What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5257161 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 5257161?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257161?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257161?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11927810-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5257161 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 5257161?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5257161?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5257161?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11927810-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5257161 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Landlord/s] name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Kathleen Stevens at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm, Tuesday, 10 June 2025
Kathleen Stevens must pay [The landlord/s] $0.00 immediately.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord, attended the hearing via teleconference.
The tenant, Ms. Stevens, did not attend the hearing. In an effort to reach her, I called her contact number (ending in [redacted]) three times. I was able to leave voice messages during the first and third calls, but the second call was disconnected before a message could be recorded. Despite these attempts, I was unable to reach Ms. Stevens.
The hearing then continued in Ms Stevens’ absence. Procedural history
On 3 March 2025, the landlord applied to the Tribunal seeking an order to terminate the tenancy under Section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) under anti-social behaviour ground.
On 24 April 2025, the learned Adjudicator Armstrong declined the landlord’s application because Section 55A of the RTA does not apply to a fixed-term tenancy.
After declining the landlord’s application, the learned Adjudicator Armstrong went on to say from paragraphs 6 to 12 of his decision: “6. The landlords cannot use the anti-social behaviour provisions of the Act for as long as the tenancy is for a fixed term. But they can use s56 of the Act to seek termination of the tenancy where there has been a breach of the Act or the tenancy agreement by a tenant.
This case concerns a house that has been converted into two flats, front and rear. There is a driveway down the side of the house which has a gate on it. The rear tenants and their visitors use the driveway to access their flat and park their cars. The tenant and her visitors use the front portion of the driveway to access the parking area in front of her flat. There is no garden area attached to the flat.
One of the complaints is that the rear tenants have made to the landlord is that the tenant or her visitors have been parking in the driveway preventing them from using it. Another is that the tenant has been closing the gate, often repeatedly during the day and at night. The nighttime closing is particularly problematic because the gate is difficult to see in the dark.
Section 40(2)(c) of the Act provides that a tenant must not cause or permit interference with the peace, comfort or privacy of other tenants in their use of their premises. Failing to stop a visitor from doing so constitutes permitting it.
I can see no justification for the tenant or her visitors parking in the driveway. I would regard that as a breach of the Act.
I can see very little justification for closing the gate and certainly not for closing it repeatedly or at night. The tenant has children and if they are outside and cannot be trusted to remain on the property, they should be supervised. I note that the gate is low, and a child could easily climb over it.
Unless tenant changes her ways, I can see the landlords coming back to this Tribunal seeking to terminate this tenancy. The outcome of another application may well be different from the outcome today.”
A clear warning was given to Ms Stevens that “Unless tenant changes her ways.... The outcome of another application may well be different from the outcome today.”
On 7 May 2025, the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations under Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA. Did the tenant breach Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA?
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has disturbed their neighbours.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
[The landlord’s representative] helpfully submitted a timeline of events. I summarise as follows: a. Shortly after Ms Stevens’ tenancy began on 6 December 2024, complaints from the rear tenant began to surface. These initially involved the gate being closed, which created a hazard in the dark. There were also early reports of an unauthorised male guest, loud noise including music and yelling, and concerns about safety and rubbish. b. By February 2025, the situation escalated. A dog was discovered at the front flat in breach of the tenancy agreement, prompting a formal 14-day breach notice. Around this time, more serious allegations were made, including spitting on the rear tenant’s car and aggressive behaviour involving visitors. A Tribunal application was submitted in early March, although it was later dismissed due to a jurisdictional issue. An inspection confirmed the dog had been removed. The rear tenant also reported being yelled at while walking home, and felt intimidated by people associated with Ms Stevens. c. From 24 April to 19 May 2025, Ms Stevens’ behaviour did not seem to have changed, resulting in [the landlord’s representative] issuing five (5) separate 14-day breach notices for loud early-morning noise and interference with shared access.
The complaints noted in each notice: a. 24 April 2025 – A white utility vehicle was parked over the shared driveway, interfering with the neighbour’s reasonable use of the property. b. 01 May 2025 – Excessive and deliberate loud banging on the neighbouring wall, and reports of screaming coming from the unit. c. 06 May 2025 – Excessive loud noise, slamming of windows causing the back unit walls to shake, and reports of screaming. d. 12 May 2025 – Excessive loud banging on the neighbouring wall causing it to shake, and reports of screaming. e. 21 May 2025 – A dog inside the home barked at neighbours walking down the driveway, and the tenant is not permitted to have pets at the property.
Taking into account all of the above complaints, in my view, the tenant’s behaviour (whether it is her or her permitted guest(s)) has caused or allowed interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or anyone else living in the neighbourhood.
Accordingly, I find the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In the present case, the landlord did not seek exemplary damages. Accordingly, I will not consider this issue. Another reason for not considering it is that any award would have been in favour of the landlord, rather than the tenant who was affected by Ms Stevens’ behaviour.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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 capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant has breached their obligations. See paragraphs 13 and 14 above.
After the first Tribunal hearing on 24 April 2025, the landlord served five (5) 14- day notices on the tenant on 24 April 2025, 1 May 2025, 6 May 2025, 12 May 2025, and 21 May 2025, yet the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required timeframe.
In my view, despite learned Adjudicator Armstrong’s clear warning about the consequences of failing to change her behaviour, Ms Stevens continued without making any changes. Therefore, it would be unjust to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The tenancy is terminated immediately. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Landlord/s] name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Kathleen Stevens at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm, Tuesday, 10 June 2025
Kathleen Stevens must pay [The landlord/s] $0.00 immediately.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord, attended the hearing via teleconference.
The tenant, Ms. Stevens, did not attend the hearing. In an effort to reach her, I called her contact number (ending in [redacted]) three times. I was able to leave voice messages during the first and third calls, but the second call was disconnected before a message could be recorded. Despite these attempts, I was unable to reach Ms. Stevens.
The hearing then continued in Ms Stevens’ absence. Procedural history
On 3 March 2025, the landlord applied to the Tribunal seeking an order to terminate the tenancy under Section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) under anti-social behaviour ground.
On 24 April 2025, the learned Adjudicator Armstrong declined the landlord’s application because Section 55A of the RTA does not apply to a fixed-term tenancy.
After declining the landlord’s application, the learned Adjudicator Armstrong went on to say from paragraphs 6 to 12 of his decision: “6. The landlords cannot use the anti-social behaviour provisions of the Act for as long as the tenancy is for a fixed term. But they can use s56 of the Act to seek termination of the tenancy where there has been a breach of the Act or the tenancy agreement by a tenant.
This case concerns a house that has been converted into two flats, front and rear. There is a driveway down the side of the house which has a gate on it. The rear tenants and their visitors use the driveway to access their flat and park their cars. The tenant and her visitors use the front portion of the driveway to access the parking area in front of her flat. There is no garden area attached to the flat.
One of the complaints is that the rear tenants have made to the landlord is that the tenant or her visitors have been parking in the driveway preventing them from using it. Another is that the tenant has been closing the gate, often repeatedly during the day and at night. The nighttime closing is particularly problematic because the gate is difficult to see in the dark.
Section 40(2)(c) of the Act provides that a tenant must not cause or permit interference with the peace, comfort or privacy of other tenants in their use of their premises. Failing to stop a visitor from doing so constitutes permitting it.
I can see no justification for the tenant or her visitors parking in the driveway. I would regard that as a breach of the Act.
I can see very little justification for closing the gate and certainly not for closing it repeatedly or at night. The tenant has children and if they are outside and cannot be trusted to remain on the property, they should be supervised. I note that the gate is low, and a child could easily climb over it.
Unless tenant changes her ways, I can see the landlords coming back to this Tribunal seeking to terminate this tenancy. The outcome of another application may well be different from the outcome today.”
A clear warning was given to Ms Stevens that “Unless tenant changes her ways.... The outcome of another application may well be different from the outcome today.”
On 7 May 2025, the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations under Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA. Did the tenant breach Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA?
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has disturbed their neighbours.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
[The landlord’s representative] helpfully submitted a timeline of events. I summarise as follows: a. Shortly after Ms Stevens’ tenancy began on 6 December 2024, complaints from the rear tenant began to surface. These initially involved the gate being closed, which created a hazard in the dark. There were also early reports of an unauthorised male guest, loud noise including music and yelling, and concerns about safety and rubbish. b. By February 2025, the situation escalated. A dog was discovered at the front flat in breach of the tenancy agreement, prompting a formal 14-day breach notice. Around this time, more serious allegations were made, including spitting on the rear tenant’s car and aggressive behaviour involving visitors. A Tribunal application was submitted in early March, although it was later dismissed due to a jurisdictional issue. An inspection confirmed the dog had been removed. The rear tenant also reported being yelled at while walking home, and felt intimidated by people associated with Ms Stevens. c. From 24 April to 19 May 2025, Ms Stevens’ behaviour did not seem to have changed, resulting in [the landlord’s representative] issuing five (5) separate 14-day breach notices for loud early-morning noise and interference with shared access.
The complaints noted in each notice: a. 24 April 2025 – A white utility vehicle was parked over the shared driveway, interfering with the neighbour’s reasonable use of the property. b. 01 May 2025 – Excessive and deliberate loud banging on the neighbouring wall, and reports of screaming coming from the unit. c. 06 May 2025 – Excessive loud noise, slamming of windows causing the back unit walls to shake, and reports of screaming. d. 12 May 2025 – Excessive loud banging on the neighbouring wall causing it to shake, and reports of screaming. e. 21 May 2025 – A dog inside the home barked at neighbours walking down the driveway, and the tenant is not permitted to have pets at the property.
Taking into account all of the above complaints, in my view, the tenant’s behaviour (whether it is her or her permitted guest(s)) has caused or allowed interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or anyone else living in the neighbourhood.
Accordingly, I find the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In the present case, the landlord did not seek exemplary damages. Accordingly, I will not consider this issue. Another reason for not considering it is that any award would have been in favour of the landlord, rather than the tenant who was affected by Ms Stevens’ behaviour.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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 capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The tenant has breached their obligations. See paragraphs 13 and 14 above.
After the first Tribunal hearing on 24 April 2025, the landlord served five (5) 14- day notices on the tenant on 24 April 2025, 1 May 2025, 6 May 2025, 12 May 2025, and 21 May 2025, yet the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required timeframe.
In my view, despite learned Adjudicator Armstrong’s clear warning about the consequences of failing to change her behaviour, Ms Stevens continued without making any changes. Therefore, it would be unjust to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The tenancy is terminated immediately. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257161 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5257161 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions