How much money was awarded in case 5406668?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406668?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406668?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13563949-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5406668?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406668?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406668?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13563949-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5406668 — 14-day notice

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5406668 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the witnesses name and identifying details

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the witnesses name and identifying details and the address of the premises.
The tenancy of Wayne Hunter at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Tauranga Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Thursday 4 June 2026.
The hearing is adjourned.
A one-day face to face hearing should be allowed for the next hearing of this matter before me.
Tenancy Services are to serve the landlord with all documents filed by the tenant in support of his application to the email address: benjamin.verhaaren@hobec.co.nz

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord was represented by Counsel, Jemma Hollis and Benjamin Verhaaren.
These proceedings relate to cross applications.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. I have determined the landlord’s application by way of this order given the urgent nature of the claim.
The tenant has applied for compensation for a breach of a number of the landlord’s obligations. There was not enough time to hear the tenant’s application. The tenant’s application has been adjourned.
There have been a number of applications between these parties. Following the landlord filing applications for orders in respect of access the tenant filed cross applications for compensation and work orders in respect of various alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations. The tenant’s applications were withdrawn.
The landlord says they have now reached a point where the tenancy is unsustainable, in particular due to ongoing anti-social behaviour towards staff, contractors and other tenants and the tenant obstructing access to the premises for inspections and maintenance.
The tenant opposes termination of the tenancy and rejects the landlord’s concerns.

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 1 , in practical terms this means that: 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 ... [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 more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. 2 Note about the evidence
On 9 February 2026 I made an order for all evidence to be filed within 14 days after the date of that order. This hearing was scheduled for 1 May 2026. On the morning of the hearing the tenant filed a significant amount of documentary evidence and recordings. The tenant said he had been too unwell to comply with the directions in respect of the filing of evidence, although this submission was not supported with a medical certificate. Much of the evidence appeared to be statements by the tenant in respect of the claims. The landlord opposed the evidence being accepted and considered. However, throughout the hearing some recordings were played, which the landlord accepted as evidence (much of which corroborated the landlord’s evidence) and the tenant was given the opportunity to read any particular statement relevant to the particular breaches. Aside from the evidence just referred to I have not considered any other evidence filed by the tenant. That evidence is accepted for consideration at the next hearing in respect of the tenant’s claims. In the circumstances where the tenant had sufficient time to comply with the directions in respect of the filing of evidence and the landlord has been given no time to consider the tenant’s additional evidence, I consider it would be unfair to otherwise accept and consider the tenant’s evidence.
I record that I have reviewed and considered the remaining evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I have not specifically referred to it. TERMINATION UNDER SECTION 56
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. 3 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 2 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55. 3 RTA, section 56(1). 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. 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 4 , 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. (emphasis added)
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 5 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 4 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 at [46]-[47] 5 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe) at [61]., inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. The Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant, being: 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 in respect of termination under s 56 of the RTA are: a. Has the tenant breached any obligation to the landlord? 6 b. If the breach is capable of remedy, has the landlord issued a 14-day notice to remedy which the tenant has not complied with 7 c. That the breach was of such significance, that it would be inequitable (unfair) not to terminate the tenancy? 8

HAS THE TENANT BREACHED ANY OBLIGATION TO THE LANDLORD?

Failure to allow access

Section 48 (1)- (2) RTA sets out the situations in which the landlord may enter the premises. A landlord may enter for the purpose of inspecting the property, carrying out repairs and maintenance and for the purposes of complying with the healthy home standards with the required notice and time of entry requirements set out in that provision.
Section 48 (4)(b) RTA says a failure by the tenant, without reasonable excuse, to allow the landlord to enter upon the premises in any circumstances in which the landlord is entitled to enter under s48 (2) RTA is an unlawful act.
The landlord says the tenant has failed to allow them entry on several occasions. 1 September 2025 6 RTA, 56(1)(a). 7 RTA, s 56(1)(b). 8 RTA, s 56(1)(a).
The landlord says the tenant has breached his obligation to allow access on 1 September 2025 for maintenance. The landlord served the tenant with a 14-day notice that day. The landlord says lawful notice was given and when they arrived at the premises, they were unable to enter.
The tenant acknowledged he did not allow the landlord to enter the premises that day. He says he had recently had an operation and was resting at home. He acknowledged he did not inform the landlord prior to their arrival that he was at home and that he would not allow them entry,
The tenant appears to be suggesting he had a reasonable excuse for not allowing entry. I consider a reasonable excuse for not allowing a landlord access to the premises for the purposes of maintenance or an inspection would include things like the tenant being unwell (ie they have covid or the flu), incorrect notice has been given or the tenant has a cultural or religious event requiring observation. In these situations, the tenant should communicate to the landlord that they have a reason for not wanting the landlord to access the property prior to the intended access. In this case the tenant did not provide evidence that he was unwell or advise the landlord of such in respect of the access on 1 September 2025.
In respect of the access on 1 September 2025 the tenant has suggested that the landlord has attempted to use force to enter the premises. It will need to be clarified at the next hearing if the tenant relies on this in respect of his claim of unlawful entry, however the tenant unreasonably prevented access in any event, which is a breach of the tenant’s obligations. 28 November 2025
The landlord says the tenant then failed again to allow them access to the premises on 28 November 2025 for a routine inspection. The landlord attended at the property however the tenant declined to allow one of the landlord staff members into the premises. The landlord served the tenant with notice of the breach shortly thereafter (but not a 14 day notice to remedy the breach). The tenant’s recording of the landlord attending at the property was played during the hearing, which confirms the tenant obstructed access to the other landlord staff member.
The tenant says he was only willing to allow the tenancy manager into the property and he declined to allow the other employee to enter the premises because of his health issues, the small size of his premises and the short notice of another person attending the inspection.
In respect of the access on 28 November 2025 safety considerations required the tenancy manager to have another employee with her which I consider was reasonable. I consider the tenant does not have a right under the RTA to deny access to the landlord (which includes all employees of the landlord) when proper notice is given.
I find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has failed without a reasonable excuse, to allow the landlord to enter the premises in circumstances where the landlord is entitled to enter (because they have given proper notice and a correct reason for entry) on 1 September 2025 and 28 November 2025. Interference with reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of other tenant/neighbour
Section 40 (2) (c) RTA says the tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, 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 Tribunal decision of Joseph-Gordon v Housing New Zealand 9 provides helpful commentary: ...the concept of reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the use of the premises is a fundamental requirement under tenancy law. It involves the right to live and enjoy the premises in peace and without reasonable disturbance. Premises extends to non-exclusive areas such as shared lawns, gardens and facilities. Under the law tenants have the right to quiet enjoyment but they also have a responsibility to ensure their behaviour and the behaviour of their visitors do not interfere with their neighbour’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy. Quiet enjoyment under the law is qualified by the concept of reasonableness. This may mean that some potentially unpleasant disputes or differences of opinion between tenants or a personality conflict with your neighbour will unlikely qualify as an infringement of reasonable quiet enjoyment.
The landlord says the tenant has breached their obligation to not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants.
The landlord had four witnesses give evidence, being [Witness 1] (Ms D) and [Witness 2] (Ms M) who are neighbours of the tenant and tenants of the landlord, [Witness 3] (Mr C) the landlord’s contracted lawn mower, and [Wintess 4] (Mr H) the landlord’s contracted electrician (who gave evidence by phone).
In respect of the evidence of Mr C and Mr H, I will address this further below under whether it would be inequitable to refuse to end the tenancy, as I consider their evidence does not directly relate to the claim that the tenant has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants, because they are not tenants of the landlord. I consider there 9 Joseph-Gordon v Housing New Zealand [2019] NZTT 4177138 evidence more property relates to the general issues the landlord has had with this tenancy. 27 August 2025
The landlord says that on 27 August 2025 the tenant yelled and used abusive language towards other tenants while they were gardening, telling them it was not their responsibility to do the gardening. The landlord says the tenant removed his bin that the tenants were using for green waste and tipped the contents on the ground. The landlord says the other tenants complained that the tenant’s behaviour was aggressive and distressing. Ms D gave evidence to confirm the landlord’s concerns.
The tenant says he did get upset about the other tenants using his green waste bin. He acknowledged raising his voice but says he was not abusive.
On balance, I consider that Mr Hunter has likely spoken to the tenants in an aggressive manner while telling them it was not their responsibility to do the gardening. I consider this behaviour amounts to a breach of the tenant’s obligation to not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the other tenants. 12 October 2025
The landlord says the tenant had an incident with Ms D in relation to her weeding.
Ms D gave evidence on 12 October 2025 that she was weeding outside the units, and she left a pile of weeds briefly, during which time the tenant threw the weeds onto the driveway. She says the tenant then came outside of his home and began recording her. She says they had a verbal argument. The landlord issued the tenant with a notice for anti-social behaviour in relation to this incident.
The tenant says Ms D had put the weeds on his front doorstep and when he discovered them, he threw them onto the driveway. The tenant says later he opened his door to find Ms D there and that she threw weeds at him and then assaulted him. The tenant provided photographs of bruises on his arm in relation to the incident. The Police were involved and ultimately determined not to lay charges in relation to the incident.
On reviewing the current evidence, I consider it likely that Ms D has placed weeds near the tenant’s premises and for reasons unclear to me he has thrown them onto the driveway. I consider it clear Ms D then responded by putting the weeds onto the tenant’s front doorsteps.
On balance, I do not consider the tenant’s actions in respect of this incident were an interference with Ms D’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy, but reflects an unpleasant dispute between the tenants. 2 January 2026
Ms M says on 2 January 2026 the tenant approached her on her front doorstep where she was socialising and playing music and he recorded her on her phone and took photos of her. She says he yelled at her and called her a “black bitch”. Ms D gave evidence that the situation escalated quickly and was distressing to watch.
On 6 January 2026 the landlord served the tenant with a notice for anti-social behaviour relating to this incident.
The tenant disputes the evidence of Ms M and Ms D. He provided audio recording of Ms M and her partner being abusive to him. Because this evidence was filed the day of the hearing, Ms M was not given the opportunity to comment on it.
While I accept that the tenant has likely experienced poor behavior by Ms M (and her partner) towards him, which is supported by Ms D’s evidence that the situation escalated and was distressing to watch, that does not justify poor behaviour by the tenant.
I consider it likely that the conflict between Ms M and the tenant has arisen because of the tenant’s abusive and disruptive interference with her reasonable peace, comfort and privacy, by attending at her unit to record her and tell her off for having the music going. The fact that the tenant has taken a number of audio recordings, including of himself telling others off for their actions illustrates to me the likeliness the tenant behaved in this way towards Ms M.
I consider it likely the tenant did call Ms M a “black bitch”, because I consider that is likely to have led to the negative responses from Ms M and her partner and the situation escalating between them. 2 February 2026
The landlord says on 2 February 2026 the tenant was present outside Ms D’s unit near the feijoa tree she had recently pruned and was abusive to Ms M and Ms D. Ms M gave evidence that she noticed the tenant was by the feijoa trees and she gave evidence that he told her to mind her own fucking business when she enquired about his presence by the feijoa tree. Ms M and Ms D said the tenant began being verbally abusive to Ms D.
By this time Ms D had been moved to the unit near the feijoa trees so that she was further from the tenant. Ms D says the tenant told her it was not her feijoa tree.
The tenant says he was unaware Ms D was living in the nearby unit and would not have been there if she was there. The tenant accepts speaking to Ms D on this day but denies being verbally abusive.
I consider on balance the tenant likely was speaking to Ms D and Ms M in a confrontational way, however in living in close proximity and with shared grounds it can be anticipated that there will be minor disputes from time to time. I consider this incident falls within this category. I am not satisfied that this argument amounts to the tenant interfering with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of Ms M and Ms D.
I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord has proven the tenant has breached his obligations to not interfere with the reasonable, peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants.
I record however, that I have not determined whether the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy has been interfered with which is a matter for the next hearing.

ARE THE BREACHES CAPABLE OF REMEDY?

Generally, a one-off failure to allow access is a breach that is capable of remedy and the landlord did serve the tenant with a 14-day notice to remedy the breach by way of allowing access on 1 September 2025. There is no evidence that the landlord subsequently gave notice of intended entry for the maintenance.
However, in this case, given the subsequent breach on 28 November 2025 and because of the persistent series of breaches (as also evidenced by the landlord having to apply for orders for access and the evidence of Mr H (referred to below) I consider the breaches are not capable of remedy.
In addition, given the nature and impact of the breaches in respect of the behavior towards the neighboring tenants I consider those breaches are not capable of remedy.

INEQUITABLE TO REFUSE TO TERMINATE A TENANCY

Having determined that the tenant has breached his obligations, and the breaches are not capable of remedy I will address each factor set out in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management in turn below in considering whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. a) the history of the tenancy:
The tenancy commenced in January 2020. It is therefore a relatively long tenancy.
There have been numerous applications to the Tribunal in respect of this tenancy. Crucially the Tribunal has previously had to make an order in respect of the landlord’s entry into the premises.
The landlord says an ongoing issue in this tenancy is that the tenant is abusive to contractors. Mr C gave evidence of an incident he was involved in between the tenant, himself and his wife on 12 December 2025 whereby the tenant was obstructing their weed eating at the premises.
The evidence was reflective of the ongoing challenges the tenant is presenting to the landlord and its contractors. The tenant provided an audio recording of the incident and I consider it reflects the unnecessary confrontation instigated by the tenant.
A similar incident of unnecessary aggression occurred on 13 January 2026 by the tenant towards the handyman in relation to the handyman’s use of his green waste bin. Further, Mr H, the landlord’s electrician gave evidence of being refused entry to the tenant’s premises, confrontation and challenging behaviour by the tenant when they are undertaking work at the premises and that they now have two people attend at the tenant’s premises because of the hostile nature they have encountered with the tenant. b) whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings:
The tenant has been issued with several warning notices for breaching his obligations but appears unable to prevent the behaviour. The behaviour is persistent and repetitive. Notices for anti-social behaviour have been served on the tenant. The notices did not comply with the strict requirements of s 55A RTA; however, I consider these notices were warnings to the tenant to address the concerns in respect of his behaviour c) whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future:
I consider that there is a risk of ongoing non-compliance, given the persistent nature of the behaviour. d) whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed:
I consider the breach is most likely deliberate, given the nature of the breaches. e) the conduct of the landlord:
The landlord is a social housing provider. The other tenants are vulnerable and the landlord emphasises the obligations it has to its other tenants. I am confident the landlord has taken all reasonable steps to sustain this tenancy, however the situation has become untenable. The landlord says seeking termination is a last resort. I consider that the conduct of the landlord has been appropriate. f) the gravity of the breach:
I consider the breaches are serious.
A landlord must be permitted reasonable access to the premises in order to meet statutory obligations, maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, and ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Difficulty with access creates unreasonable challenges for the landlord in being able to comply with its obligations.
Other neighbouring tenants are worried for their safety. g) whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach:
I consider that termination is a proportionate response to the breaches.
The landlord is a social housing provider, and the premises ought to be available for tenants who will not breach their obligations as the tenant has in this case.
The tenancy is terminated. In setting the termination date I have allowed time for the tenant to make alternative living arrangements. TENANTS CLAIMS – ADJOURNED TO FURTHER 1 DAY HEARING
There was insufficient time to hear the tenant’s claims at this hearing.
The hearing is adjourned to hear the tenant’s claims.
The parties will be notified in writing by Tenancy Services of the date and time of the next hearing.

SUPPRESSION

Neither party sought name suppression
The Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 10
On my own initiative I consider the witnesses names should be suppressed. I consider there is a public interest in protecting the names of tenants who may be vulnerable and, in some cases, protecting the privacy of contractors, which in this case I consider appropriate. I consider the parties interests are not affected by the witnesses’ names being suppressed.
The address of the property will be suppressed as an identifying detail of the witnesses.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the witnesses name and identifying details and the address of the premises.

The tenancy of Wayne Hunter at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Tauranga Community Housing Trust, at 11.59pm on Thursday 4 June 2026.

The hearing is adjourned.

A one-day face to face hearing should be allowed for the next hearing of this matter before me.

Tenancy Services are to serve the landlord with all documents filed by the tenant in support of his application to the email address: benjamin.verhaaren@hobec.co.nz

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord was represented by Counsel, Jemma Hollis and Benjamin Verhaaren.

These proceedings relate to cross applications.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. I have determined the landlord’s application by way of this order given the urgent nature of the claim.

The tenant has applied for compensation for a breach of a number of the landlord’s obligations. There was not enough time to hear the tenant’s application. The tenant’s application has been adjourned.

There have been a number of applications between these parties. Following the landlord filing applications for orders in respect of access the tenant filed cross applications for compensation and work orders in respect of various alleged breaches of the landlord’s obligations. The tenant’s applications were withdrawn.

The landlord says they have now reached a point where the tenancy is unsustainable, in particular due to ongoing anti-social behaviour towards staff, contractors and other tenants and the tenant obstructing access to the premises for inspections and maintenance.

The tenant opposes termination of the tenancy and rejects the landlord’s concerns.

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 1 , in practical terms this means that: 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 ... [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 more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. 2 Note about the evidence

On 9 February 2026 I made an order for all evidence to be filed within 14 days after the date of that order. This hearing was scheduled for 1 May 2026. On the morning of the hearing the tenant filed a significant amount of documentary evidence and recordings. The tenant said he had been too unwell to comply with the directions in respect of the filing of evidence, although this submission was not supported with a medical certificate. Much of the evidence appeared to be statements by the tenant in respect of the claims. The landlord opposed the evidence being accepted and considered. However, throughout the hearing some recordings were played, which the landlord accepted as evidence (much of which corroborated the landlord’s evidence) and the tenant was given the opportunity to read any particular statement relevant to the particular breaches. Aside from the evidence just referred to I have not considered any other evidence filed by the tenant. That evidence is accepted for consideration at the next hearing in respect of the tenant’s claims. In the circumstances where the tenant had sufficient time to comply with the directions in respect of the filing of evidence and the landlord has been given no time to consider the tenant’s additional evidence, I consider it would be unfair to otherwise accept and consider the tenant’s evidence.

I record that I have reviewed and considered the remaining evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I have not specifically referred to it. TERMINATION UNDER SECTION 56

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. 3 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 2 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55. 3 RTA, section 56(1). 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. 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 4 , 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. (emphasis added)

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 5 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 4 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 at [46]-[47] 5 Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe) at [61]., inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. The Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant, being: 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 in respect of termination under s 56 of the RTA are: a. Has the tenant breached any obligation to the landlord? 6 b. If the breach is capable of remedy, has the landlord issued a 14-day notice to remedy which the tenant has not complied with 7 c. That the breach was of such significance, that it would be inequitable (unfair) not to terminate the tenancy? 8

HAS THE TENANT BREACHED ANY OBLIGATION TO THE LANDLORD?

Failure to allow access

Section 48 (1)- (2) RTA sets out the situations in which the landlord may enter the premises. A landlord may enter for the purpose of inspecting the property, carrying out repairs and maintenance and for the purposes of complying with the healthy home standards with the required notice and time of entry requirements set out in that provision.

Section 48 (4)(b) RTA says a failure by the tenant, without reasonable excuse, to allow the landlord to enter upon the premises in any circumstances in which the landlord is entitled to enter under s48 (2) RTA is an unlawful act.

The landlord says the tenant has failed to allow them entry on several occasions. 1 September 2025 6 RTA, 56(1)(a). 7 RTA, s 56(1)(b). 8 RTA, s 56(1)(a).

The landlord says the tenant has breached his obligation to allow access on 1 September 2025 for maintenance. The landlord served the tenant with a 14-day notice that day. The landlord says lawful notice was given and when they arrived at the premises, they were unable to enter.

The tenant acknowledged he did not allow the landlord to enter the premises that day. He says he had recently had an operation and was resting at home. He acknowledged he did not inform the landlord prior to their arrival that he was at home and that he would not allow them entry,

The tenant appears to be suggesting he had a reasonable excuse for not allowing entry. I consider a reasonable excuse for not allowing a landlord access to the premises for the purposes of maintenance or an inspection would include things like the tenant being unwell (ie they have covid or the flu), incorrect notice has been given or the tenant has a cultural or religious event requiring observation. In these situations, the tenant should communicate to the landlord that they have a reason for not wanting the landlord to access the property prior to the intended access. In this case the tenant did not provide evidence that he was unwell or advise the landlord of such in respect of the access on 1 September 2025.

In respect of the access on 1 September 2025 the tenant has suggested that the landlord has attempted to use force to enter the premises. It will need to be clarified at the next hearing if the tenant relies on this in respect of his claim of unlawful entry, however the tenant unreasonably prevented access in any event, which is a breach of the tenant’s obligations. 28 November 2025

The landlord says the tenant then failed again to allow them access to the premises on 28 November 2025 for a routine inspection. The landlord attended at the property however the tenant declined to allow one of the landlord staff members into the premises. The landlord served the tenant with notice of the breach shortly thereafter (but not a 14 day notice to remedy the breach). The tenant’s recording of the landlord attending at the property was played during the hearing, which confirms the tenant obstructed access to the other landlord staff member.

The tenant says he was only willing to allow the tenancy manager into the property and he declined to allow the other employee to enter the premises because of his health issues, the small size of his premises and the short notice of another person attending the inspection.

In respect of the access on 28 November 2025 safety considerations required the tenancy manager to have another employee with her which I consider was reasonable. I consider the tenant does not have a right under the RTA to deny access to the landlord (which includes all employees of the landlord) when proper notice is given.

I find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has failed without a reasonable excuse, to allow the landlord to enter the premises in circumstances where the landlord is entitled to enter (because they have given proper notice and a correct reason for entry) on 1 September 2025 and 28 November 2025. Interference with reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of other tenant/neighbour

Section 40 (2) (c) RTA says the tenant shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, 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 Tribunal decision of Joseph-Gordon v Housing New Zealand 9 provides helpful commentary: ...the concept of reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the use of the premises is a fundamental requirement under tenancy law. It involves the right to live and enjoy the premises in peace and without reasonable disturbance. Premises extends to non-exclusive areas such as shared lawns, gardens and facilities. Under the law tenants have the right to quiet enjoyment but they also have a responsibility to ensure their behaviour and the behaviour of their visitors do not interfere with their neighbour’s reasonable peace, comfort or privacy. Quiet enjoyment under the law is qualified by the concept of reasonableness. This may mean that some potentially unpleasant disputes or differences of opinion between tenants or a personality conflict with your neighbour will unlikely qualify as an infringement of reasonable quiet enjoyment.

The landlord says the tenant has breached their obligation to not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants.

The landlord had four witnesses give evidence, being [Witness 1] (Ms D) and [Witness 2] (Ms M) who are neighbours of the tenant and tenants of the landlord, [Witness 3] (Mr C) the landlord’s contracted lawn mower, and [Wintess 4] (Mr H) the landlord’s contracted electrician (who gave evidence by phone).

In respect of the evidence of Mr C and Mr H, I will address this further below under whether it would be inequitable to refuse to end the tenancy, as I consider their evidence does not directly relate to the claim that the tenant has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants, because they are not tenants of the landlord. I consider there 9 Joseph-Gordon v Housing New Zealand [2019] NZTT 4177138 evidence more property relates to the general issues the landlord has had with this tenancy. 27 August 2025

The landlord says that on 27 August 2025 the tenant yelled and used abusive language towards other tenants while they were gardening, telling them it was not their responsibility to do the gardening. The landlord says the tenant removed his bin that the tenants were using for green waste and tipped the contents on the ground. The landlord says the other tenants complained that the tenant’s behaviour was aggressive and distressing. Ms D gave evidence to confirm the landlord’s concerns.

The tenant says he did get upset about the other tenants using his green waste bin. He acknowledged raising his voice but says he was not abusive.

On balance, I consider that Mr Hunter has likely spoken to the tenants in an aggressive manner while telling them it was not their responsibility to do the gardening. I consider this behaviour amounts to a breach of the tenant’s obligation to not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the other tenants. 12 October 2025

The landlord says the tenant had an incident with Ms D in relation to her weeding.

Ms D gave evidence on 12 October 2025 that she was weeding outside the units, and she left a pile of weeds briefly, during which time the tenant threw the weeds onto the driveway. She says the tenant then came outside of his home and began recording her. She says they had a verbal argument. The landlord issued the tenant with a notice for anti-social behaviour in relation to this incident.

The tenant says Ms D had put the weeds on his front doorstep and when he discovered them, he threw them onto the driveway. The tenant says later he opened his door to find Ms D there and that she threw weeds at him and then assaulted him. The tenant provided photographs of bruises on his arm in relation to the incident. The Police were involved and ultimately determined not to lay charges in relation to the incident.

On reviewing the current evidence, I consider it likely that Ms D has placed weeds near the tenant’s premises and for reasons unclear to me he has thrown them onto the driveway. I consider it clear Ms D then responded by putting the weeds onto the tenant’s front doorsteps.

On balance, I do not consider the tenant’s actions in respect of this incident were an interference with Ms D’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy, but reflects an unpleasant dispute between the tenants. 2 January 2026

Ms M says on 2 January 2026 the tenant approached her on her front doorstep where she was socialising and playing music and he recorded her on her phone and took photos of her. She says he yelled at her and called her a “black bitch”. Ms D gave evidence that the situation escalated quickly and was distressing to watch.

On 6 January 2026 the landlord served the tenant with a notice for anti-social behaviour relating to this incident.

The tenant disputes the evidence of Ms M and Ms D. He provided audio recording of Ms M and her partner being abusive to him. Because this evidence was filed the day of the hearing, Ms M was not given the opportunity to comment on it.

While I accept that the tenant has likely experienced poor behavior by Ms M (and her partner) towards him, which is supported by Ms D’s evidence that the situation escalated and was distressing to watch, that does not justify poor behaviour by the tenant.

I consider it likely that the conflict between Ms M and the tenant has arisen because of the tenant’s abusive and disruptive interference with her reasonable peace, comfort and privacy, by attending at her unit to record her and tell her off for having the music going. The fact that the tenant has taken a number of audio recordings, including of himself telling others off for their actions illustrates to me the likeliness the tenant behaved in this way towards Ms M.

I consider it likely the tenant did call Ms M a “black bitch”, because I consider that is likely to have led to the negative responses from Ms M and her partner and the situation escalating between them. 2 February 2026

The landlord says on 2 February 2026 the tenant was present outside Ms D’s unit near the feijoa tree she had recently pruned and was abusive to Ms M and Ms D. Ms M gave evidence that she noticed the tenant was by the feijoa trees and she gave evidence that he told her to mind her own fucking business when she enquired about his presence by the feijoa tree. Ms M and Ms D said the tenant began being verbally abusive to Ms D.

By this time Ms D had been moved to the unit near the feijoa trees so that she was further from the tenant. Ms D says the tenant told her it was not her feijoa tree.

The tenant says he was unaware Ms D was living in the nearby unit and would not have been there if she was there. The tenant accepts speaking to Ms D on this day but denies being verbally abusive.

I consider on balance the tenant likely was speaking to Ms D and Ms M in a confrontational way, however in living in close proximity and with shared grounds it can be anticipated that there will be minor disputes from time to time. I consider this incident falls within this category. I am not satisfied that this argument amounts to the tenant interfering with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of Ms M and Ms D.

I am satisfied on the evidence that the landlord has proven the tenant has breached his obligations to not interfere with the reasonable, peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants.

I record however, that I have not determined whether the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy has been interfered with which is a matter for the next hearing.

ARE THE BREACHES CAPABLE OF REMEDY?

Generally, a one-off failure to allow access is a breach that is capable of remedy and the landlord did serve the tenant with a 14-day notice to remedy the breach by way of allowing access on 1 September 2025. There is no evidence that the landlord subsequently gave notice of intended entry for the maintenance.

However, in this case, given the subsequent breach on 28 November 2025 and because of the persistent series of breaches (as also evidenced by the landlord having to apply for orders for access and the evidence of Mr H (referred to below) I consider the breaches are not capable of remedy.

In addition, given the nature and impact of the breaches in respect of the behavior towards the neighboring tenants I consider those breaches are not capable of remedy.

INEQUITABLE TO REFUSE TO TERMINATE A TENANCY

Having determined that the tenant has breached his obligations, and the breaches are not capable of remedy I will address each factor set out in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management in turn below in considering whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy. a) the history of the tenancy:

The tenancy commenced in January 2020. It is therefore a relatively long tenancy.

There have been numerous applications to the Tribunal in respect of this tenancy. Crucially the Tribunal has previously had to make an order in respect of the landlord’s entry into the premises.

The landlord says an ongoing issue in this tenancy is that the tenant is abusive to contractors. Mr C gave evidence of an incident he was involved in between the tenant, himself and his wife on 12 December 2025 whereby the tenant was obstructing their weed eating at the premises.

The evidence was reflective of the ongoing challenges the tenant is presenting to the landlord and its contractors. The tenant provided an audio recording of the incident and I consider it reflects the unnecessary confrontation instigated by the tenant.

A similar incident of unnecessary aggression occurred on 13 January 2026 by the tenant towards the handyman in relation to the handyman’s use of his green waste bin. Further, Mr H, the landlord’s electrician gave evidence of being refused entry to the tenant’s premises, confrontation and challenging behaviour by the tenant when they are undertaking work at the premises and that they now have two people attend at the tenant’s premises because of the hostile nature they have encountered with the tenant. b) whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings:

The tenant has been issued with several warning notices for breaching his obligations but appears unable to prevent the behaviour. The behaviour is persistent and repetitive. Notices for anti-social behaviour have been served on the tenant. The notices did not comply with the strict requirements of s 55A RTA; however, I consider these notices were warnings to the tenant to address the concerns in respect of his behaviour c) whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future:

I consider that there is a risk of ongoing non-compliance, given the persistent nature of the behaviour. d) whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed:

I consider the breach is most likely deliberate, given the nature of the breaches. e) the conduct of the landlord:

The landlord is a social housing provider. The other tenants are vulnerable and the landlord emphasises the obligations it has to its other tenants. I am confident the landlord has taken all reasonable steps to sustain this tenancy, however the situation has become untenable. The landlord says seeking termination is a last resort. I consider that the conduct of the landlord has been appropriate. f) the gravity of the breach:

I consider the breaches are serious.

A landlord must be permitted reasonable access to the premises in order to meet statutory obligations, maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, and ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Difficulty with access creates unreasonable challenges for the landlord in being able to comply with its obligations.

Other neighbouring tenants are worried for their safety. g) whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach:

I consider that termination is a proportionate response to the breaches.

The landlord is a social housing provider, and the premises ought to be available for tenants who will not breach their obligations as the tenant has in this case.

The tenancy is terminated. In setting the termination date I have allowed time for the tenant to make alternative living arrangements. TENANTS CLAIMS – ADJOURNED TO FURTHER 1 DAY HEARING

There was insufficient time to hear the tenant’s claims at this hearing.

The hearing is adjourned to hear the tenant’s claims.

The parties will be notified in writing by Tenancy Services of the date and time of the next hearing.

SUPPRESSION

Neither party sought name suppression

The Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 10

On my own initiative I consider the witnesses names should be suppressed. I consider there is a public interest in protecting the names of tenants who may be vulnerable and, in some cases, protecting the privacy of contractors, which in this case I consider appropriate. I consider the parties interests are not affected by the witnesses’ names being suppressed.

The address of the property will be suppressed as an identifying detail of the witnesses.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406668 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406668 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

HAS THE TENANT BREACHED ANY OBLIGATION TO THE LANDLORD?

ARE THE BREACHES CAPABLE OF REMEDY?

INEQUITABLE TO REFUSE TO TERMINATE A TENANCY

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

HAS THE TENANT BREACHED ANY OBLIGATION TO THE LANDLORD?

ARE THE BREACHES CAPABLE OF REMEDY?

INEQUITABLE TO REFUSE TO TERMINATE A TENANCY

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions