What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5351421 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and all witnesses’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5351421?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5351421?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5351421?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12639108-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5351421 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and all witnesses’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5351421?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5351421?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5351421?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12639108-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5351421 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and all witnesses’s names and identifying details.
The tenancy at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated and possession granted to the landlord Otautahi Community Housing Trust at 5pm Thursday 13 November 2025.
[The Tenant] must pay Otautahi Community Housing Trust the sum of $28.00, being reimbursement of the filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing which was conducted by phone on 14 October, the tenant attending from hospital. The landlord was represented by Mr Woodbury and Mr Olds. I reserved my decision.
In a minute dated 15 October 2025 the parties were directed to file further evidence and the hearing was reconvened by phone again today (30 October 2025). The applications
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on two grounds: a. Anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission. b. Breach of a term of the tenancy agreement.
Both grounds relate to the tenant’s partner, Mr Z, who has been living with the tenant, contrary to the terms of her tenancy agreement. Mr Z’s conduct has led to complaints from the tenants’ neighbours who all live in the same complex. Termination for anti-social behaviour
Under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), Subject to certain considerations, 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.
The antisocial behaviour concerns the way Mr Z behaves towards the tenant’s female neighbours.
On 9 September 2025 the landlord issued two notices under the Act: a. A notice under section 56 that the tenant was breaching her tenancy agreement by exceeding the maximum number of occupants specified in the agreement. She was given 14 days to rectify it. b. An anti-social behaviour notice specifying that on 24 August her partner had urinated by the communal pathway in full view of another female tenant in the complex.
On 11 September 2025, the landlord issued a second anti-social behaviour notice stating that 29 August the tenant’s partner had approached an “elderly” 1 female tenant and asked her for cigarettes and methamphetamine, causing alarm and distress to this tenant.
A third anti-social behaviour notice was served the next day. It stated that on the tenant’s partner had behaved inappropriately towards an elderly2 female tenant by lurking around her door when she arrived home and asking her if she wanted company. She declined and locked the door. The man then knocked on her door and asked if she smoked cannabis. He returned 2 hours later and knocked on her door. She then rang the Police.
The complainant in the third notice was the same as in the second notice.
The tenant did not apply to the Tribunal challenging any of the notices. She said that she was very unwell at the time and did not read them. She said that she was stuck in bed.
The tenant did not deny that the behaviour occurred. She said that she has tried to end the relationship, that she was manipulated by Mr Z and that she “chucked him out ages ago”. She said that she last saw Mr Z before she went into hospital 3 or 4 weeks ago.
I find that the conduct of the tenant’s partner was unacceptable and distasteful. I accept that it would have caused alarm and distress to the tenant’s neighbours and would make them feel unsafe. I find that the conduct amounts to antisocial behaviour, and had I been satisfied that section 55A had been properly followed, I would not have needed to hear further from the witnesses, whose evidence simply confirmed what was in the notices.
However, as indicated at the hearing, I am concerned about the timing of the notices. All three instances of antisocial behaviour were given after the last incident had occurred.
The landlord said that he had been told by other adjudicators that there simply needs to be 24 hours between notices and they must be given in a sequence consistent with the order of the events.
I do not agree with that interpretation. Giving three notices in succession after the third incident has occurred is not within the spirit of section 55A. It is the same as giving three notices at once after the last incident. In that situation a 1 The tenant gave evidence that she was aged 60. tenant has not opportunity to take on board what has been complained of, modify their behaviour, take steps to prevent a recurrence or challenge the notice before the second notice has been given.
My interpretation of section 55A is that each notice must be given after the relevant incident and before the next incident for it to count towards the three- notice requirement.
The first time the tenant was notified of the first instance, the second and third has already occurred. The landlord knew or ought to have known that the next ones were coming in quick succession.
The landlord said that they need to investigate and take witness statements. That may be the process that they adopt before issuing a notice, but the reality is that the tenant is still in the dark until the first notice is served. In this case, the second and third instances involved the same witness and so those notices could have been included as one notice, or one of them not pursued.
It would be unfair under section 55A(3)(a) RTA to terminate the tenancy because, having received three notices over the period of four days, all relating to incidents that preceded the first notice, the tenant has not had proper opportunities to rectify the situation of challenge the notices before the final one is issued.
Although 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. Section 56
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations by “overcrowding”.
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. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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.

Has there been a breach?

The tenant has breached her obligations by having her partner live at the premises when it is a term of her tenancy agreement that be only one occupant. That is a breach capable of remedy.

Has a notice been served requiring the tenant to remedy the breach?

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 9 September 2025. This was the same day as the first antisocial behaviour notice.
That requirement has been met.

Has the tenant remedied the breach?

The landlord called two witnesses who were the neighbours who had made the complaints leading to the anti-social behaviour notices. In addition to confirming the evidence of anti-social behaviour that was described in the notices, they each gave evidence of seeing Mr Z at the complex in the past month.
Ms A told the Tribunal that she had seen Mr Z inside the front door of [the Tenant’s] flat that morning and his bike was in there with him.
The tenant said that she has been in hospital and had no idea he was there.
Ms B said that she saw Mr Z six days before, standing outside the unit, urinating.
I find that the tenant did not remedy the breach within the 14 day period, which ended on 23 September 2025, and had not remedied the breach at the date of the hearing on 14 October.

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate?

The tenant said that she had not read the notices because she had been sick and she had no glasses. She also said that the Police are going to serve a trespass notice on Mr Z on Wednesday (15 October, the day after the hearing).
The tenant said that she has been trying to exit the relationship and Women’s Refuge are involved. She provided a phone number for and during the hearing a call was made to Ms N, who confirmed that she is a social worker with Women’s Refuge. She said that [the tenant] had made contact with Women’s Refuge via a Crisis Line call from ED on 9 October (5 days before the hearing). Ms N has been doing background work and liaising with the Police. She said that the Police were going to serve a trespass notice on Mr Z at court on 15 October. He would also need to have his bail varied.
Ms N said that [the tenant] wanted a Protection Order and they had made arrangements for Ms N to visit the tenant in hospital the day after the hearing (15 October) to set that process in motion.
The tenant was unable to say what date she was admitted to hospital.
When pressed on what prompted her to reach out to Women’s Refuge on 9 October, she said the Police told her to. When asked why she was talking to the Police, she said that her neighbour, [suppressed] had told her that Mr Z had been around.
Mr Woodbury said that: a. He was aware that the tenant has been in hospital for the past 2 or 3 weeks. b. He has heard his colleague, Ms T have phone conversations with [the tenant] about the notices. He says she is aware of them. c. The Trust’s support staff do not feel safe visiting the premises because of this male. d. [The tenant] has told Mr Woodbury that she is in love and does not want to exit the relationship. e. The staff have tried to support [The Tenant] and work with her to make sure Mr Z was not living there. f. [The Tenant] did not reach out to Women’s Refuge until 5 days ago. She acknowledged that she has a protection order against a previous partner and so she should know what help is available. g. The landlord has no confidence that Mr Z will comply with a trespass notice or a protection order. h. The premises are not suitable in any event because of [The Tenant]’s physical needs. Discussion
On 14 October, the Tribunal was being asked to terminate the tenancy of a woman because of the presence of a man with whom she was in a relationship that the landlord accepts is unhealthy and manipulative, in circumstances where the woman had been in hospital for at least two weeks. It is not a decision that is taken lightly.
It appeared that since the tenant had been in hospital, she had taken some steps to remedy the breach by excluding her partner. There was evidence that she had engaged with Women’s Refuge.
For that reason, I provided the parties an opportunity to provide further evidence. In particular, I directed that the tenant to provide: a. Evidence from the hospital of her date of admission. b. Evidence of service of a trespass notice on Mr Z c. Evidence of any protection orders that have been obtained. d. An update from Womens Refuge if possible. e. Any other information she thinks is relevant.
The landlord was asked to provide evidence of conversations between staff and the tenant after 9 September regarding the issues before the Tribunal. Further evidence
The landlord provided a signed statement for Ms T, Senior Tenancy Advisor at the Trust. She said that on 10 September she phoned the tenant and discussed Mr Z’s behaviour. [The Tenant] told Ms T that he was living there.
Ms T said that on 18 September 2025, 9 days after the notice was served, Mr Z had been handcuffed and removed from the property. When she spoke to [The Tenant], she confirmed that he lived with her and that she loved him.
On 29 September 2025 Ms T spoke with [The Tenant] who was in hospital. She told Ms T that her partner was still living at the property but she had asked him to leave.
During a phone call on 2 October 2025, [The Tenant] said that her partner had moved out but if it rained, he would likely go back.
[The Tenant] advised the Tribunal today that a Trespass Notice had been served. She provided no evidence of that or of any of the other matters set out in the minute. She said that she had been working with Women’s Refuge but that she has not filed the application for a Protection Order. She has been home from hospital since last Monday, 21 October. Mr Z has visited twice and she has called the Police.
Mr Woodbury expressed concern on hearing this, noting that [The Tenant] is unable to keep her partner from visiting. Discussion
In reaching a decision, I have not taken into account the comment at paragraph 39 h. [The Tenant]’s physical or medical needs are not a reason for this Tribunal to terminate a tenancy. That is a matter for other agencies to assess in consultation with the tenant.
It was a breach of the terms of [The Tenant]’s tenancy to have another occupant in the premises. It is possible that if Mr Z had not caused any distress to others, the breach notice might not have been issued. The reason it was issued was because of his behaviour.
Although the application to the Tribunal under section 56 was because of a breach of the maximum occupants under the tenancy agreement, in essence, the tenant has breached her obligations under section 40(2) which says that the tenant must 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. Where the offending behaviour has occurred, that is a breach not capably of remedy.
Section 41 says that the tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.
In deciding whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate, I must take into account the impact of Mr Z’s conduct on the neighbours and the impact of termination on the tenant.
Despite [The Tenant]’s statements on 14 October 2025 that she had not opened the notices delivered between 9 and 12 September 2025, I am satisfied that she was well aware of the content and nature of them, based on her conversations with Ms T. As late as 18 September, she was still saying that her partner was living at the premises and she loved him. She was not in hospital at this time.
At the time of the hearing two weeks ago on 14 October, it appeared that [The Tenant] was belatedly taking some steps to extricate herself from her relationship and therefore remove her partner from her home. In some respects, it was “too little too late”, but bearing in mind her health at the time the notice was served, it was appropriate to provide an opportunity for her to follow through and demonstrate that significant changes had been made.
However, [The Tenant] has provided none of the evidence she was directed to file.
There is no evidence that Mr Z has been served with a Trespass Notice.
Her partner continues to visit the premises, despite the fact that he may have been served with a Trespass Notice.
[The Tenant] has been out of hospital for 9 days, but no application for a protection order has been filed.
[The Tenant] did not comply with the notice of 9 September to remove her partner within 14 days, and I am not satisfied that she had a reasonable excuse for not doing so. The impact of her partner’s presence on her neighbours has been ongoing and distressing. I have decided that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
Mr Woodbury advised that the Trust would agree to [The Tenant] having a further two weeks in the property and they will assist her to find alternative accommodation.
Because Otautahi Community Housing Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because of the matters of Family Violence, [The Tenant]’s name and that of her partner will be suppressed. There are also orders for suppression of the names of the neighbours.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5351421 — 14-day notice

Tenancy Tribunal case 5351421 — 14-day notice

Order

Reasons

Has there been a breach?

Has a notice been served requiring the tenant to remedy the breach?

Has the tenant remedied the breach?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate?

Order

Reasons

Has there been a breach?

Has a notice been served requiring the tenant to remedy the breach?

Has the tenant remedied the breach?

Would it be inequitable to refuse to terminate?