Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5389605 — Harassment
Decided 1 May 2026 · Published 1 May 2026 · Application 5389605
- Harassment
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
T Harris
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
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
- The application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by Counsel Ms Kete and a support worker [The tenant’s representative].
- The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission.
- The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is. •Inappropriate comments to tenancy managers and Kianga ora representative during inspections •Banging on a neighbour’s wall at night •Having loud conversations outside and swearing •Loudly discussing other tenants’ personal hygiene on the phone •Threatening to kill a neighbour
- Subject to certain considerations the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy (see section 55A Residential tenancies act 1986,RTA, Termination for antisocial behaviour ) 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 landlord provided copies of written notices of antisocial behaviour issued on, a) 5 August 2025, for inappropriate comments to property managers at an inspection, stating that this was the first notice for antisocial behaviour and the 90 day notice began on 4 August 2025, b) 7 October 2025, for banging on the walls at night and swearing disrupting neighbours, stating that this was the second notice, and the 90 day notice began on 4 August 2025, c) 11 November 2025 for loud phone calls and discussing the neighbours’ personal issues stating that this was second notice for antisocial behaviour and the 90 day notice began on 7 October 2025, d) 11 November 2025 for threaten to kill a neighbour, stating that this was second notice for antisocial behaviour and the 90 day notice began on 7 October 2025.
- Section 55A RTA requires notices issued to comply with the time frames and the contents of each anti-social notice must include the information as set out in section 55A(2)(b)(i)-(iv).
- These notices relied upon are inconsistent and do not correctly inform the tenant of the applicable 90 day period or the correct sequence of notices issued.
- The notices identify two different start dates for calculating the 90 day notice period being 7 October 2025 and 5 August 2025. Section 55A requires all notices relied upon to relate to the same 90-day period.
- If the 90 day period began on 4 August 2025, no third notice has been issued. If the notice issued on 11 November is supposed to be the third antisocial notice, then this notice is issued outside the 90 day period as more than 90 days had elapsed.
- If the 90 period began on 7 October 2025,this notice states that it was the second instance of antisocial behaviour that began on 4 August 2025,and not the first. Then the notices issued on 11 November 2025 are named the second notice but there is no third compliant notice.
- The Tribunal requires strict compliance with the notice requirements under section 55A (2)RTA and the landlords must follow the process exactly.
- Section 55A creates a mandatory termination once pre-conditions are met and for that reason strict compliance with those conditions are required.
- The Tribunal has previous found that incorrect or missing information invalidates notices. In Wood Johnson Investments Ltd v Katu & Cuff [2024] NZTT 5056550 the Tribunal found that notices that did not meet the specific legal requirements under section 55A, because they did not say the antisocial behaviour had a risen during the same 90 day period and advised the tenants of their right to challenge the notices, rendered the notices incomplete and the application for termination was dismissed.
- I find that the landlords have not served the notices as required under section 55A(2) RTA. The notices were either issued out of time, or did not contain the correct or consistent information.
- The application for termination under section55A is therefore dismissed.
- Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
- Further, 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.
- Both parties requested suppression. The landlord was not substantially successful and this is declined. The application was dismissed and I find it appropriate to grant name suppression as requested by the tenant.