the house without proper notice or consent. The questions I have to decide include: • Have the neighbours have breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment? • Has the landlord has taken reasonable steps to address the tenants’ concerns? • Did the landlord entered the house unlawfully? Have the neighbours have breached the tenants’ quiet enjoyment?
Section 45(1)(e) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that a landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises.
The tenant at the hearing said they have problems with three other tenancies in their five home complex and a problem with one of the tenancies in the complex next door. This is the tenants’ claim to prove which means they need to have the better evidence. The tenant said neighbours in their complex and the one next door: • had a noisy party on 31 December 2023 • threatened her via Facebook, • regularly abuse and swear at her and her partner when they go outside • often make threats • often tell her puppy to stop barking • slam doors and play music • prevent the tenants from using their allocated car parking • cornered the tenant’s partner, abused him, and assaulted him on Saturday 26 April 2025, which she has on video.
She said their house feels like a prison rather than a home. She also provided me with about a dozen police acknowledgement forms from 2024 which she said are proof the tenants felt sufficiently concerned to report threats and abuse to the police. I am not aware that the police have laid any charges against the neighbours as a result. I have copies of the Facebook messages.
I have read the documents provided with the application. The police acknowledgement forms do not help the tenants prove the neighbours are breaching their quiet enjoyment of the premises. I accept the Facebook messages could be a breach. There is no supporting evidence the neighbours are regularly abusive to the tenants and their puppy. There is no supporting evidence – such as from Noise Control – that the neighbours have been too loud.
The best evidence at the hearing was of the confrontation between the neighbour and the tenants on 26 April 2025. The tenants had security camera footage and it does look like the neighbour has cornered one of them and possibly pushed him. There is no sound on the video. We saw an abridged version and the tenants have agreed to provide the full video to the landlord. It seems most likely to me this was a breach of quiet enjoyment by the neighbour. Has the landlord has taken reasonable steps to address the tenants’ concerns?
The tenant said they felt the landlord ignored their pleas for help. She said they often raise matters anonymously because there is animosity from the neighbours. They said they feel like they are being told off when they engage with their Housing Support Manager.
Their Housing Services Manager gave evidence as a witness. The tenants pass on their complaints to the landlord, usually by telephone. They have not served the landlord with any 14 day notices. There are so many complaints that the landlord has made a special arrangement to check in with the tenants every two weeks to help the tenants and to manage the number of complaints.
The manager said a lot of the complaints were about noise in the complex which is inevitable and to be expected in a complex of about 10 houses. She has spoken with everyone in the complex about the complaints. There have been no more reports of noisy parties.
The manager said she has acted following some of the complaints. She sent 14 day notices to the other tenants after the threats on Facebook, and there have been no more messages since. She has also sent letters to everyone in the complex about quiet enjoyment and car parking.
The landlord said in the hearing it would follow up on the confrontation on 26 April.
Having considered the submissions and the evidence at the hearing it seems most likely to me the landlord has taken reasonable steps protect the tenants’ quiet enjoyment.

Did the landlord entered the house unlawfully?

The tenants claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent to check for drugs, without a warrant and without the police. If true, this would be a breach of the RTA.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenants’ consent or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) RTA.
The tenants’ main complaint is that there were never any drugs in their house, but I have considered whether there was a breach of section 48 RTA because that is the claim that has been coded by Tenancy Services and served on the landlord.
I was provided with a copy of the landlord’s notice to enter the house to check that any drugs had been removed. The landlord gave 23 days notice of the date the house would be checked for compliance, which is outside of the 14 day time frame provided for in section 48(2)(c) RTA. That section states that entry: for the purpose of determining whether or not— (i) the tenant has, within the period allowed by the landlord, completed satisfactorily any work required by the landlord to be done by the tenant to remedy any breach by the tenant of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement or of this Act; or (ii) the tenant has, within the agreed period, completed satisfactorily any work agreed to be done by the tenant,— at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening on any day (after the expiry of the period allowed for the work) specified in a notice given to the tenant not less than 48 hours nor more than 14 days before the intended entry;
The 14 day timeframe was not discussed at the hearing. I raise it here because it seems most likely to me the landlord did not comply with section 48 RTA. However, it also seems likely to me from the evidence at the hearing that the tenants knew about the intended check and the date the check would take place. I do not find I should make further orders against the landlord but use this as an opportunity to remind the landlord about the 14 days. Other orders
The tenants’ application is dismissed.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because identifying the tenants and the tenancy address would also identify the neighbours. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5163614 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5163614 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord entered the house unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord entered the house unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions