What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331679 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name, the address of the

How much money was awarded in case 5331679?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331679?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12657877-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331679 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name, the address of the

How much money was awarded in case 5331679?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331679?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12657877-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5331679 — Harassment

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name, the address of the tenancy premises and the witnesses’ names.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities, immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was held by video. Both parties joined via the video link. The tenant had her camera off and sound muted. I explained to the tenant that she needed to un-mute herself so that she could identify herself and I could be satisfied that she was the person joining the hearing via the video link, and whether she had anyone else in the room with her. 1 The tenant’s link remained muted. I explained how to turn the microphone back on. The landlord’s representative also explained the process when there was no change to the tenant’s settings.
I explained I would ring the tenant and she could attend by telephone. However the three calls I made all went to voice mail. I confirmed with the Landlord’s 1 It was not a concern to me that the tenant did not have her camera on. representative that I was ringing the most current number it had recorded for the tenant.
I further explained to the tenant, who was still linked into the video call that I could not continue with her link as I could not see who was attending and could not hear her. Accordingly I terminated the tenant’s link. After a short break I called the tenant again on her cell phone number, however again the call went to voice mail. As I considered the tenant had been given reasonable opportunity to attend the hearing I continued the hearing in her absence. The claims
The landlord claims termination on the following grounds: a) the tenant has engaged in 3 separate occasions of anti-social behaviour within a 90-day period and has been given a notice relating to each occasion under s section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), b) the tenant has breached her obligation under section 40(2)(c) by causing or permitting interference with the reasonable, peace, or privacy of the landlord’s other tenants.
The tenant has filed a cross application on the basis that she believes the landlord is being unreasonable in taking her to the tribunal and seeking termination. I have taken the tenant’s application to be a challenge to the anti- social notices given by the landlord (see section 55A(6)) and a response to the landlord’s section 40(2)(c) application.

Should the tenancy be terminated for three breaches of antisocial behaviour?

