What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5280344 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5280344?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280344?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280344?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12484722-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5280344 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5280344?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280344?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280344?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12484722-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5280344 — Harassment

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. Stephanie Smith represented the landlord. Both tenants were present.
This was a continuation hearing after the landlord did not attend the first due to a lack of communication regarding its contact details at the time.
Further evidence was submitted by the tenants after that first hearing. The landlord claimed to have provided further documents, but these were not available to me. Attempts to email them during the hearing failed, most likely due to the file size. The hearing could proceed as most of those documents have previously been available to the tenant, such as the tenancy agreement. The main item of interest was a police report and again, the tenants had received a copy of that prior – I received a copy after the hearing and could respond to it.
The applicant sought an order for the eviction of a neighbouring tenant who allegedly allowed others at that tenancy to assault one of the tenant applicants here. The applicants also claimed the same tenant was intimidating and threatening other neighbours, or allowing others to do so.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. It is not a question of a party not being “right” or not telling the truth, the sole issue is whether they have on the evidence presented, proven that their claim is more likely than not.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. Background
This tenancy commenced 1 June 2021. It is one of a number of social housing homes provided and managed by the landlord on this street.
One tenant experienced an alleged assault on 10 April 2025. It occurred outside on the street and involved occupants and/or guests at a nearby premises, also under tenancy with this landlord. There is one named tenant at that address. It appears the issues are more between the applicants here and that tenant’s partner and his son or others. If not living there full-time, the partner and others are at a minimum frequently present.
The police attended the alleged assault. One of the tenant applicants here was arrested at the time. No charges were laid and the applicants claim the police have since acknowledged it was a false arrest. The sequence of events at that time are disputed and I am told subject to a complaint to an Independent Police Commissioner 1 by the applicants.
Following the alleged assault, the tenants served a 14-day notice to remedy on the landlord on 28 April 2025. The notice claimed the landlord had failed to terminate the other tenancy, or in the alternative, failed to arrange an urgent transfer for them to another premises away from the local vicinity.
The evidence indicates that prior to 10 April 2025, as well as since, there have been other incidents between the parties.
Trespass orders on each other have been served. The legal position
Section 38 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides for the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. It states: (1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. (2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.
This requirement pertains to landlord actions and has no application where the issue is another tenant or neighbour such as here.
Where it is another tenant, the landlord obligations are detailed in s45(1)(e) RTA. That requires the landlord: 1 An Independent Police Commissioner is the term used for the head of the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) in New Zealand. (1) (e) 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.
A tenant cannot demand that a landlord terminate another tenant’s tenancy due to their behaviour. However, the landlord does have obligations under s45(1)(e) RTA) if grounds exist.
Where a tenant is experiencing issues due to another tenant’s behaviour (such as harassment, or anti-social behaviour) and they raise this with the landlord, the landlord is then required to take reasonable steps to address the issue. This might include issuing warnings or, in serious cases, applying itself to the Tenancy Tribunal for termination of the problematic tenancy. The evidence
Beyond the submissions of both tenants, a written statement from a neighbour and table of events was provided. He was a witness to the events on 10 April 2025 and suffered damage to his vehicle due to the fighting.
A police log of call outs to the immediate neighbourhood since January 2025 was provided by the landlord. Neighbour’s statement
The written statement provided was drafted by another neighbour and signed by the witness. There was also a table of events provided, apparently recorded by the neighbour who assisted in drafting the witness statement.
The evidential value of the statement was diminished somewhat when the tenants claimed the statement was wrong in some of the recounting when it was different to their recall of events as previously submitted in the hearing. Its evidential weighting was further reduced due to the drafting of it by someone else with the signature of the witness. The statement noted that information was based on a meeting between the witness and drafter on 11 April 2025, followed by a further discussion regarding additional concerns discussed on 14 May 2025. Neither were called as witnesses. The drafter is also the author of the table of events that was provided.
The table of event recounts a series of anti-social events since 10 April 2025 that impacted multiple parties. If and how these events were reported to the landlord by any impacted neighbours at the time are uncertain (beyond the steps taken by the applicants as recounted in this order).
The success or otherwise of this application relates to evidence regarding the alleged assault on 10 April 2025, as cited in the tenant application, and the later notice to remedy as served on the landlord on 28 April 2025. If there are other or ongoing issues experienced by tenant neighbours of the other tenancy, as claimed, they should be reported to the landlord for their attention and action as appropriate. They do not form part of this determination. Police log
The log showed prior incidents at this location. The initial Official Information Act redaction has been extended in the section below.

Has the landlord failed to take appropriate steps?

The landlord acknowledged the tenant’s 14-day notice to remedy of 28 April 2025 in a letter of reply dated 12 May 2025.
It requested a meeting on 14 May 2025 and advised: We are sorry to hear that this assault occurred. In response to the assault, and based on the limited information we have, we have taken steps available to us under the RTA to manage this issue with the tenant at [redacted]. If you are able to discuss this incident with me further, I can consider whether there might be a more appropriate response. We are unable to provide information on whether we are considering evicting other tenants due to privacy considerations, however, the more information we have available to us, the more steps we can take under the RTA in response to this complaint. BIT transfers are at the discretion of Kainga Ora and the RTA does not require that Kainga Ora offer alternative accommodation via BIT to tenants. Due to the limited number of homes, we have available, we only process BIT Transfers as per Kainga Ora guidelines. Again, we will need investigate further and if required get more information from you before we can consider a BIT Transfer in this case. In any case, an urgent BIT Transfer is unlikely to happen due to the limited number of vacant homes we have available in your area.
As the letter noted, the more information the landlord has available, the more steps it can take in response to this complaint.
The meeting did not result in any further action and this application was lodged on 5 June 2025.
At this hearing, the landlord acknowledged the tenants’ experience as recounted by them. The issues considered in this hearing and determination relate to any adverse impacts on them from a neighbouring tenancy and any subsequent failure of the landlord to take appropriate steps to address it.
This determination does not consider their own tenancy, nor any possible issues raised at the hearing by the landlord regarding that.
The landlord stated it did not consider it had sufficient evidence of the alleged assault on the tenant on 10 April 2025 to consider grounds existed for termination of that tenancy as sought by the applicants.
The landlord is not automatically required to terminate the other tenancy just because a tenant requests it, such as here. I need to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable steps and acted reasonably to address the issue.
Having considered the submissions and evidence as it relates to this application, I agree with the landlord. Put another way, if this was a landlord application for termination of that other tenancy (as sought by this application), based on the submissions and evidence provided to me at this time, it is not obvious sufficient grounds exist for a termination at this time.
Things might be different in the future if further adverse events, as since logged by other neighbours, are evidentially supported and advised in a timely and appropriate way to the landlord.
In terms of any relocation for the applicants, as requested of the landlord by them in the alternative if the other tenancy was not terminated, I have no stance. I have no statutory authority to order this.
Any future change in the neighbouring tenancy via this Tribunal will require impacted parties to better inform the landlord, with supporting evidence, of any related events as experienced. It is for the landlord to advance any application for termination as proven and necessary. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
Given the nature of the application and what appears to be ongoing neighbourhood issues, I consider it appropriate to exercise my discretion and order the applicant and other neighbour details be suppressed.
The fact this application is dismissed does not mean I am dismissive of what appears to be ongoing challenges for the street residents and their shared landlord. They should work closely with the landlord as necessary.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5280344 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5280344 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to take appropriate steps?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord failed to take appropriate steps?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions