What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5416372 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 5416372?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416372?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12964401-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5416372 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 5416372?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416372?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12964401-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5416372 — 14-day notice

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord and tenants’ names and identifying details (including the tenancy address).
The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord was represented by [Property Manager 1] and [Property Manager 2].
[Tenant 1] attended on behalf of [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 3]. She confirmed that both [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 3] were aware of the hearing and had authorised her to appear on their behalf.
This tenancy began on 26 November 2025 for a fixed term of one year to 26 November 2026.
The tenants moved in with a flatmate, [Flatmate]. Although the tenancy agreement records that the maximum number of occupants is 4, the landlords say that they were not aware that [Flatmate] was moving in together with the three named tenants.
The landlord is seeking termination of the tenancy on the basis of events that occurred on 2 December 2025 involving [Flatmate]. Events of 2 December 2025
The tenants say that approximately a week after the tenancy began, an unnamed older gentleman came onto the property unannounced, explained that he was a part owner, complained about a man smoking a cigarette in the driveway and began looking through the rubbish bin.
[Tenant 1] said that she was confused as to who this man was as he was not named in the Tenancy Agreement. She sent an email to [Property Manager 2] at a11.38am with the subject line “URGENT PROBLEM” as follows:
[Property Manager 2] responded by email at 11.52am to stating: The owner went to the property and he is elderly, confronted by two dogs that are not allowed at the property and smoking which is also not allowed at the Property. They are so upset and you’ve completely lied on your application. We need to find you alternative accommodation as they are very stressed. I would prefer that we work through this amicably rather than Tribunal. I’ll visit at 5.30pm to discuss this further with you.
[Property Manager 2] then attended at the property at 5pm. None of the tenants were there but [Flatmate] was at home and invited her in. The landlord said that [Flatmate] became abusive and told [Property Manager 2] that if the man who had come onto the property that morning came back he would break his legs. She was initially not sure whether she had heard correctly and so asked [Flatmate] to repeat himself and he repeated the threat. [Property Manager 2] was understandably shaken and immediately left.
The landlord produced a copy of a non-emergency 105 online police report outlining the incident.
As she left [Property Manager 2] encountered [Tenant 1] outside who was returning for the scheduled meeting and told her what had happened.
Various further emails between the parties were produced in evidence.
[Flatmate] sent a letter of apology to the landlord on 9 December 2025 stating that he deeply regretted the way he spoke, that he was seeking professional help to address his behaviour and would ensure that he was not present during any notified future attendances.
[Tenant 1] then sent an email to the landlord on 12 December 2025 advising that [Flatmate] would be moving out by the end of the following Friday (although I was advised that he in fact moved out earlier, on Monday 15 December 2025).
The landlord advised the tenants by email that they intended to terminate the tenancy on the basis of [Flatmate]’s threatening behaviour. The tenants did not agree that the landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy. The landlord then filed this application on 17 December 2025.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord said that, although not referred to on the tenancy agreement the man who attended at the property is a part-owner of the property. He has his wife are elderly, live locally in the street, and have for many years (and until this tenancy) managed this tenancy themselves.
The landlord accepted that this man should not have come on to the property unannounced, but said that the threat made by [Flatmate] was a serious one and has caused the owners to feel unsafe in the area. The landlord accepted that the owner had not experienced any issues with any of the named tenants.
[Tenant 1] acknowledged that [Flatmate]’s behaviour had been completely unacceptable. She said that they met in a previous tenancy, that after this behaviour he was asked to move out (and in fact moved out three days later) and would not be returning. [Tenant 1] gave an assurance at the hearing that [Flatmate] would not be visiting the property in future and offered to formally trespass [Flatmate] if that would allay the landlord’s concerns.
The landlord explained at the hearing that they relied on two sections of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to terminate the tenancy: a. Section 55(1)(c) (Termination for non-payment of rent, damage, or assault); and b. Section 56(1) (Termination for non-payment of rent and other breaches).
Section 55(1)(c) provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to person to assault or to threaten to assault the owner of the premises of any member of the owner’s family.
In my view section 55(1)(c) cannot be relied on by the landlord because the threat of assault was not made by a “tenant” or “caused or permitted” by a tenant as required by that section 1 . It is not contended that any of the tenants have made any threats or “caused or permitted” [Flatmate] to do so.
Section 56(1) provides that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy where: a. the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement or the RTA; and b. where the breach is capable of remedy then the applicant party has given notice of the breach and the other party has failed to remedy the default; and c. due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.
Tenants are responsible for breaches by others who are the property with their permission 2 . This includes [Flatmate], as a flatmate.
The landlord said that [Flatmate]’s behaviour was a breach of the tenancy agreement and section 40(2) RTA (interference in the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood).
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.
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.
I agree that this was a serious breach. It is quite unacceptable for anybody at the tenancy property to threaten physical harm to another person in the neighbourhood.
It is arguable that the breach cannot be remedied as the threat has been made and so now cannot be undone.
However the ongoing concern in this case is the peace, comfort and privacy of the owners as nearby neighbours. The tenants have asked [Flatmate] to leave the property permanently, he has done so, and the tenants have given assurances that he will not return. In my view the breach has been remedied as far as it is possible. [Flatmate] is no longer living at the property and the owners will not encounter him as they go about their business in the neighbourhood. 1 Even if this section did apply to the tenants, the Tribunal must still consider section 55(2) which provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order if it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach (a matter discussed in paragraphs 29 – 31 in relation to section 56(1) RTA). 2 See section 41 RTA
As [Flatmate] is no longer living at the property, and will not be returning under any circumstances, I do not consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is therefore dismissed. Other issues
The landlord said at the hearing that they were concerned that the tenant was keeping two dogs at the property in breach of the tenancy agreement. As this issue was not included in the application, and no evidence as filed in support, I was unable to consider this issue.
[Tenant 1] denied keeping dogs and said that she had looked after her mother’s dogs on two occasions, both during the day.
If the landlord remains concerned that the tenants are keeping dogs at the tenancy they may filed a further application in this regard. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord has not been the successful party and so I have not made an order reimbursing the filing fee.
Both parties sought an order for name suppression. The tenants are entitled to an order for name suppression as they are the successful party.
Although the landlord has not been the successful party I do not consider that they have been unreasonable in filing this application. The owners are elderly and the man in question has not even been included as a party to the tenancy agreement or to this application. I consider these factors override the public interest in publication of the landlord’s name. I therefore exercise my discretion to suppress the landlord’s name.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord was represented by [Property Manager 1] and [Property Manager 2].

[Tenant 1] attended on behalf of [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 3]. She confirmed that both [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 3] were aware of the hearing and had authorised her to appear on their behalf.

This tenancy began on 26 November 2025 for a fixed term of one year to 26 November 2026.

The tenants moved in with a flatmate, [Flatmate]. Although the tenancy agreement records that the maximum number of occupants is 4, the landlords say that they were not aware that [Flatmate] was moving in together with the three named tenants.

The landlord is seeking termination of the tenancy on the basis of events that occurred on 2 December 2025 involving [Flatmate]. Events of 2 December 2025

The tenants say that approximately a week after the tenancy began, an unnamed older gentleman came onto the property unannounced, explained that he was a part owner, complained about a man smoking a cigarette in the driveway and began looking through the rubbish bin.

[Tenant 1] said that she was confused as to who this man was as he was not named in the Tenancy Agreement. She sent an email to [Property Manager 2] at a11.38am with the subject line “URGENT PROBLEM” as follows:

[Property Manager 2] responded by email at 11.52am to stating: The owner went to the property and he is elderly, confronted by two dogs that are not allowed at the property and smoking which is also not allowed at the Property. They are so upset and you’ve completely lied on your application. We need to find you alternative accommodation as they are very stressed. I would prefer that we work through this amicably rather than Tribunal. I’ll visit at 5.30pm to discuss this further with you.

[Property Manager 2] then attended at the property at 5pm. None of the tenants were there but [Flatmate] was at home and invited her in. The landlord said that [Flatmate] became abusive and told [Property Manager 2] that if the man who had come onto the property that morning came back he would break his legs. She was initially not sure whether she had heard correctly and so asked [Flatmate] to repeat himself and he repeated the threat. [Property Manager 2] was understandably shaken and immediately left.

The landlord produced a copy of a non-emergency 105 online police report outlining the incident.

As she left [Property Manager 2] encountered [Tenant 1] outside who was returning for the scheduled meeting and told her what had happened.

Various further emails between the parties were produced in evidence.

[Flatmate] sent a letter of apology to the landlord on 9 December 2025 stating that he deeply regretted the way he spoke, that he was seeking professional help to address his behaviour and would ensure that he was not present during any notified future attendances.

[Tenant 1] then sent an email to the landlord on 12 December 2025 advising that [Flatmate] would be moving out by the end of the following Friday (although I was advised that he in fact moved out earlier, on Monday 15 December 2025).

The landlord advised the tenants by email that they intended to terminate the tenancy on the basis of [Flatmate]’s threatening behaviour. The tenants did not agree that the landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy. The landlord then filed this application on 17 December 2025.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord said that, although not referred to on the tenancy agreement the man who attended at the property is a part-owner of the property. He has his wife are elderly, live locally in the street, and have for many years (and until this tenancy) managed this tenancy themselves.

The landlord accepted that this man should not have come on to the property unannounced, but said that the threat made by [Flatmate] was a serious one and has caused the owners to feel unsafe in the area. The landlord accepted that the owner had not experienced any issues with any of the named tenants.

[Tenant 1] acknowledged that [Flatmate]’s behaviour had been completely unacceptable. She said that they met in a previous tenancy, that after this behaviour he was asked to move out (and in fact moved out three days later) and would not be returning. [Tenant 1] gave an assurance at the hearing that [Flatmate] would not be visiting the property in future and offered to formally trespass [Flatmate] if that would allay the landlord’s concerns.

The landlord explained at the hearing that they relied on two sections of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to terminate the tenancy: a. Section 55(1)(c) (Termination for non-payment of rent, damage, or assault); and b. Section 56(1) (Termination for non-payment of rent and other breaches).

Section 55(1)(c) provides that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault, or has caused or permitted any person to person to assault or to threaten to assault the owner of the premises of any member of the owner’s family.

In my view section 55(1)(c) cannot be relied on by the landlord because the threat of assault was not made by a “tenant” or “caused or permitted” by a tenant as required by that section 1 . It is not contended that any of the tenants have made any threats or “caused or permitted” [Flatmate] to do so.

Section 56(1) provides that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy where: a. the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement or the RTA; and b. where the breach is capable of remedy then the applicant party has given notice of the breach and the other party has failed to remedy the default; and c. due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.

Tenants are responsible for breaches by others who are the property with their permission 2 . This includes [Flatmate], as a flatmate.

The landlord said that [Flatmate]’s behaviour was a breach of the tenancy agreement and section 40(2) RTA (interference in the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood).

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.

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.

I agree that this was a serious breach. It is quite unacceptable for anybody at the tenancy property to threaten physical harm to another person in the neighbourhood.

It is arguable that the breach cannot be remedied as the threat has been made and so now cannot be undone.

However the ongoing concern in this case is the peace, comfort and privacy of the owners as nearby neighbours. The tenants have asked [Flatmate] to leave the property permanently, he has done so, and the tenants have given assurances that he will not return. In my view the breach has been remedied as far as it is possible. [Flatmate] is no longer living at the property and the owners will not encounter him as they go about their business in the neighbourhood. 1 Even if this section did apply to the tenants, the Tribunal must still consider section 55(2) which provides that the Tribunal may refuse to make an order if it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach (a matter discussed in paragraphs 29 – 31 in relation to section 56(1) RTA). 2 See section 41 RTA

As [Flatmate] is no longer living at the property, and will not be returning under any circumstances, I do not consider that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy.

The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy is therefore dismissed. Other issues

The landlord said at the hearing that they were concerned that the tenant was keeping two dogs at the property in breach of the tenancy agreement. As this issue was not included in the application, and no evidence as filed in support, I was unable to consider this issue.

[Tenant 1] denied keeping dogs and said that she had looked after her mother’s dogs on two occasions, both during the day.

If the landlord remains concerned that the tenants are keeping dogs at the tenancy they may filed a further application in this regard. Filing fee and name suppression

The landlord has not been the successful party and so I have not made an order reimbursing the filing fee.

Both parties sought an order for name suppression. The tenants are entitled to an order for name suppression as they are the successful party.

Although the landlord has not been the successful party I do not consider that they have been unreasonable in filing this application. The owners are elderly and the man in question has not even been included as a party to the tenancy agreement or to this application. I consider these factors override the public interest in publication of the landlord’s name. I therefore exercise my discretion to suppress the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5416372 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5416372 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions