What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313500 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5313500?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313500?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313500?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12599630-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313500 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5313500?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313500?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313500?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12599630-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 6, 7 Jack Browne Place, Otahuhu, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5313500 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed. Attendance:
The applicant attended the hearing held in Manukau. The respondent did not attend.

What is the applicant seeking?

The applicant seeks termination of the tenancy on two grounds. The first ground concerns three alleged instances of antisocial behaviour under Section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The second ground relates to an alleged breach under Section 56 of the Act, being that the tenant prevented the landlord from conducting inspections to which they are entitled. The applicant also seeks an award of compensation for damages arising from a previous tenancy between the same landlord and tenant.

For the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy on this ground, the tenant or a guest of the tenant must have engaged in antisocial behaviour on three separate occasions within a 90-day period. In each instance, the Act requires the landlord to issue a written notice to the tenant that: a) Clearly describes the specific antisocial behaviour; b) Advises the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; c) States the number of notices previously given to the tenant under this provision for the same tenancy and 90-day period; and d) Informs the tenant of their right to apply to the Tribunal to challenge the notice.
In this case, the landlord alleges multiple instances of antisocial behaviour, including the use of profanities and intimidating conduct toward staff, as well as towards another tenant who had challenged the respondent about noise and disruptive behaviour within the building.
However, two of the notices appear to have been issued on the same day and relate to the same incident. Furthermore, none of the notices provided contain sufficient particulars regarding the alleged antisocial behaviour, including the specific details of the conduct, the time it occurred, or information advising the tenant of their right to challenge the notice.
When a landlord seeks termination, they are effectively asking the Tribunal to remove a person from their home. While there are circumstances in which such an order may be justified, it is a serious and consequential remedy, and the statutory requirements must be strictly satisfied.
Given the deficiencies in the notices provided, I am not satisfied that the evidentiary or procedural requirements of Section 55A have been met. Accordingly, the application for termination on this ground is dismissed. Can I terminate the tenancy under section 56 for a failure on the part of the respondent to allow an inspection?
The second ground on which the applicant seeks termination is under Section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, relating to an alleged breach of the tenancy agreement. The alleged breach concerns the tenant’s failure to allow the landlord to conduct inspections of the property.
The applicant states that they have made repeated attempts to carry out inspections, motivated both by concerns regarding the condition of the property and by their statutory right and obligation to conduct routine inspections. They report that these attempts have been ongoing since at least February, and may have occurred on a weekly basis.
In February, the applicant issued a breach notice under Section 56, requiring the respondent to comply within 14 days and allow an inspection. At the hearing, the applicant advised that following the issue of this notice, the tenant agreed to an inspection. However, when the applicant attended to conduct that inspection, the tenant was not present. The applicant proceeded with the inspection either on that occasion or within a few days thereafter, in the tenant’s absence, and believes that the tenant was in the Coromandel at the time.
In these circumstances, although there may be some technical questions as to whether the 14-day notice strictly complied with the statutory requirements of Section 56, I am satisfied that the respondent complied with that notice by permitting the inspection to take place.
The applicant also alleges that subsequent to this incident, there have been further occasions where the respondent has prevented access for inspections. However, no additional breach notices have been produced for the Tribunal’s consideration to assess whether they were properly issued or complied with.
On the evidence before me today, I am satisfied that the breach notice relied upon was complied with. Accordingly, the application for termination under Section 56 is dismissed.

Can I order compensation in relation to another tenancy?

The final order sought relates to compensation for a previous tenancy. However, in this application, the Tribunal may only consider matters arising from the tenancy that is the subject of these proceedings. Accordingly, the claim for compensation relating to a previous tenancy is dismissed. H Ben Fayed 22 October 2025

Order

The application is dismissed. Attendance:
The applicant attended the hearing held in Manukau. The respondent did not attend.

What is the applicant seeking?

The applicant seeks termination of the tenancy on two grounds. The first ground concerns three alleged instances of antisocial behaviour under Section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The second ground relates to an alleged breach under Section 56 of the Act, being that the tenant prevented the landlord from conducting inspections to which they are entitled. The applicant also seeks an award of compensation for damages arising from a previous tenancy between the same landlord and tenant.

For the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy on this ground, the tenant or a guest of the tenant must have engaged in antisocial behaviour on three separate occasions within a 90-day period. In each instance, the Act requires the landlord to issue a written notice to the tenant that: a) Clearly describes the specific antisocial behaviour; b) Advises the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; c) States the number of notices previously given to the tenant under this provision for the same tenancy and 90-day period; and d) Informs the tenant of their right to apply to the Tribunal to challenge the notice.
In this case, the landlord alleges multiple instances of antisocial behaviour, including the use of profanities and intimidating conduct toward staff, as well as towards another tenant who had challenged the respondent about noise and disruptive behaviour within the building.
However, two of the notices appear to have been issued on the same day and relate to the same incident. Furthermore, none of the notices provided contain sufficient particulars regarding the alleged antisocial behaviour, including the specific details of the conduct, the time it occurred, or information advising the tenant of their right to challenge the notice.
When a landlord seeks termination, they are effectively asking the Tribunal to remove a person from their home. While there are circumstances in which such an order may be justified, it is a serious and consequential remedy, and the statutory requirements must be strictly satisfied.
Given the deficiencies in the notices provided, I am not satisfied that the evidentiary or procedural requirements of Section 55A have been met. Accordingly, the application for termination on this ground is dismissed. Can I terminate the tenancy under section 56 for a failure on the part of the respondent to allow an inspection?
The second ground on which the applicant seeks termination is under Section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, relating to an alleged breach of the tenancy agreement. The alleged breach concerns the tenant’s failure to allow the landlord to conduct inspections of the property.
The applicant states that they have made repeated attempts to carry out inspections, motivated both by concerns regarding the condition of the property and by their statutory right and obligation to conduct routine inspections. They report that these attempts have been ongoing since at least February, and may have occurred on a weekly basis.
In February, the applicant issued a breach notice under Section 56, requiring the respondent to comply within 14 days and allow an inspection. At the hearing, the applicant advised that following the issue of this notice, the tenant agreed to an inspection. However, when the applicant attended to conduct that inspection, the tenant was not present. The applicant proceeded with the inspection either on that occasion or within a few days thereafter, in the tenant’s absence, and believes that the tenant was in the Coromandel at the time.
In these circumstances, although there may be some technical questions as to whether the 14-day notice strictly complied with the statutory requirements of Section 56, I am satisfied that the respondent complied with that notice by permitting the inspection to take place.
The applicant also alleges that subsequent to this incident, there have been further occasions where the respondent has prevented access for inspections. However, no additional breach notices have been produced for the Tribunal’s consideration to assess whether they were properly issued or complied with.
On the evidence before me today, I am satisfied that the breach notice relied upon was complied with. Accordingly, the application for termination under Section 56 is dismissed.

Can I order compensation in relation to another tenancy?

The final order sought relates to compensation for a previous tenancy. However, in this application, the Tribunal may only consider matters arising from the tenancy that is the subject of these proceedings. Accordingly, the claim for compensation relating to a previous tenancy is dismissed. H Ben Fayed 22 October 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313500 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 7 Jack Browne Place, Otahuhu, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313500 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 6, 7 Jack Browne Place, Otahuhu, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

What is the applicant seeking?

Can I order compensation in relation to another tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

What is the applicant seeking?

Can I order compensation in relation to another tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

Claims & awards

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

What is the applicant seeking?

Can I terminate this tenancy for anti-social behaviour?

Can I order compensation in relation to another tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

What is the applicant seeking?

Can I terminate this tenancy for anti-social behaviour?

Can I order compensation in relation to another tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions