What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5311826 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5311826?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5311826?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Property damage, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5311826?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12287322-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5311826 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5311826?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5311826?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Property damage, Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5311826?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12287322-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16C Manuka Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5311826 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord provided evidence that four notices of anti-social behaviour were issued as follows: a. Notice 1. Issued 23 July 2025. “On the 16th July 2025 one of the tenants at the premises caused damage to the kitchen window by breaking a pane of glass. Loud fighting and swearing was coming from the premises causing stress to the surrounding tenancies/neighbours. The broken glass was not removed causing a safety hazard.” b. Notice 2. Issued 23 July 2025. “On the 21st July 2025 Police attended to a disturbance at the premises. Loud fighting and swearing was coming from the premises causing stress to the surrounding tenancies/neighbours.” c. Notice 3. Issued 23 July 2025. “On the 22nd July 2025 one of the tenants at the premises caused damage to a wall in the bedroom by putting a hole in the wall.” d. Notice 4. Issued 30 July 2025. “On the 27th July 2025 one of the tenants at the premises caused damage to a window and broke it.” This was supported by a video of one of the tenants breaking the window with a spanner.
The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. Notice 1. He accepted that there was loud fighting and swearing but denied that the window was broken during the argument. b. Notice 2. He accepted that the police came to the property but denied that it was because of the arguing. c. Notice 3. The hole in the wall was caused by the tenant moving furniture and not from any anti-social behaviour. d. Notice 4. This notice was not available at the hearing and so the tenant made no comment regarding it.
Subject to certain considerations, under section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: 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.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor. Discussion and decision
On the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has not persuaded it on the balance of probabilities that the tenancy should be terminated under section 55A RTA for the following reasons: a. None of the landlord’s notices give any indication of the time of the alleged incidents and so do not comply with section 55A(2)(b)(ii) RTA. b. The first three notices were issued on the same day 23 July 2025. The purpose of each notice complying with the explicit requirements in section 55A(2)(b) RTA is to give the tenant the opportunity to apply to the Tribunal for orders challenging the notice, or to otherwise correct or desist from the alleged anti-social behaviour. It would be unfair under section 55A(3)(a) RTA to terminate the tenancy because, having received three notices on the same day, the tenant has not had these opportunities. c. The tenant accepts that anti-social behaviour occurred in relation to notice
He did not accept that anti-social behaviour occurred in relation to notices 2 and 3. d. Neighbours often and routinely call the police for many reasons and the police having been called is not on its own evidence that anti-social behaviour has occurred. The landlord has not supplied any supporting evidence to support the allegation of anti-social behaviour described in notice 2. e. The landlord has not supplied any supporting evidence to support the allegation of anti-social behaviour described in notice 3. A hole in a wall is not on its own evidence of anti-social behaviour and the landlord did not submit any such evidence to the Tribunal. f. The issuing of Notice 4 cannot remedy the fact that the first three notices were issued on one day and that they failed to reference any specific time other than a single day. The tenant has denied the anti-social behaviour alleged in two of the notices and the landlord has failed to supply any supporting evidence that the behaviour took place. g. While section 85 RTA provides that the Tribunal shall not be bound to give effect to legal forms or technicalities, the very precise requirements of section 55A RTA indicates that Parliament intended strict compliance. Because of the stigma on a tenant whose tenancy is terminated for anti- social behaviour, it is important that all the specific requirements of the section are met before the Tribunal determines that a notice is valid. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to ignore the legal requirements of notices under section 55A RTA. h. Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake such as termination, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be decided. There is a stigma on a tenant associated with eviction for anti-social behaviour and the Tribunal needs to be satisfied that there is a proper factual basis supported by robust evidence before terminating a tenancy where such allegations are made. i. The landlord’s application was under section 55A RTA. There was no application under section 55(1)(b) RTA which is appropriate where a tenant has caused or threatened to cause substantial damage to the premises. Nor was there an application under section 56 RTA for the tenant’s failure to remedy a breach such as the required repairs. At the hearing, the landlord claimed that the tenant’s rent was now in arrears, but no application had been made for termination under section 55(1) or section 56 RTA. The landlord’s application can only be considered under section 55A RTA and its notices have failed to meet the prescriptive requirements of that section and the evidentiary burden.
The landlord at the hearing objected to the absence of one of the tenants. She had notified the Tribunal that she was unable to attend. If the landlord intended to use her as a witness, then the onus is on the landlord to have ensured her attendance. It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. However, given the deficiencies in the form and issuing of the notices, it is unlikely that this tenant’s presence would have altered the outcome of the landlord’s application.
Section 102(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal must award a refund of the filing fee if an applicant has been wholly successful and may award reimbursement if the applicant has been partly successful. Here the landlord’s application has been unsuccessful and it is not therefore appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The landlord provided evidence that four notices of anti-social behaviour were issued as follows: a. Notice 1. Issued 23 July 2025. “On the 16th July 2025 one of the tenants at the premises caused damage to the kitchen window by breaking a pane of glass. Loud fighting and swearing was coming from the premises causing stress to the surrounding tenancies/neighbours. The broken glass was not removed causing a safety hazard.” b. Notice 2. Issued 23 July 2025. “On the 21st July 2025 Police attended to a disturbance at the premises. Loud fighting and swearing was coming from the premises causing stress to the surrounding tenancies/neighbours.” c. Notice 3. Issued 23 July 2025. “On the 22nd July 2025 one of the tenants at the premises caused damage to a wall in the bedroom by putting a hole in the wall.” d. Notice 4. Issued 30 July 2025. “On the 27th July 2025 one of the tenants at the premises caused damage to a window and broke it.” This was supported by a video of one of the tenants breaking the window with a spanner.
The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. Notice 1. He accepted that there was loud fighting and swearing but denied that the window was broken during the argument. b. Notice 2. He accepted that the police came to the property but denied that it was because of the arguing. c. Notice 3. The hole in the wall was caused by the tenant moving furniture and not from any anti-social behaviour. d. Notice 4. This notice was not available at the hearing and so the tenant made no comment regarding it.
Subject to certain considerations, under section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: 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.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor. Discussion and decision
On the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has not persuaded it on the balance of probabilities that the tenancy should be terminated under section 55A RTA for the following reasons: a. None of the landlord’s notices give any indication of the time of the alleged incidents and so do not comply with section 55A(2)(b)(ii) RTA. b. The first three notices were issued on the same day 23 July 2025. The purpose of each notice complying with the explicit requirements in section 55A(2)(b) RTA is to give the tenant the opportunity to apply to the Tribunal for orders challenging the notice, or to otherwise correct or desist from the alleged anti-social behaviour. It would be unfair under section 55A(3)(a) RTA to terminate the tenancy because, having received three notices on the same day, the tenant has not had these opportunities. c. The tenant accepts that anti-social behaviour occurred in relation to notice
He did not accept that anti-social behaviour occurred in relation to notices 2 and 3. d. Neighbours often and routinely call the police for many reasons and the police having been called is not on its own evidence that anti-social behaviour has occurred. The landlord has not supplied any supporting evidence to support the allegation of anti-social behaviour described in notice 2. e. The landlord has not supplied any supporting evidence to support the allegation of anti-social behaviour described in notice 3. A hole in a wall is not on its own evidence of anti-social behaviour and the landlord did not submit any such evidence to the Tribunal. f. The issuing of Notice 4 cannot remedy the fact that the first three notices were issued on one day and that they failed to reference any specific time other than a single day. The tenant has denied the anti-social behaviour alleged in two of the notices and the landlord has failed to supply any supporting evidence that the behaviour took place. g. While section 85 RTA provides that the Tribunal shall not be bound to give effect to legal forms or technicalities, the very precise requirements of section 55A RTA indicates that Parliament intended strict compliance. Because of the stigma on a tenant whose tenancy is terminated for anti- social behaviour, it is important that all the specific requirements of the section are met before the Tribunal determines that a notice is valid. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to ignore the legal requirements of notices under section 55A RTA. h. Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake such as termination, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be decided. There is a stigma on a tenant associated with eviction for anti-social behaviour and the Tribunal needs to be satisfied that there is a proper factual basis supported by robust evidence before terminating a tenancy where such allegations are made. i. The landlord’s application was under section 55A RTA. There was no application under section 55(1)(b) RTA which is appropriate where a tenant has caused or threatened to cause substantial damage to the premises. Nor was there an application under section 56 RTA for the tenant’s failure to remedy a breach such as the required repairs. At the hearing, the landlord claimed that the tenant’s rent was now in arrears, but no application had been made for termination under section 55(1) or section 56 RTA. The landlord’s application can only be considered under section 55A RTA and its notices have failed to meet the prescriptive requirements of that section and the evidentiary burden.
The landlord at the hearing objected to the absence of one of the tenants. She had notified the Tribunal that she was unable to attend. If the landlord intended to use her as a witness, then the onus is on the landlord to have ensured her attendance. It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. However, given the deficiencies in the form and issuing of the notices, it is unlikely that this tenant’s presence would have altered the outcome of the landlord’s application.
Section 102(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal must award a refund of the filing fee if an applicant has been wholly successful and may award reimbursement if the applicant has been partly successful. Here the landlord’s application has been unsuccessful and it is not therefore appropriate to award reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5311826 — 14-day notice at 16C Manuka Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5311826 — 14-day notice at 16C Manuka Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410

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