What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5394494 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 5394494?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5394494?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5394494?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12847014-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5394494 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 5394494?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5394494?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5394494?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12847014-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5394494 — Harassment

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by telephone.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.
The landlord provides social housing. The tenant lives in part of a complex of around 120 units. There are some shared facilities like a laundry and community space.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is set out in the three notices which have been provided to the Tribunal and seeks termination on the basis of section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The first notice is dated 17 October 2025 and sets out that “It is recorded that you intimidated your neighbors and disturbed them on 11/10/2025 11:47pm by yelling and you verbally abused tenants and staff on 13/10/2025 in H block entrance and outside of the laundry at 9:22am”.
The landlord says there was yelling and abuse on both dates and says it probably was abuse similar to that which the tenant had previously done.
The landlord is unable to provide additional details and as is relying on notes and the representative was not present himself at the alleged event. Reference was made to a video but this was not made available to the Tribunal.
The tenant says that on 11 October there was a noise disturbance late at night by a group of men who have taken to shouting at her door. She says they had been drinking. She says they yell at her to make fun of her.
She says on 13 October she was going to her Salvation Army gathering and she was blocked off with men blocking her way. She says they were swearing at her and gaslighting her. She says she has never had an altercation with them. She says she has been scared needing police on occasion to take her to her door safely.
The second notice is dated 24 October 2025 and provides that” "It is recorded that you verbally abused your neighbours around you through yelling at window around 16.30 on 23 October 2025”. The tenant says she cannot recall the incident.
The third notice is dated 14 November 2025 and says: "It’s recorded that: on 3/11/2025 around 8pm you verbally abused 3 tenants by shouting and yelling in the corridor of central park apartment H block, outside of your unit."
The landlord is unable to provide any more information about this incident.
The tenant referred again to a group of men, saying “it would have been those men, but I have no idea at this time”. She then focused on giving information about how around this date she was focusing on family and she then gave more generic information about problems she had had with the men congregating, drinking and using drugs. The tenant says she tries to ignore these people, she doesn’t talk to them and has runout of energy.
Under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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 RTA 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.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
The landlord’s evidence was extremely limited. The landlord has the burden of proving that the tenant is engaging in behaviour that is antisocial.
The landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant has committed acts of antisocial behaviour on three separate occasions within a 90-day period because there was an overall lack of evidence including a lack of direct accounts about the alleged behaviour and detail about the anti-social behaviour relied upon.
I do not consider that simply relying on the broad statements such as those contained within the letters is sufficient to meet the necessary burden of proof. The landlord needed to provide more detail about the alleged anti-social behaviour.
Further, when a landlord gives evidence of what they have been told, but not witnessed themselves, it is hearsay. Hearsay evidence is evidence that is not directly seen, heard, or spoken by the person that is giving the evidence to the Tribunal.
Whilst the Tribunal can accept hearsay evidence, it is always given much 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 about the witnesses’ credibility.
Because the landlord has the burden of proving that the tenant is engaging in any antisocial behaviour this may mean that neighbours or staff actually involved need to be called upon to give evidence or should provide any documentary evidence such as photographs or video recordings to the landlord. A landlord who is unable to meet the evidential burden will not be able to prove their claim.
The landlord’s application is dismissed. Documents
I note that the tenant attempted to file documents after the hearing. I could not consider these as they were provided after the hearing had finished.
In any event, the landlord has not been successful. Suppression
The tenant seeks suppression of her identifying details. I award this because she has been wholly successful today.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by telephone.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant.
The landlord provides social housing. The tenant lives in part of a complex of around 120 units. There are some shared facilities like a laundry and community space.
The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is set out in the three notices which have been provided to the Tribunal and seeks termination on the basis of section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The first notice is dated 17 October 2025 and sets out that “It is recorded that you intimidated your neighbors and disturbed them on 11/10/2025 11:47pm by yelling and you verbally abused tenants and staff on 13/10/2025 in H block entrance and outside of the laundry at 9:22am”.
The landlord says there was yelling and abuse on both dates and says it probably was abuse similar to that which the tenant had previously done.
The landlord is unable to provide additional details and as is relying on notes and the representative was not present himself at the alleged event. Reference was made to a video but this was not made available to the Tribunal.
The tenant says that on 11 October there was a noise disturbance late at night by a group of men who have taken to shouting at her door. She says they had been drinking. She says they yell at her to make fun of her.
She says on 13 October she was going to her Salvation Army gathering and she was blocked off with men blocking her way. She says they were swearing at her and gaslighting her. She says she has never had an altercation with them. She says she has been scared needing police on occasion to take her to her door safely.
The second notice is dated 24 October 2025 and provides that” "It is recorded that you verbally abused your neighbours around you through yelling at window around 16.30 on 23 October 2025”. The tenant says she cannot recall the incident.
The third notice is dated 14 November 2025 and says: "It’s recorded that: on 3/11/2025 around 8pm you verbally abused 3 tenants by shouting and yelling in the corridor of central park apartment H block, outside of your unit."
The landlord is unable to provide any more information about this incident.
The tenant referred again to a group of men, saying “it would have been those men, but I have no idea at this time”. She then focused on giving information about how around this date she was focusing on family and she then gave more generic information about problems she had had with the men congregating, drinking and using drugs. The tenant says she tries to ignore these people, she doesn’t talk to them and has runout of energy.
Under section 55A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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 RTA 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.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties as set out above.
The landlord’s evidence was extremely limited. The landlord has the burden of proving that the tenant is engaging in behaviour that is antisocial.
The landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant has committed acts of antisocial behaviour on three separate occasions within a 90-day period because there was an overall lack of evidence including a lack of direct accounts about the alleged behaviour and detail about the anti-social behaviour relied upon.
I do not consider that simply relying on the broad statements such as those contained within the letters is sufficient to meet the necessary burden of proof. The landlord needed to provide more detail about the alleged anti-social behaviour.
Further, when a landlord gives evidence of what they have been told, but not witnessed themselves, it is hearsay. Hearsay evidence is evidence that is not directly seen, heard, or spoken by the person that is giving the evidence to the Tribunal.
Whilst the Tribunal can accept hearsay evidence, it is always given much 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 about the witnesses’ credibility.
Because the landlord has the burden of proving that the tenant is engaging in any antisocial behaviour this may mean that neighbours or staff actually involved need to be called upon to give evidence or should provide any documentary evidence such as photographs or video recordings to the landlord. A landlord who is unable to meet the evidential burden will not be able to prove their claim.
The landlord’s application is dismissed. Documents
I note that the tenant attempted to file documents after the hearing. I could not consider these as they were provided after the hearing had finished.
In any event, the landlord has not been successful. Suppression
The tenant seeks suppression of her identifying details. I award this because she has been wholly successful today.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5394494 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5394494 — Harassment

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