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is yelling and screaming, abusive behaviour and language swearing, banging and smashing noises (like things are being broken) and fights. The landlord states that there is a history of multiple complaints raised by neighbours around the behaviour of the tenant.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating a periodic tenancy 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 2 ; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice 3 — 2 Section 55A(2)(a) 3 Section 55A (2)(b) 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 4 .
Antisocial behaviour is defined in s 55A(7) as being harassment or “any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor”
If the above circumstances are established then the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy.
I am satisfied that three notices of anti-social behaviour occurring on three separate occasions within a 90-day period have been given to the tenant as set out below: a) Notice 1: on Wednesday 20 May 2025 at 2.30pm “verbal aggression and intimidation” b) Notice 2: on Wednesday 4 June 2025 at approximately 10am “loud and aggressive, yelling and swearing at your surrounding neighbours. Calling out “Fucking bullies” c) Notice 3: on Wednesday 8 August 2025 from approximately 10am to 8pm “yelling obscenities” and “breaking property in your home”
Under section 55A(6) if a tenant makes an application to the Tribunal challenging a notice given under section 55A(2)(b) it is for the landlord to prove that anti- social behaviour was engaged in as described in subsection (2)(a) and that the notice met the requirements of subsection (2)(b).
I have considered the contents of each notice against the requirements set out in s55A(2)(b).
In doing so I find the date of the anti-social behaviour described in notice 3 is incorrectly recorded. I say this as the landlord has presented an email from the Police relating to this notice which confirms there was an occurrence on 6 August 2025. I am satisfied that the occurrence referred to in the Police email is the 4 Section 55A(2)(c) same occurrence set out in Notice 3. However the landlord’s notice states it occurred on “Wednesday 8 August 2025” and the Police email confirms it occurred on “06/08/2025”.
The tenant, in her application, challenged the date of the occurrence in Notice 3 and the supporting evidence. She said “Wednesday was the 8 th not the 6 th ”. I have taken that to mean that she believes the date in the notice is right but that the date in the email from the Police is incorrect. Regardless she has pointed out the inconsistency in the dates.
I find that Wednesday’s date was 6 August. That is, the Police’s record in the email is correct and the landlord’s notice is incorrect. In reviewing the dates in the other two notices I found the landlord in the first notice has referred to Wednesday 20 May, when it should have correctly referred to Tuesday 20 May.
Section 55A provides strict processes and requirements that landlords need to follow when giving notices for anti-social behaviour that may lead to termination. Notice 3 does not comply with the requirements of s 55A (2)(ii) and, as I indicated to the landlord at the hearing, I dismiss its application for this reason.
I note that the tenant has challenged whether her behaviour was anti-social for all three notices. However having dismissed the landlord’s application as the notice requirements were not met I find it is moot to consider these challenges. Said more simply as the notice requirements do not comply there is no point in considering whether the behaviour met the standard of being anti-social under section s 55A. Has the tenant breached her obligation not to cause interference with the peace, comfort and privacy of the landlord’s other tenants under section 40(2)(c)? If so, should the tenancy be terminated under section 56?
Under section 40(2)(c) a tenant has an obligation not to cause any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or any other person living in the neighbourhood.
The landlord claims the quiet enjoyment 5 of its other tenants has been interfered with by the tenant.
The tenancy premises is a duplex unit joined to another unit by a shared wall. The premises is located at the end of a cul-de-sac. The landlord has provided evidence from two neighbours who live in close proximity to the tenant. Both neighbours provided written statements 6 regarding the tenant’s behaviour on 4 5 Interfering with a tenant’s peace, comfort and privacy amounts to a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. June 2025 and gave verbal evidence during the hearing on the tenant’s behaviour: a)Witness A’s written and verbal evidence which includes: i. “on 4 June 2025 at around 10am she heard the tenant yelling from the front yard, slamming car doors..... she was yelling very loudly and swearing, I could clearly hear and see her yell out in direction of my house and other neighbours “Fuck you” “Fuck this” and “You’re all fucking bullies. .... This continued for I think about 20 minutes or more [the tenant] then went back into her house and began banging and crashing in her home.” ii. Witness A’s evidence was that she was relieved that her daughter, who was 5 years old at the time, was not “exposed to this, unlike previous episodes.” iii. since that day the tenant’s behaviours have “not really changed” and she has continued to yell and abuse neighbours. More recently witness A said the tenant had been a “bit quieter” but “still yells, screams and smashes things.” iv. about two months ago her yelling, abusive behaviour and banging things went on all day, and the Police were called. She said she rang the landlord and complained about the tenant’s behaviour relating to that day 7 . Witness A’s evidence was that since the tenant had been living next door to her the police have arrived and taken her away about 4-5 times after she had been yelling, banging and smashing things all day. v. she finds the tenant’s behaviour “scary” and it makes her “very anxious”. She has been woken quite often at night by the tenant banging and crashing, and sometimes wonders what is going to happen next. b)Witness B’s written and verbal evidence which includes: i.on 4 June 2025 at around 10am she was in her lounge, which is on the opposite side of her house to the tenant’s unit, and she could hear the tenant “yelling and screaming at the car 8 and sometimes towards my house, out to the street and her other neighbour on the other side. I heard her say things like “You’re all fucking bullies” then she would get in her car and yell loudly “fuck this” and “fuck you”. Witness B said it went on for a good thirty minutes and that she could hear her over her TV and washing machine. 6 The tenant has received copies of the written statements. The names of the witnesses are redacted in this decision. 7 From Witness A’s evidence I am satisfied the incident she refers to here occurred on 6 August 2025. 8 The evidence from the tenant and the witnesses is that the tenant was having difficulty starting her car as the battery was flat” ii.Witness B’s evidence is that she has “lost count of the number of times [the tenant] has gone mad”, and that her yelling and screaming occurs during the day and night. Witness B said the tenant can “start quite early and go quite late”. She has heard her at 2.30 am several times. Witness B says the tenant’s behaviour is frustrating and that she “lives on the edge” as she never knows when the swearing and yelling will happen next. iii.she says the last big episode was on 25 September when the tenant’s ex-boyfriend was at the property. She said the tenant came outside at about 9.15am and yelled “You owe me $300 you fucking liar liar liar”. On and off during the day she said the tenant was banging cupboards or doors which she could hear over her TV and washing machine which were both going at the same time. Witness B said that more recently she was short sharp burst of swearing and cursing outside because she knows people are complaining about her. iv.She said [the tenant’s] behaviour is “frustrating” as she feels she is “living on the edge” because she doesn’t know when the next time that she will be yelling and swearing will be. c)The statement from the Police confirming that on 6 August 2025 at 2020 hours there was an occurrence at the tenancy premises where the tenant smashed a glass panel on the front door and multiple items of furniture within the house. She confirmed the tenant was arrested for breaching bail conditions, one of which was that she was not to threaten or use violence to any person or property.
The tenant responded in writing to the statements of the neighbours relating to the occurrence on 4 June as follows: a) the tenant’s view is that it is “normal for someone to yell oh fuck, fucken car battery when they have a flat battery”. She said she stepped out of her car into “dog shit” which she says is caused as her neighbour lets her dog out every morning, and the dog “shits on her lawn”. b) her neighbours saying that she is causing them fear “is outlandish” because she has never seen any of her neighbours and has not had any altercation with any of her neighbours. She believes the allegations made by Witness A and B in their written statements are false, and that she “simply said your fucking bullies to keep putting/letting your dogs shit on/all over my lawn”. She does not see that she was aggressive as she was stating facts. Overall the tenant sees this as a “very minor” incident.
I have also considered the tenant’s written responses/challenges to the third 55A notice, relating to 6 August, as it relates to whether she has interfered with the quiet enjoyment of the neighbouring tenants: a) The tenant says she “was upset and crying due to grieving, family loss & separation anxiety. I was not able to see my youngest daughter for her 5 th B-Day on the 4 th of August or my 6yr old daughter turn 7 on the 10 th . I admit I was not in control of my emotion’s hysterically screaming in grief!” She confirmed that she is working with a professional to improve her ability to cope with separation and loss of bond with her children. b) The tenant confirmed she was arrested in the evening for breaking her bail conditions. She says she did not see or have any neighbours visit and that what they have said about her breaking property at her home is not true, except for one broken window (since repaired) as she had locked herself out of the house.
The tenant says one neighbour constantly complains to the landlord “over little matters” and emphasises that she has had no altercations with any of her neighbours; that she has “never ever seen them/or ever talked to them”. She says “she has not caused any nuisance alarm or distress when I am grieving loss” 9 . The tenant describes herself as “a strong independent woman that others are often intimidated by.”
After considering all of the evidence and submissions presented, including the tenant’s response, I find that the tenant has breached the neighbours’ peace, comfort and privacy in their use of the premises. While the tenant’s evidence is that she does not see, talk to or have altercations with the neighbours, her ongoing behaviour clearly has a significant impact on her neighbours.
The tenant’s breach of section 40(2)(c) is also a breach of clause 9 of the tenancy agreement which requires the tenant to “respect the peace comfort, and privacy of your neighbours”.
In making my finding I have considered the tenant’s response that her behaviours are caused by other matters that she is dealing with including grief, separation anxiety and loss. However that does not excuse her yelling and screaming, abusive language, or banging and crashing which has repeatedly caused distress and alarm to her neighbours.
Section 56(1), RTA allows the Tribunal to terminate a tenancy for breach of any provisions of the tenancy agreement or of the RTA where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. 9 The tenant’s response to notice 1 under the landlord’s application under s55A is that she was upset and grieving the loss of a “dear friend” who had ended her own life the day before the incident occurred. The notice 1 incident related to the landlord’s housing manager and not a neighbour therefore I have not referred to this incident in considering whether the tenant has interfered with her neighbour’s right to quiet enjoyment.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable of remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
The tenant’s breaches have been ongoing and the landlord has warned the tenant of the seriousness of the breaches through the notices issued under s55A. The behaviour has continued despite the warnings.
The question then becomes whether the breach is of such a nature that it would be inequitable not to terminate the tenancy.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe), the Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant in considering the ‘inequitable’ consideration under s 56. I now consider those factors: a) The history of the tenancy. The landlord has received ongoing complaints from its neighbouring tenants. b) Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. The tenant has continued to interfere with the neighbour’s peace, comfort and privacy after being warned. c) Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. The tenant from her written comments seems unaware that even if she is not engaging with her neighbours her actions are having an adverse effect. d) Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. The tenant continues to yell, scream, swear and make loud banging and crashing noises during the day and night. She has been arrested in relation to her actions but continues with the same behaviours. I find the behaviour is deliberate. e) The conduct of the landlord. The landlord has acted to bring to the attention of the tenant that her behaviours are interfering with their other neighbouring tenants. f)The gravity of the breach. The neighbouring tenants are fearful of what the tenant will do next. The behaviour of the tenant is affecting her neighbour’s sleep and is disruptive. The tenant’s breach is affecting how the neighbours live. g) Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach. I find termination is a proportionate response to the tenant’s breach.
For the reasons set out above, I conclude that it would not be inequitable to terminate the tenancy under s 56. Other matters
Suppression: Neither party has requested suppression of their names or any other details relating to the tenancy. The Tribunal of its own violation is able to suppress a party’s name and other details having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest.
The tenant’s challenge of the 55A 3 rd notice was successful, therefore her application was partly successful. In consideration of this and that this decision contains some personal information I suppress the tenant’s name and the address of the tenancy. I have also suppressed the names of the witnesses in the decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331679 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331679 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for three breaches of antisocial behaviour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated for three breaches of antisocial behaviour?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions