What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5378131 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5378131?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5378131?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5378131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13084615-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5378131 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5378131?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5378131?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Cleanliness, Exemplary damages, Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5378131?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13084615-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5378131 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to prove them on the balance of probabilities.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 14 January 2026.
The tenant was represented by his sisters, [names suppressed]. [Names suppressed] appeared for the landlord.
The tenant applied for compensation, general damages and exemplary damages for an invalid termination notice, retaliatory notice, discrimination and an attempt to terminate his tenancy without grounds. The tenant has also applied for reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

BACKGROUND

The tenant’s representatives confirmed the tenant has suffered long term mental and physical disabilities that are the result of him sustaining a traumatic brain injury (TBI) when he was 18 years old from a violent assault. He has been subject to mental health treatment since then. His decision-making is compromised, and he suffers from paranoia. He also suffered burns from a house fire in 2020 that he is still being treated for. He struggles to regulate his body heat, is very sensitive to noise, and suffers fatigue. His tolerance can run short due to lack of understanding of the situation, and he may need someone to explain things multiple times to settle him down. Therefore, living on his own is important because he can regulate his environment himself in order to get the sleep he needs.
The tenant has mental health support workers and case managers that support him to live independently.
The tenant resided alone in [Tenancy address suppressed] from 1 November 2022 to 24 November 2025. The premise is in a row of mental health units and the landlord confirmed it is aware of the tenant’s TBI and resulting special housing needs.
During the tenant’s tenure at this residence, he has had some issues with neighbouring tenants.
On 6 October 2022, the tenant accused another tenant (tenant 1) of throwing stones. There was a further incident between the tenant and tenant 1 on 12 October 2022. Tenant 1 had retrieved a crowbar from a car and threatened the tenant with it. The tenant struck tenant 1 in the face, after receiving grazing on his right cheek below his eye.
On 11 October 2022, a driveway dispute occurred between the tenant and tenant 2. This incident was part of an altercation over parked vehicles in the driveway, when the tenant’s brother was visiting him. The tenant punched tenant 2 in the face and the New Zealand Police were called. The two tenants were told to stay away from one another. There was no record of any further incidents between these two tenants.
A third neighbour (tenant 3), who the tenant claims frequently came to his door asking for cigarettes, took his house key, came into his home, and broke his belongings from time to time, such as his television aerial. The tenant produced evidence that he had reported these issues to his housing support manager, on 25 January 2023.
On 8 August 2024, the tenant reported to his housing support manager that when one of his neighbours was at his house having coffee (tenant 4) and left the couch was wet and he had to clean her urine off his couch. He told the housing support manager he did not want her back and then when he went past her home, she called him delusional. They were advised to say away from one another and then no further incidents occurred between them.
On 20 August 2025 there was a further altercation with tenant 3. The tenant assaulted tenant 3 and she ended up in hospital with jaw and spinal injuries after coming to his house asking for cigarettes. The tenant claims he hit her in self-defence after things escalated between them as he did not want her coming to his door all the time asking for cigarettes. Subsequently tenant 3’s family relocated her to another social housing facility ,as they considered the environment to unsafe for her to return too. The tenant was arrested by New Zealand Police and later discharged without charges being laid. The tenant’s representatives had tried to get the Police report but could not get it in time for hearing due to Christmas and New Year holiday period.
The landlord confirmed tenant 3 had lived in the complex a long time and there had been no history of her ever knocking on neighbour’s door or anything like that.
The landlord stated it had been managing the tenant’s accommodation needs since 2019. He had lived at two others of this landlord’s properties. It says they moved him from the other complexes due to neighbour issues such as he and another tenant were chucking avocados and eggs at people’s windows and that they had to stop him lighting a few fires in the backyard.
The landlord stated that since he had moved into this complex, he had more trouble with neighbours, the cleanliness of his house was an issue and that he smoked a lot of marijuana in the house. The landlord also discovered his unit had been contaminated by methamphetamine just before his tenancy ended.
On 25 August 2025, the landlord sent the tenant a 90-day notice terminating his tenancy on 24 November 2025. The tenant’s representatives say the landlord cited health and safety concerns as the reason for the termination. This reason is not reflected in the termination notice.
The tenant, after declining to move to a number of boarding houses, was dropped off at his elderly mothers house on 24 November 2025 and is still living on her couch as at the hearing date.
The tenant’s representatives claim the 90-day notice was invalid as it had the incorrect address on it , that the notice was retaliatory and discriminatory, and the landlord had attempted to terminate his tenancy without grounds.
The landlord stated that its decision to end the tenancy was not based on the tenant’s history of having altercations with neighbours or the 20 August violent assault on tenant 3.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Proving claims in the Tribunal
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents, photographs, and videos are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Proving claims in the Tribunal
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents, photographs and videos are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Was the 90-day notice terminating the tenancy invalid?

The Housing Tenancy Lead and the Housing Tenancy Manager delivered the 90-day termination of tenancy notice to the tenant on 25 August 2025 and had a meeting with him about why they were terminating his tenancy on 24 November 2025.
The termination notice incorrectly records the address the notice pertains to as [address suppressed] in one area and the correct address in another part of the notice.
The tenant and his sister raised concerns about the legality of this termination notice by email on 8 October 2025 and again on 24 November 2025.
Another termination notice was not issued that corrected the error, but on 14 October 2025 there was an email sent to the tenant’s sister that corrected the prior error in the termination notice by confirming it was a clerical error and the Housing Tenancy Manager and the Housing Team Lead met with the tenant in his unit and explained to him why he was being given the termination notice and when it was to take effect. The landlord says the clerical error did not lead to the tenant not being clear about why he was being given the letter.
The landlord stated that it had no emergency contact person in its records for the tenant so no one else was with the tenant when the 90-day termination notice was given. Application of the law
Section 51(1) of the RTA provides that: A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 90 days’ notice.
A landlord may give a shorter notice period if it meets the criteria set out in s51(2) of the RTA.
The landlord chose to terminate the tenancy under s51(1) of the RTA and as such did not have to give the tenant any reason for the termination. The 25 August 2025 termination notice does not contain any reason for the termination.
Section 51(3) of the RTA states: Every notice to terminate a tenancy shall: (a) be in writing; and (b) identify the premises to which it relates; and (c) specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises; and (ca) if the landlord gives less than 90 days’ notice, set out the reasons for the termination; and (d) be signed by the party giving the notice, or by that party’s agent.
The 25 August 2025 termination letter: (a) Is in writing; (b) Does identify the premises to which it relates in the address at the top of the letter, but incorrectly states in the header that the letter is “regarding your tenancy at [address suppressed]”. This is not the tenant’s address. In the body of the termination letter, it says “this letter serves as a 90 day notice to terminate your tenancy agreement at the above address”. The tenant says this is misleading and confusing to a person with a TBI. The landlord says the Housing Tenancy Manager and the Housing Team Lead met with the tenant and went through the termination notice with him and he clearly understood the termination notice pertained to the tenancy address in the address section of the letter and not the incorrect address in the subject line of the letter; (c) Does specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises; and (ca)Does not set out the reasons for the termination because the landlord is not required to do so if giving 90 days’ notice; and (d) Is electronically signed by the party giving the notice by way of the name and designation of that person.
The tenant and his representatives rely on the incorrect address in the subject line of the letter as making the notice unlawful and invalid and they are seeking an order from the Tribunal to find it invalid and unenforceable so the tenant can return to his home, which the landlord has confirmed is still vacant.
Section 51 (4) of the RTA states: In a notice to terminate a tenancy, no special form of words shall be required; and no such notice shall be held invalid for any failure to comply strictly with the requirements of subsection (3) so long as the notice is in writing, the intention to terminate the tenancy on a particular date or on the expiry of a particular period is stated clearly in the notice, and that any non-compliance is not such as to mislead or affect unjustly the interests of the recipient.
I find that the clerical error in the subject line is not enough to invalidate the termination notice because the clerical error does not mislead or affect unjustly the interests of the tenant. The address in the address section of the notice is correct. The Housing Tenancy Manager and the Housing Team Lead confirm they met with the tenant and went through the termination notice with him on 25 August 2025, spoke to him about the clerical error and made sure he clearly understood the termination notice pertained to the tenancy address in the address section of the letter, and not the incorrect address in the subject line of the letter. Thereafter the landlord had ongoing communications with the tenant trying to find him alternative accommodation. Unfortunately, the landlord was only able to find boarding house options, that were not suitable for the tenant’s special accommodation needs, specifically the noise level disrupting his sleep and giving him headaches and the close proximity to other boarders in the boarding house everyday making the risk of altercation higher than if he was living in his own self-contained unit.
For the reasons above, I dismiss the tenant’s claim that the 90-day termination notice is invalid due to the clerical error in the subject line. The tenant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove this claim on the balance of probabilities. Had the landlord not met with the tenant and gone through the 90-day notice with him and ensured he understood what the letter meant and that he was well aware of the date he would have to move.

Was the 90-day notice terminating the tenancy retaliatory?

On 25 August 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 24 November 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant says that he believes the timing of the 90-day termination notice was retaliatory as it was issued just 5 days after the tenant’s violent altercation with tenant 3, on 20 August 2025, who also suffered from mental health issues. He stated that he acted in self-defence, was not charged with assault by the Police, that tenant 3 no longer lives in the complex so there is no risk to her health and safety and there have been no other serious issues with his neighbours that would support the view he is a health and safety risk to those living in the complex.
There is no evidence that proves on the balance of probabilities the landlord was motivated to give the termination notice wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. The tenant was not exercising any of his rights, nor was he making any complaints against the landlord around the time the termination notice was issued. Therefore, the notice cannot be held to be retaliatory, even if it was in response to him assaulting the neighbour, albeit allegedly in self- defence, which the landlord denies. This claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove the landlord acted in retaliation to the tenant exercising his tenant rights.

Did the landlord attempt to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

The tenant claims that the landlord has breached its obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord, pursuant to s51(1) of the RTA can issue a termination notice without reason, and in fact gave no reason for the termination of the tenancy in its 90-day termination notice.
It was open to the landlord to decide rightly or wrongly that the tenant’s assault on tenant 3 on 20 August 2025 was violent, as it landed her in hospital for some time with jaw and spinal injuries. Regardless of whether the tenant was provoked by tenant 3 by asking for cigarettes, it is not an unreasonable conclusion to reach that the tenant living in a row of units with other vulnerable mental health persons may not be the best environment for him if there was a chance he may be triggered to assault any another tenant that provoked him. The landlord has the difficult position of having to balance the tenant’s needs with the needs of the other tenants in the complex.
Section 55(1)(c) of the RTA gives the landlord the right to apply to the Tribunal to immediately terminate a tenancy if the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to assault, or to threaten to assault, any neighbour of the premises or of any building of which the premises constitute a part. If the landlord had made an application to the Tribunal under this section of the RTA, based on the 20 August 2025 assault, it would have been likely to have been successful at having the tenancy terminated immediately.
I am satisfied that the landlord had the right to terminate the tenancy, without reason, pursuant to s51(1) of the RTA. Therefore, it cannot be said that the landlord terminated the tenancy knowing it was not entitled to do so.
The claim is dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities.

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenant in the termination of his tenancy?

[The tenant] claims that the landlord discriminated against him because of his mental health issues.
A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. See sections 12(1) and 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims the landlord discriminated against him, based on his disability, when it terminated his tenancy.
The landlord refutes this allegation and states that it has not treated the tenant any differently to any other of its tenants, with or without disabilities. It decided that the premise was no longer suitable for the tenant and that he posed a health and safety risk to others and considered he would be better off in a more suitable environment where the other tenants did not have mental health issues and would not engage in behaviours that he found triggering to the point of engaging in physical assault.
The tenant did not provide any evidence to prove that he was being treated differently to any other tenant that had been engaged in a violent assault that resulted in the other party being hospitalised and being so traumatised that they could not return to their unit.
The landlord stated that the tenant, in their view, posed a risk to his own and others health and safety and that the complex was no longer suitable for his needs. This was a decision that was open to the landlord to make, whether the decision be right or wrong. There is no evidence the landlord terminated the tenancy because of the tenant’s disability or that they have discriminated against him by terminating his tenancy when they would not have taken the same action had another tenant in the complex with mental health issues assaulted a fellow tenant so badly, they were hospitalised and could not return to their home.
I am satisfied that the landlord did not discriminate against the tenant based on his disability and dismiss the tenant’s claim for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded with his claim, his application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression
The tenant applied for non-publication of his name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded in these proceedings. However, I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. I find that the detriment the tenant would suffer in not being able to find a new suitable homes if his name were to be published, outweighs any public interest in this case.
Non-publication of the tenant’s name is ordered.
I have also used my discretion to grant name suppression to the landlord as I do not find that it has conducted itself in a manner that would justify publishing its name or that would be of particular interest to the general public.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5378131 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5378131 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Was the 90-day notice terminating the tenancy invalid?

Was the 90-day notice terminating the tenancy retaliatory?

Did the landlord attempt to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenant in the termination of his tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Was the 90-day notice terminating the tenancy invalid?

Was the 90-day notice terminating the tenancy retaliatory?

Did the landlord attempt to terminate the tenancy without grounds?

Did the landlord discriminate against the tenant in the termination of his tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions