What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5418448 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5418448?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418448?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418448?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13174613-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5418448 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5418448?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418448?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418448?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13174613-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 8, 179 Waimea Road, Nelson South, Nelson Tenancy Tribunal Case 5418448 — 14-day notice

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Jason van Gent.

A previous hearing, convened by teleconference, was adjourned as it was apparent the tenant was disadvantaged by the method of hearing. Given the serious nature of the claims, an in-person hearing was appropriate.

The landlord had applied for termination of the tenancy.

Kāinga Ora submitted: that the tenancy should be terminated under Sections 55 and 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant has committed serious breaches, including threats to kill and physical assaults, which fall within the mandatory termination provisions of Section 55(1)(c). In addition, under s40(2)(c) Mr. Stirling the repeated disruptive and aggressive behaviour has interfered with the peace, comfort, and privacy of other tenants, satisfying the grounds under Section 56. These breaches have not been remedied, compensation has not been paid, and the statutory exceptions under Section 55(2) do not apply. Termination is therefore required to uphold the Act and restore safety and stability for the affected community.

During the hearing, the landlord acknowledged the main ground for termination was the threat supposedly made by the tenant to a neighbour on 21 November 2025.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”

Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.

By accepting the oral evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that I do not believe the first person’s evidence, it is an issue of weighting, especially in the absence of any supporting evidence.

This matter turns on its facts. Some of the material facts are in dispute. It is impracticable for me to recite all the evidence in detail and I will not do so unless it is necessary, but the parties should know it has been considered.

A procedural question was raised upfront by the tenant. There are criminal charges against the tenant yet to be determined. One charge directly relates to the main incident cited by the landlord in this application. He submitted this matter should rest pending the District Court resolution of the criminal charges.

The issue of whether the tribunal should deal with matters that are the subject of criminal proceedings was determined in Clarke v HNZC, CIV-2008-006- 33, Blenheim 19-3-08. There it was found that the Tribunal must deal with the matters before it and cannot defer or wait for another jurisdiction to reach an outcome on the matter.

Given that, the hearing proceeded.

It seemed apparent during the hearing that the tenant was mindful of the criminal charges and some of his questioning of witnesses, in my opinion, sought to delve into some evidential points that did not have a direct correlation with this hearing. This was discussed at the time and questions refocused on the claims to be considered, as necessary.

This determination is based on the evidence, submissions, and evidence as produced before, or during, the hearing and as they apply to the grounds for termination as cited by the landlord. Any reference to this order for other purposes should consider this.

A number of witnesses were called, others provided written statements. Where required, initials have been used to afford those witnesses some measure of privacy given this order will be public. Background

Mr. Stirling commenced his tenancy on 31 May 2023. The property is part of a high-density complex of 20 flats, historically occupied by elderly tenants who remain a significant part of the complex’s population. One feature of the complex is the open nature of outdoor areas with no fence or definitive boundaries, especially at the back of the flats. This has provided some positive neighbouring interactions, but unfortunately also some friction.

The tenancy has been fractious with a number of complaints to the landlord from both the tenant here, and other tenants in this complex, regarding claimed adverse behaviours.

The tenant expressed frustration that the landlord had failed to take appropriate steps to address his concerns or complaints as raised by him. In a file note dated 11 February 2026 for a housing assessment, the MSD staff member reflects the tenant’s recounted frustrations and concludes in upgrading his housing needs status that for him “there is extreme discomfort and fear/alienation in his community which is inescapable”.

A change of premises has previously been offered to the tenant but rejected by him as unsuitable.

Should the tenancy be terminated under s 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 (see s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA)).

Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant to remedy the breach, although the Tribunal may consider whether a warning should have been given when determining whether it would be inequitable to refuse 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 [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered whether breach of s 48(4)(b) RTA (refusal to allow entry) was capable of remedy: [46] 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. [47] 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.

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.

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.

On 20 January 2025, a first anti-social notice was served on the tenant after his behaviour and threats at the office of the landlord three days earlier. Such a notice is drafted and served under s 55A RTA. That section allows for termination of a tenancy when three instances of anti-social behaviour occur within a 90-day period. There were no further notices served.

No notices to remedy under s 56 were served on the tenant.

A challenge here for the landlord is the absence of notices to the tenant at the appropriate times, in response to claimed events.

Given the claimed ongoing breaches by the tenant, it is curious why progression of the anti-social notices (s 55A) to a conclusion, or s 56 notices to remedy were not served.

In terms of other claimed events where there were claims of threats or acts of violence, there is insufficient evidence to consider these proven to the required standard. In particular, the event on 16 December 2025, as witnessed by another tenant who was called during the hearing, referred to here as “LD”, lacked evidential weight in the absence of confirmation from the alleged victim and the refuting of the claim by Mr Stirling.

Having considered the respective submissions and evidence, I do not find the landlord has established grounds under s 56 to terminate this tenancy.

The most serious claim of his threatening to kill a neighbour is considered under s 55(1)(c) RTA. Should the tenancy be terminated under s 55(1)(c)?

The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy for where, on application by the landlord under this section, the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has assaulted, or has threatened to assault (in part) the landlord or any member of the landlord’s family or any neighbour of the premises.

The landlord stated that on 21 November 2024, the tenant threatened a neighbour, stating he would kill him. Police later attended and arrested the tenant. He has been charged with threatening to kill, assaulting an officer, and resisting arrest. The landlord advised the tenant is currently “bailed to the community away from the property.”

There are two “legs” to any determination to terminate under s 55(1)(c). The first is it a fact that there was a threat made? If so, is there any application of s 55(2) where the Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) if it is satisfied that it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies. A fulsome discussion of the law as it relates to threat to assault was provided after the High Court decision, Collins v Housing New Zealand Ltd [2004] NZAR 665.

So, did Mr Stirling threaten to kill his neighbour on 21 November 2025?

Mr Stirling was present and about to recount his version of events. The neighbour and complainant (referred in this order as “JP”) was available and called by telephone as a witness. His partner, present that day, (“JS”) was later called by telephone as a second witness.

I will not recount all of the testimony here.

Essentially, the threat was confirmed by JP at the hearing. The tenant refutes the allegation.

I had the opportunity to view a prior (earlier) video of a verbal confrontation between Mr Stirling, and JP and JS, taken and provided by Mr Stirling. While of no direct relevance to the claimed event on 21 November 2025, the interactions observed assisted in evaluating the respective witness recounting of the events on 21 November 2025..

JS recalled hearing elevated voices that day and went to investigate but she said she was ushered back inside by JP. While raised voices were heard, JS she said she could not hear what was said.

He left in his car after briefly telling JS that Mr Stirling had threatened to kill him and that he was going to sort it out. Previously, JP has called the police directly due to claimed actions of Mr Stirling. This time, he went, in the first instance, to the office of the landlord and spoke to local staff.

It appears that after some discussion with the staff, JP then reported the incident to the police. The police attended later that same day and arrested Mr Stirling.

I was curious, given the claimed serious threat, that JP left quickly while leaving JS at home with her having minimal information and potentially vulnerable. She said she was not concerned about her safety.

Essentially, I am left with two differing versions of the confrontation on 21 November 2025. The allegation is serious and it was responded to by police, with subsequent charges laid. I am conscious there may be other evidence I have not been provided that results in a different outcome in the pending hearing of the criminal charge. I must weigh up the facts as best I can with what was available here.

There have been ongoing clashes between the two (nine instances of the neighbour complaining to the landlord about Mr Stirling were recounted; the tenant’s own complaints have already been noted). The video provided by Mr Stirling confirms his criminal history was referenced by the neighbour during an earlier confrontation. I accept that there had been dissemination within the complex by others regarding Mr Stirling’s past. I believe that will have had some possible influence on some neighbours’ expectations of, or experiences with him. I have had to balance the witnesses’ evidence as heard with written statements from other tenants (or their family members) from during the tenancy. These paint a contrasting and complimentary picture of Mr Stirling as a neighbour. The statements must be weighted given the method of drafting and the inability to question the writers but dissatisfaction with Mr Stirling as a tenant within the complex does not appear universal.

The issues experienced by the landlord’s staff have also been considered. I weigh the severity of those against the lack of timely and appropriate notices in response.

I also note the request for some physical separation/fence between the premises by Mr Stirling (a neighbour stated in her written statement that the idea was hers given the close proximity of the respective back doors, and it the subject of a letter from her to the landlord). No enhanced separation was installed. The changing demographic within the complex, with relatively younger tenants now in some premises, might merit some further consideration by the landlord of possible enhanced physical demarcation.

As already referenced in [6] “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”.

Having considered the evidence and submissions as well as the seriousness of both the claim and consequences of termination, I do not find it proven that Mr Stirling did threaten to kill JP. I must therefore dismiss the claim and the landlord application for termination.

This dismissal means I do not need to contemplate any possible refusal to terminate the tenancy per s 55(2). Even if I am wrong with regard to the fact of any threat made, if so required I would have given serious consideration to exercising a s 55(2) refusal in this instance. Going forward

The lack of success of the landlord with this application does not absolve Mr Stirling of some adverse behaviours, or his role in a number of the issues raised. If this tenancy continues and further issues arise, the landlord might consider a better use of the statutory tools available to manage them.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Jason van Gent.

The landlord had applied for termination of the tenancy.

During the hearing, the landlord acknowledged the main ground for termination was the threat supposedly made by the tenant to a neighbour on 21 November 2025.

Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.

Given that, the hearing proceeded.

The tenancy has been fractious with a number of complaints to the landlord from both the tenant here, and other tenants in this complex, regarding claimed adverse behaviours.

A change of premises has previously been offered to the tenant but rejected by him as unsuitable.

Should the tenancy be terminated under s 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 (see s 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA)).

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.

No notices to remedy under s 56 were served on the tenant.

A challenge here for the landlord is the absence of notices to the tenant at the appropriate times, in response to claimed events.

Given the claimed ongoing breaches by the tenant, it is curious why progression of the anti-social notices (s 55A) to a conclusion, or s 56 notices to remedy were not served.

Having considered the respective submissions and evidence, I do not find the landlord has established grounds under s 56 to terminate this tenancy.

The most serious claim of his threatening to kill a neighbour is considered under s 55(1)(c) RTA. Should the tenancy be terminated under s 55(1)(c)?

So, did Mr Stirling threaten to kill his neighbour on 21 November 2025?

I will not recount all of the testimony here.

Essentially, the threat was confirmed by JP at the hearing. The tenant refutes the allegation.

JS recalled hearing elevated voices that day and went to investigate but she said she was ushered back inside by JP. While raised voices were heard, JS she said she could not hear what was said.

It appears that after some discussion with the staff, JP then reported the incident to the police. The police attended later that same day and arrested Mr Stirling.

The issues experienced by the landlord’s staff have also been considered. I weigh the severity of those against the lack of timely and appropriate notices in response.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418448 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 8, 179 Waimea Road, Nelson South, Nelson

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418448 — 14-day notice at Unit/Flat Flat 8, 179 Waimea Road, Nelson South, Nelson

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated under s 56?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated under s 56?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions