What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5346142 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5346142?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5346142?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5346142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12524734-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5346142 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5346142?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5346142?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5346142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12524734-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5346142 — 14-day notice

Order

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

Reasons

On 23 July 2025, the parties entered in a fixed term tenancy ending 20 January 2026. On 17 September 2025, the landlord filed a claim seeking termination of the tenancy under section 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act). The landlord claims that contrary to section 40(2) of the Act, the tenant has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of their neighbour.
The landlord initially included a claim for termination for anti-social behaviour under section 55A of the Act, although the application was subsequently amended removing the claim as the provision does not apply to fixed term tenancies.
The landlord’s application relies on the evidence of the tenant’s immediate neighbour, who is the primary complainant. There is a concrete driveway running along the side of the complainant’s property to another one behind. This driveway is the only thing that separates the complainants and the tenant’s properties. Some windows in the tenant’s property open onto this driveway. Apart from a low garden, the tenant’s property sits directly on the edge of the complainant’s driveway. There is a fenced outdoor area at the rear of both properties, roughly adjacent to each other. The complainant parks vehicles at the front of their property and in a lay-by next to the house, which runs alongside the shared driveway. The two properties can be described as being in close proximity to one another.
[ Property managers ] appeared for the landlord. The tenants both appeared. The neighbour appeared. All appeared by telephone. The landlord has filed written submissions. The neighbour filed written submissions and gave oral evidence.
The neighbour stated they were an owner / occupier and had been residing at their property for about two years with their wife and three young children. The neighbour recounted five incidents between 27 August 2025 and 21 September 2025 where they claim the male tenant has interfered with their reasonable peace comfort and privacy. 27 August 2025
The first incident is alleged to have occurred on 27 August 2025. The neighbour did not witness the incident firsthand. The neighbour has a CCTV camera covering the shared driveway. The camera shows the side of the tenant’s property closest to the driveway including windows, and also records sound. Footage was produced showing one of the windows opening. Two cats on the driveway appear drawn to the window. A sharp, repeating noise can be heard. The cats appear startled and run away. One of the cats runs and hides under a nearby car. The noise continues, and the sound of objects striking the vehicle can also be heard. A male voice is heard saying “hahaha yeah mother fucker”. The person speaking cannot be seen, and the source of the sound is not visible.
The neighbour states that the tenant lured the cats toward the open window before firing at them with a BB gun. One cat ran off, while the other took refuge under the neighbour’s vehicle which is parked in the driveway at the front of their house. The neighbour states the BB pellets can be heard striking the vehicle. Neither cat belongs to the neighbour, though both appear to be wearing cat collars. The neighbour states they reported the matter to the police and provided a copy of the footage. The neighbour states the tenant has shown a complete disregard for others and expressed concern for their children, who sometimes play on the driveway.
The male tenant agreed that he had fired at the cats using a toy pistol that discharged small, soft, dissolving projectiles. He stated that police had visited, inspected the pistol, and did not classify it as a firearm.
The female tenant stated that she was unaware their property was being monitored by the neighbour and that the camera also recorded sound, which she felt was a gross invasion of their privacy. She stated that both tenants had been grieving the loss of a close family member and felt that they had been treated like second-class citizens. 30 August 2025
The neighbour states that at around 12:15pm on 30 August 2025, they were in their backyard with their wife and one of their children. The fences surrounding the tenants’ and neighbour’s respective backyards appear to be of the standard height of 1.8 metres. The tenant’s property has a deck at the rear, from which they can look over into the neighbour’s yard.
The neighbour stated that they were erecting a trellis extension to obscure the tenants’ view of their backyard when the male tenant emerged onto the deck and started to shout at them, “Stop fucking slamming your car door at 11pm at night.” The neighbour stated they were shocked and calmly denied the allegation, but the tenant would not listen. The tenant then stated that they had had a disrupted sleep and were in a “shit mood.” The neighbour described the male tenant as hostile and expressed concern that the situation could escalate to violence. The neighbour stated that they had made a 105 online complaint to police, and that their children were now reluctant to play in the backyard.
The male tenant accepted that out of frustration he had challenged the neighbour. He stated that he had complained to the landlord about the constant slamming of car doors on the neighbour’s driveway late at night. He stated that the past month had been particularly difficult, as his grandfather had recently passed away. This had not only been distressing to themselves but had also caused conflict within his wider family. The female tenant stated that she suffered from a serious medical condition and that the constant slamming of doors was extremely disruptive, interfering with her sleep.
