What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5193131 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 5193131?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5193131?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5193131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11757670-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5193131 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 5193131?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5193131?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5193131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11757670-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5193131 — Harassment

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 22 December 2022 and is periodic. The landlord is a social housing provider. The tenant is of retirement age and is vision impaired.
The landlord has applied for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission. Law
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy under section 55A (1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”), if it is satisfied that: 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.
Section 55A(7) of the Act defines antisocial behaviour as harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor. Notices
The first notice is dated 20 December 2024 and refers to an incident at the property alleged to have occurred on 01 December 2024. The notice describes the antisocial behaviour as: “a lady visitor...was heard screaming, swearing, abusing, yelling, and saying words like “you are fucking crazy” which went on for 15 minutes. The neighbours were very distressed at the behaviour coming from the property.”
The notice is described as being the second instance of anti-social behaviour within the 90-day period commencing the 10 of October 2024.
This is followed by another notice issued on 04 March 2025, referring to an alleged incident on 01 March 2025. This notice describes the antisocial behaviour as: “the Police were at the property with a warrant seeking entry. The neighbours were asked if they had heard any gun shots. This caused the neighbours alarm and distress.”
The notice is described as being the second incident of antisocial behaviour within the 90-day period commencing 20 December 2024, and refers to the first notice being issued on the 20 December 2024.
On 06 March 2025, the landlord issued a notice describing a further incident that occurred on 05 March 2025. This notice described the antisocial behaviour as: “the Police tried to access your property, breaking down doors and loud noises. A gun/rifle was removed from the property. Tenants could hear a woman from your property shouting at Police.”
Each notice states that the alleged incidents caused the neighbours alarm and distress.
The landlord explained that they had issued their first notice for antisocial behaviour on 10 October 2024. Following that, there were no further incidents until 01 December 2024. On 20 December 2024, the landlord served the second notice. On 01 March 2025, another incident occurred, and another notice was issued. However, the landlord discovered that the 90-day period commencing on 10 October 2024 had expired on 10 January 2025. The landlord states they sought advice and believed that they could set aside the first notice and rely on the second notice of 20 December 2024 as the first notice for the purposes of the 90-day period requirement. The landlord added that on 04 March 2025, they included, with the second notice a copy of the notice from 20 December 2024. The Landlord states that on 6 March 2025, they had provided the tenant with all three notices.
Having considered the matter and heard from the landlord, the Tribunal is satisfied that three notices have been issued within a 90-day period. These notices advised the tenant of the approximate time, date, and location of the alleged behaviour, and of their right to challenge the notices. The application was made within 28 days of the last notice.
The issue is whether the notices clearly describe behaviour defined as antisocial. The landlord submits that they do.
In addition to the notices, the landlord has provided redacted Police job sheets and complaints from neighbours. This material was not provided to the tenant with the notice.
Unless specifically set out in the notice itself or provided with the notice when served, any additional evidence concerning the alleged conduct is irrelevant. Each notice must “clearly describe” the behaviour that meets the definition of anti-social behaviour. If the allegation involves the use of derogatory language the landlord should reference specific words alleged to have been used. If the allegation involves acts believed to be anti-social, they should be detailed as they occurred. A landlord who sanitises notices to avoid offence runs the risk of failing to describe the behaviour in a manner that can be objectively assessed as anti-social.
Having considered each notice carefully and discussed the matter with the landlord, the only notice that arguably describes anti-social behaviour, without relying on other evidence, is the (second), first notice of 20 December 2024. In the Tribunal’s assessment, the other notices, without reference to the additional material, fail to describe behaviour that meets the definition of anti-social behaviour.
The tenant states that they are visually impaired, and that this was made known to the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy. The Tribunal notes that in the application, the landlord suggest that the tenant may require an “English” translator. English is the tenant’s first language. The tenant states that they initially had the assistance of a carer who read correspondence for them, but that they had been dishonest and was let go. The tenant stated that they received a letter from the landlord and took it to the Citizens Advice Bureau, who advised that the letter referenced both anti-social behaviour and a rent increase, and that the landlord could not include both in the same document. The tenant also stated that another letter had been sent concerning some repairs, which were never completed. The tenant accepted that they had received other letters but could not read them and had not sought assistance doing so.
Regarding the alleged incident of 20 December 2024, the tenant states that they had agreed to do some washing for a vulnerable young person. They did not want to be at the property when the washing was collected and had arranged to leave the washing outside the property. The tenant states they were not home at the time and, having spoken to other neighbours, believes the incident occurred between the young person and their partner in a car parked on the shared driveway.
Concerning the other two notices, the tenant challenged the veracity of the statements on which the notices relied on. The tenant stated that they had a firearms licence but did not possess any firearms, and that none had been removed from the property. They also stated that they maintained a good working relationship with the local Police and had asked them to investigate the matter.
In order to terminate the tenancy for antisocial behaviour, the Tribunal must be satisfied that each of the notices clearly describe antisocial behaviour and comply with the other requirements of s55A(1) & (2) of the Act. In this case, the Tribunal is not satisfied that all three notices clearly describe behaviour that can be defined as antisocial without reference to other material, not provided with the notice. The tenant has also cast doubt on the facts on which the notices rely.
The application for termination for anti-social behaviour is dismissed.
On the present course, the tenant’s tenancy is at risk. The Tribunal reminds the tenant that the landlord has an obligation to ensure that all of the tenants within the complex enjoy reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy. The Tribunal takes this opportunity to warn the tenant that they are responsible for the actions of those at the property with their permission, as well as those who may be attracted to the property due to what may be occurring there (e.g. the Police). Accepting assistance when offered may be in the tenant’s best interest if they wish to maintain their accommodation. Name suppression.
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has been successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the social housing provider. Upon careful consideration, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and exercise the discretion in section 95A (4). The Tribunal also orders suppression of the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5193131 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5193131 — Harassment

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