Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5384919 — 14-day notice
Decided 15 Jan 2026 · Published 15 Jan 2026 · Application 5384919
- 14-day notice
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
N Bradley
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The application is dismissed.
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the witnesses name and identifying details and the address of the property.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the remote hearing.
- The landlord was represented by two property managers. For ease of reference, I will refer to the property managers as the landlord.
- For ease of reference, I will refer to the tenants in the singular.
- The tenancy commenced on 2 September 2025. The tenancy is for a fixed term with a contractual end date of 3 September 2027.
- The landlord has applied for termination for a breach of the tenant’s obligations and ant-social behaviour. Relevant legal considerations
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
- The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs 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.” The evidence
- The landlord says the tenant moved into the premises in September 2025 and from the end of approximately October 2025 there has been reports from a complaining neighbour of relentless anti-social behaviour. The landlord says the complaints are abut late nights, loud music, cars coming and going from the property and the smell of cannabis at the property, which the property manager that attended the hearing says he was able to smell himself when he had attended at the property.
- The landlord says the Police have attended at the property twice which has made the neighbours concerned for their safety because they did not know what that was about. A photograph was provided of the Police at the property.
- The landlord provided evidence of security footage from the neighbour of motion being detected at the tenancy premises once or numerous times during the night, approximately ten times in November 2025.
- The landlord provided confirmation of a noise control complaint on 9 November 2025.
- The landlord also said that the tenant has damaged the front berm by driving on the grass and provided a photograph of this damage.
- The original application referred to a pool being on the deck however the landlord did not suggest this had not been remedied and said that the issue was really about the noise from the premises at night.
- The landlord served the tenant with a 14-day notice on 29 October 2025 referring to loud music and verbal abuse towards the neighbours when asked to turn it down. The landlord suggests that this breach can be remedied by being mindful of the other neighbours by turning the music softer or off after 10 pm and being respectful to the neighbours.
- The landlord served a 14-day notice on 5 November 2025 in respect of fireworks being lit at 12:49 am and said the situation could be remedied by the tenant using fireworks no later than 10 pm and a further 14-day notice that day was served in respect of the pool.
- The landlord served the tenant with a 14-day notice on 9 November 2025 saying the tenant is using loud music after hours and they have camera logs of disturbances. The landlord said the breach could be remedied by turning the music down or off after 10 pm and being respectful to neighbours and not coming and going from the property numerous times after 11 pm.
- On 9 December 2025 the landlord served the tenant with a 14-day notice in respect of a spotlight that was left on all night, disturbing the neighbours. The landlord says the spotlight should be removed and installed with soft garden lighting. At the hearing the landlord said the spotlight had been turned off.
- On 9 December 2025 the landlord served the tenant with a 14-day notice for damage to common property saying that the berm had been damaged and needs to be repaired.
- The landlord submitted one video recording of the level of noise being produced from the tenant’s property, taken as I understand it from the complaining neighbour’s home.
- The tenant disputes the allegation there has been anti-social behaviour at the property.
- The tenant accepted having a party on one occasion and acknowledged noise control was phoned. The tenant said this was for Ms Nonu’s birthday (recorded in the tenancy agreement as 8 November).
- The tenant disputes causing damage to the berm.
- In terms of the cars coming and going the tenant notes it a shared driveway and they say the vehicles are not being disrespectful or rude when they come up the driveway.
- The tenant explained the reason for the Police attendance at the property was in relation to a matter that was not criminal activity by them.
- Ms Sale said at the start of the hearing they would have her 15-year-old daughter give evidence however Ms Sale decided not to call her to give evidence. There was also an indication that a neighbour would give evidence however she subsequently decided during the hearing not to do so.
- The tenant called two witnesses, being [witness 1] (E) and [witness 2] (C).
- C does not live at the property but gave evidence that the complaining neighbour had abused him, that they feel targeted and disputed a high level of noise coming from the property at night. C said he had no knowledge of cannabis use at the property.
- E gave evidence that there were new concerns being raised often but disputed the basis of the complaints, for example, she said that they have been told what to do on their own driveway, being told to be quiet when, for example, Ms Sale was listening to music while gardening. Termination under section 55A
- The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
- 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 tenancy must be a periodic tenancy in order for the Tribunal to terminate pursuant to section 55A RTA. This is a fixed-term tenancy and the notices in respect of anti-social behaviour do not comply with section 55A in any event. For these reasons the application to terminate on the grounds of anti-social behaviour is dismissed Termination under section 56
- The Tribunal can consider terminating the tenancy under section 56, which is a general termination provision. Section 56 is as follows: 56 Termination for non-payment of rent and other breaches (1)On an application made to it under this section by the landlord or the tenant, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— (a)the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement (including provisions relating to the payment of rent) or of this Act; and (b)in the case of a breach capable of remedy,— (i) the applicant gave to the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given; and (ii) and the other party failed to remedy the default within the required period; and (c)that the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
- What this means is 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. 1
- Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord is required to serve a 14- day notice to remedy the breach on the tenant and prove that the tenant has not remedied the breach.
- 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 to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone. 1 See section 56(1) of the RTA.
- 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.
- 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 2 , the District Court considered whether breach of s 48(4)(b) RTA (refusal to allow entry) was capable of remedy: ...Section 48(4)(b) imposes a negative obligation on the tenant. Several cases have held that breach of a negative covenant in a tenancy agreement is not capable of remedy in terms of s56(1)(b). The breach irremediably arises when the specified failure occurs. It is not always the case, however, that breach of a negative covenant is incapable of remedy. Whether a negative covenant is capable of remedy will depend on the nature of the breach, and when viewed within the context of s56(1)(b)(i), whether the harm that might be caused by the breach can be effectively remedied within a reasonable period of not less than 14 days.
- It follows that a breach of a negative covenant would be capable of remedy where the effect of the breach can be remedied. Where however the breach, or the harmful effect of the breach, is serious, it may not be capable of remedy. The same may apply where there has been a persistent series of breaches, for example, where a tenant has repeatedly breached the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours.
- In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management 3 the Court also needed to consider the extent of section 56(1)(c), which requires consideration of whether the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. The Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant, being: 2 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 at [46]-[47] 3 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe) at [61]., a) The history of the tenancy. b) Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. c) Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. d) Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. e) The conduct of the landlord. f) The gravity of the breach. g) Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
- The issues I need to consider therefore are: a. Has the tenant breached any obligation to the landlord; 4 and b. If the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord issued a 14-day notice to remedy which the tenant has not complied with, 5 and c. That the breach was of such significance, that it would be inequitable (unfair) not to terminate the tenancy. 6 The claimed breaches: Disturbance to neighbour
- The landlord says the tenant is in breach of the RTA by causing excessive noise & disturbance to other residents.
- Section 40(2)(c) of the RTA says the tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable, 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 landlord did not produce any statement from the complaining neighbour, did not call the neighbour to give evidence and did not produce the text messages or correspondence from the neighbour due to a desire to protect their privacy.
- The landlord is relying largely on hearsay evidence to prove the breaches in respect of noise and disturbance by the tenant, for example in terms of the fireworks and persistent music being played loudly. 4 See section 56(1)(a) of the RTA. 5 See section 56(1)(b) of the RTA. 6 See section 56(1)(a) of the RTA.
- A hearsay statement is an out-of-court statement made by a person who is not a witness, that is, it is evidence that was not directly seen, heard or spoken by the person that is giving the evidence and it is offered in evidence to provide the truth of something. 7 The general rule in a proceeding in New Zealand is that hearsay statements are not admissible, subject to specific exceptions, the most important being that the statement is admissible if the circumstances relating to it, give reasonable assurance as to its reliability. 8
- The Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but the Tribunal is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. 9
- The Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually (that is thoroughly) with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law. This excludes statements made in mediation. 10
- Therefore, whilst the Tribunal can accept hearsay evidence it may be given less weight than evidence given by the person who was there, that is because the person who was there can answer questions about what they saw or heard, and the Adjudicator can make an assessment on the witnesses credibility. In determining the weight hearsay evidence is given the Tribunal may consider why the direct evidence is not being provided and the need to resolve the matter fairly and expeditiously.
- I accept that there have been numerous complaints to the landlord about the tenant however in the absence of any corroborating evidence from the complaining neighbour, and the neighbour not appearing at the hearing to be cross examined by the tenant I consider I cannot give much weight to the evidence provided. I consider detailed supporting evidence about the noise from the neighbour should have been provided, or potentially the correspondence from the complaining neighbour.
- I do not consider that coming and going from the property during the night could interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the neighbour. There is no indication the vehicles were particularly noisy, and tenants are allowed to come and go from a property as they wish. 7 Section 4, Evidence Act 2006 8 Section 17-18 Evidence Act 2006. 9 Section 85 of the RTA 10 See section 97(4) of the RTA.
- I therefore consider that the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenants have breached their obligations under section 40(2)(c) of the RTA by causing or permitting any interference with the reasonable peace comfort or privacy of the landlord’s other tenants or other person in the neighbourhood. The pool
- The tenant must not use the premises, or permit the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose. 11 A tenant who wishes to install a pool must get permission from the landlord first to ensure the pool meets lawful standards. In this case the tenant did not get permission to install the pool, and the landlord issued a 14 notice on the tenant in respect of the pool on 5 November 2025, which outlines the legal and safety concerns in respect of the pool. The tenant had until 19 November 2025 to remove the pool
- The landlord provided a photograph which was taken off the pool on 9 November 2025. The tribunal order of 2 December 2025 says the pool was removed by that date and there was no evidence from the landlord on 19 November 2025 to suggest that the tenant had not remedied that breach. While I am satisfied the tenant has breached their obligations in respect of installing the pool without the landlord’s consent, the landlord has not proven the breach was not remedied. In addition, consider it unlikely this breach was at such a level that would make it fair to terminate the tenancy. Cannabis
- In terms of the concerns around cannabis this was a matter that was raised at the hearing and not in the application or by a 14-day notice. Therefore, I do not consider this is a matter that I can take into account when determining whether or not the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA. Damage to the berm
- A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage, the premises. 12
- The landlord says the tenant had breached their obligations by damaging the berm.
- The tenant disputes causing damage to the berm.
- The landlord provided a photograph of the berm but no witness statements to confirm how the damage occurred. I am also not satisfied that the damage, being a small skid mark from a tyre on the shared driveway, could be 11 See section 40 (2)(b) RTA. 12 See section 40 (2) (a) RTA considered intentional or careless damage. For these reasons I dismiss this aspect of the claim for termination Filing fee
- As the landlord has been unsuccessful in the claim, I decline to award the filing fee. Suppression
- Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant provisions state: (1)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.... ...(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be made subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
- The landlord applied for name suppression but as they have been unsuccessful with the claim, name suppression for the landlord is declined.
- The tenant did not seek name suppression.
- On my own initiative I am suppressing the witnesses names and identifying details and the tenancy address which is an identifying detail of one of the witnesses.