The landlord stated that they had visited the tenant’s property to discuss the matter. On 4 September 2025, the female tenant sent the landlord an email describing an incident in which she “popped her head out the window” to ask the neighbour to stop slamming doors, but that the neighbour was dismissive. She described the neighbour as having “a bit of an attitude.” 02 September 2025
The neighbour stated that upon arriving home with their family, the male tenant appeared at the window next to the driveway and began shouting aggressively, accusing them of slamming doors. The neighbour stated that they attempted to calm the tenant, but without success, after which the male tenant abruptly closed the window and walked away.
The male tenant accepted that the incident had occurred, stating the stress of his grandfather’s passing was exacerbated by interrupted sleep caused by the slamming of car doors late at night, and that he had “snapped.” He added, however, that he had not realised the neighbour’s children were also present. 05 September 2025
The neighbour states that while his wife was preparing to take two of their children to school, they suddenly heard the male tenant, from inside his property, shouting “fucking fucker” multiple times. The neighbour stated that although his wife did not actually see the male tenant, she believed one of the children looked up toward the window, suggesting that they had seen the male tenant. The neighbour states that his wife took the children to school but was too frightened to return home.
The tenant could not recall the incident but accepted that he had had several heated telephone conversations inside his property with family members, which could have been overheard from outside. He maintained he was unaware of the neighbour’s presence and that whatever had been heard was not directed at the neighbour. 21 September 2025
The neighbour stated that they had been in their backyard when they suddenly heard the male tenant yelling and screaming: “If they are going to start on me, I am going to stab the [c word] in the fucking head, fuck ’em.” The neighbour could not see the male tenant at the time.
The male tenant stated that he had been on the phone and had stepped outside to vent his anger. He stated that he was unaware of the neighbour’s presence and that the comments had not been directed at them.
This incident is alleged to have occurred after the issue of the 14-day breach notice on 16 September 2025.
The neighbour stated that they had made several complaints to police, who they believed were continuing their investigations, and that the male tenant had been served with a harassment notice.
The neighbour also stated that other residents had described incidents in which the male tenant had threatened their visitors, told neighbours that if he caught burglars he would “chase them with a hammer,” had been witnessed chasing a group of unknown males with a hammer, and had placed sandbags to block cars parking on the road outside.
The neighbour raised several concerns, including animal welfare, property damage, community safety, ongoing threatening behaviour and intimidation, and the impact of the male tenant’s behaviour on his family. The neighbour further stated that the tenant’s behaviour suggested possible substance abuse.
The landlord produced a 14-day notice issued on 16 September 2025, which included a detailed explanation of the incidents and required the tenant to immediately cease any “anti-social behaviour, cooperate with the neighbours, and avoid any further complaints or police involvement.”
The landlord states that the tenant had failed to comply with the notice, and that regardless, the interferences were so serious that further breach notices were not required. In the circumstances, the landlord argued it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
The tenant stated that they had become uncomfortable after discovering that they were being observed by their neighbour. They stated that they had been grieving and noted that people deal with this process in their own ways. The tenant read out the contents of a police warning letter but stated that they had had previous dealings with the constable who issued it and expressed concerns over the officer’s objectivity. Law
Under section 56(1) of the Act, 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.
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.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant to remedy the breach, although the Tribunal may consider whether a warning should have been given when determining whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
There are two types of obligation on a tenant: positive covenants and negative covenants. Positive covenants are things the tenant is required to do, such as paying rent. Negative covenants are things that a tenant must not do, such as breaching the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of neighbours.
Breach of a positive covenant can be remedied by requiring the tenant to do the thing they were supposed to do, such as paying the unpaid rent.
The situation is not as straightforward with breach of a negative covenant, as it may not be possible to undo the thing the tenant did which they should not have done.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
A statutory example of a negative covenant is section 40(2)(c) of the Act, which states: • The tenant shall not cause or permit 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 • With the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood.
The Oxford Dictionary defines peace as freedom from disturbance, comfort as a state of ease and absence of hardship, and privacy as being free from intrusion or observation.
The first limb of section 40(2)(c) relates to the rights of the landlord’s other tenants arising from their right of occupation and protects those who are in a landlord–tenant relationship with the same landlord.
The second limb does not rely on a legal relationship and instead confers the right more generally, protecting those who, as a matter of fact, also happen to reside in the same “neighbourhood” as the tenant.
Having established an interference, the issue then turns to whether it was an unreasonable interference. The question is what a reasonable person would, in the circumstances, consider to be more than a trivial or minor interference with their peace, comfort, or privacy.
Being part of a community requires people to maintain a certain level of tolerance, and on that basis, occasional disturbances that are trivial or minor are not considered breaches of the Act. Interferences that are more serious or persistent may be considered unreasonable and beyond what those residing in the same neighbourhood would be expected to tolerate.
The question as to whether another person residing in the same neighbourhood’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy has been interfered with will involve an objective assessment of the facts.
A contravention of section 40(2)(c) amounting to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
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". See MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010. Analysis and decision
The neighbour falls within the second limb of section 40(2)(c) as someone residing in the same neighbourhood as the tenant. They live a short distance from the tenant. The neighbour and the tenant are separated only by an average suburban concrete driveway. There is a property at the rear of the neighbour’s which also shares the driveway. The occupants of that property have vehicles. The acoustics are such that noise is likely to reverberate between the properties, and any noise occurring on the driveway can be heard in the tenant’s house.
Firing projectiles from a toy pistol at the cats on the neighbour’s driveway on 27 August 2025 was not acceptable behaviour and, in my view, was an interference.
Raising concerns about noise allegedly coming from a neighbour’s property in a calm and rational manner is unlikely to amount to an interference. However, shouting over the fence to “stop fucking slamming doors”, in the presence of children, was not acceptable behaviour and, in my view, was an interference.
On 2 September 2025, the tenant putting their head out the window to abuse the neighbour for allegedly slamming doors was again not acceptable behaviour and amounted to an interference.
Concerning the incidents on 5 September 2025 and 21 September 2025, I accept the tenant’s evidence that these incidents arose from frustration and anger over the illness and passing of their grandfather. While the behaviour was not directed at the neighbour, the tenant should nevertheless have been aware that the neighbour, living in close proximity, was likely to hear it.
I do not agree with the neighbour’s submission that they have been harassed by the tenant. The only two incidents involving direct contact with the neighbour were those on 30 August 2025 and 2 September 2025, concerning the alleged slamming of car doors. Despite the neighbour’s belief that they are being targeted, these interactions do not demonstrate a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards them. As stated, the other incidents did not directly involve the neighbour, and I am not satisfied that they were directed at the neighbour to cause alarm.
Having heard the male tenant give evidence, impulse control appears to be an issue, and he struggles to articulate his feelings in a rational manner. Far from deliberately targeting the neighbour, it is more likely that the male tenant gave little, if any, thought to the impact of his behaviour on surrounding neighbours. The female tenant maintains that they are the victims in this matter.
Regarding the other matters raised, no witness statements were provided by others residing in the neighbourhood who the neighbour says observed or experienced the alleged behaviour.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that the tenant has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of their neighbour.
Having determined that there has been a breach, the issue turns to whether it would be inequitable to refuse termination.
The tenancy is for a fixed term. If the landlord wishes to serve notice, it will not extend past 20 January 2026.
There is no evidence of a persistent failure after repeated warnings. The 14-day notice issued on 16 September 2025 was the first and only notice issued in these matters.
The incidents have occurred during a period coinciding with the passing of the tenant’s grandfather, which I accept has been a difficult time for the tenant.
A neighbour is entitled to raise concerns with another neighbour, although in this case the way the tenant did so was inappropriate.
The interferences occurring on 5 September 2025 and 21 September 2025 were inadvertent.
By a narrow margin, I am not satisfied that termination is a proportionate response. Termination is therefore declined.
This decision should serve as a warning to the tenant. In this case, if the tenant has concerns about the conduct of their neighbour(s), they should raise the matter with the landlord and avoid doing so directly with the neighbour(s). If the landlord is prepared to end the fixed term before it expires, and relocate the tenant, that may be an option the tenant wishes to consider. Although each case will be dealt with on its merits, the outcome may be different in another case. Name suppression.
Both parties seek name suppression.
Under section 95A of the Act, the Tribunal must, unless there are reasons not to, order suppression of the name and details of any party who has been wholly or substantially successful. Although entitled to name suppression, the landlord does not seek it. The landlord also opposes suppression for the tenants, submitting while they have avoided immediate termination, they have not been sufficiently successful.
The tenant has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) provides the Tribunal with discretion to suppress the name and details of a party who has not been wholly or substantially successful. Having considered the tenants’ personal circumstances and noting that they have avoided immediate termination, I am satisfied that there are grounds to exercise the discretion, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name.
Although the landlord has not been successful, publishing their name could reveal the identity of the tenant and the address of the property. It could also lead to the discovery of the complainant’s identity, whose details are also suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5346142 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5346142 — 14-day notice

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