What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395843 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 5395843?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395843?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395843?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12998474-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5395843 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 5395843?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5395843?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5395843?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12998474-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 16, 1341 High Street, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5395843 — 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 applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour by the tenant. The tenant has filed an application for a breach of quiet enjoyment.

Should I end the tenancy?

The landlord states that the tenant has behaved in a way that has been intimidating to his neighbours and the tenancy should end because of his anti- social behaviour.
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. See section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant lives in a unit inside a complex with many other units. He has lived there since 2020, although the current tenancy agreement is from November 2023. The units were probably built in the 1970s and noise travels very easily between units. The landlord said the noise is as if everyone is living in one big house. The tenant lives upstairs from an elderly couple who moved into their unit in August 2025. It is mainly this couple who has raised concerns about the tenant’s behaviour.
The first anti-social behaviour notice was served on 9 September 2025. The landlord did not have any supporting evidence, such as emails or messages, about what prompted this notice. The notice states:
In reply the tenant said the notice was vague. He said he did not intimidate other tenants. He said on 8 September he asked a neighbouring tenant to keep the noise down. He said he was calm, stayed in his own doorway, and did not swear. In fact, another tenant yelled at him in reply.
The second notice was served on 16 October. There is no supporting evidence. The notice states:
At the hearing the landlord said the couple believe the tenant deliberately stomps on the floor and bangs on his floor with something like a broom handle. The tenant said he has not intimidated the couple living downstairs. He said he lives normally in his unit and that noise travels easily between units. He said he has also been disturbed by the couple, but he has not reported them to the landlord.
The third notice was served on 24 November following two emails from the couple downstairs. On 18 November the couple described how the tenant upstairs stomps and bangs on the ceiling if there is any noise from their unit at all, including from the TV, phone or microwave. They asked if they could leave their tenancy. In an email dated 24 November the couple said the tenant expects total silence and even when they turn a tap on he runs around banging. They had slept in their car because the noise from upstairs was “too intimidating”. They said their health was being affected and the asked to move units or leave. The notice states:
The tenant said he has never met the couple. He has never said a word to them. He does not stomp around his unit. He does not bang on his floor. He thinks old people have less patience for things they do not like and they are using the noise as an excuse to leave. He said he has lived there since 2020 and never been served with notices until the couple downstairs moved in.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties. I am not persuaded the landlord has established that the tenant used anti-social behaviour to intimidate other tenants. The first notice involved a number of tenants and the landlord has not proved there was intimidation. The second and third notices refer to noise which the couple has interpreted as deliberate and intimidating. However, the noise could equally be explained as normal noise from the tenant’s unit, in a complex built before sound proofing was required. It is a serious matter to end a tenancy because of antisocial behaviour, and I need better evidence.
The landlord’s application is dismissed. This means the tenancy will continue.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant claims the landlord has harassed and bullied him. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant said the landlord should have talked to him about the issues. He said the notices were unnecessary and he felt he was being bullied. The landlord said she had an obligation to act when other tenants raised concerns about safety. This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have listened to the submissions. It seems most likely to me the landlord acted reasonably when she served the notices. The claim there was a breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed. Suppression
Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. I have used my discretion to allow suppression for the tenant. This is because the tenant has successfully defended the application and it could be prejudicial to future tenancies if his name is published.
The landlord did not make an application for suppression.

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 applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour by the tenant. The tenant has filed an application for a breach of quiet enjoyment.

Should I end the tenancy?

The landlord states that the tenant has behaved in a way that has been intimidating to his neighbours and the tenancy should end because of his anti- social behaviour.
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. See section 55A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant lives in a unit inside a complex with many other units. He has lived there since 2020, although the current tenancy agreement is from November 2023. The units were probably built in the 1970s and noise travels very easily between units. The landlord said the noise is as if everyone is living in one big house. The tenant lives upstairs from an elderly couple who moved into their unit in August 2025. It is mainly this couple who has raised concerns about the tenant’s behaviour.
The first anti-social behaviour notice was served on 9 September 2025. The landlord did not have any supporting evidence, such as emails or messages, about what prompted this notice. The notice states:
In reply the tenant said the notice was vague. He said he did not intimidate other tenants. He said on 8 September he asked a neighbouring tenant to keep the noise down. He said he was calm, stayed in his own doorway, and did not swear. In fact, another tenant yelled at him in reply.
The second notice was served on 16 October. There is no supporting evidence. The notice states:
At the hearing the landlord said the couple believe the tenant deliberately stomps on the floor and bangs on his floor with something like a broom handle. The tenant said he has not intimidated the couple living downstairs. He said he lives normally in his unit and that noise travels easily between units. He said he has also been disturbed by the couple, but he has not reported them to the landlord.
The third notice was served on 24 November following two emails from the couple downstairs. On 18 November the couple described how the tenant upstairs stomps and bangs on the ceiling if there is any noise from their unit at all, including from the TV, phone or microwave. They asked if they could leave their tenancy. In an email dated 24 November the couple said the tenant expects total silence and even when they turn a tap on he runs around banging. They had slept in their car because the noise from upstairs was “too intimidating”. They said their health was being affected and the asked to move units or leave. The notice states:
The tenant said he has never met the couple. He has never said a word to them. He does not stomp around his unit. He does not bang on his floor. He thinks old people have less patience for things they do not like and they are using the noise as an excuse to leave. He said he has lived there since 2020 and never been served with notices until the couple downstairs moved in.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have taken into account the evidence presented by the parties. I am not persuaded the landlord has established that the tenant used anti-social behaviour to intimidate other tenants. The first notice involved a number of tenants and the landlord has not proved there was intimidation. The second and third notices refer to noise which the couple has interpreted as deliberate and intimidating. However, the noise could equally be explained as normal noise from the tenant’s unit, in a complex built before sound proofing was required. It is a serious matter to end a tenancy because of antisocial behaviour, and I need better evidence.
The landlord’s application is dismissed. This means the tenancy will continue.

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

The tenant claims the landlord has harassed and bullied him. A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant said the landlord should have talked to him about the issues. He said the notices were unnecessary and he felt he was being bullied. The landlord said she had an obligation to act when other tenants raised concerns about safety. This is the tenant’s claim to prove. I have listened to the submissions. It seems most likely to me the landlord acted reasonably when she served the notices. The claim there was a breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed. Suppression
Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. I have used my discretion to allow suppression for the tenant. This is because the tenant has successfully defended the application and it could be prejudicial to future tenancies if his name is published.
The landlord did not make an application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5395843 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 16, 1341 High Street, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5395843 — Harassment at Unit/Flat 16, 1341 High Street, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should I end the tenancy?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should I end the tenancy?

Was there a breach of quiet enjoyment?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions