What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5418669 about?

The tribunal order states: Applications for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5418669?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418669?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12977453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5418669 about?

The tribunal order states: Applications for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5418669?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418669?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418669?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12977453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5418669 — Rent arrears

Order

Applications for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Both applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Mrs L] represented the landlord.
The tenancy is a boarding house tenancy and commenced on 1 November 2024.
The landlord applied to terminate the tenancy pursuant to section 66U(1)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and the tenant, [Ms S], filed a cross application for compensation for breach of her right to quiet enjoyment.
This is the second time in recent months that the parties have been to the Tribunal. The landlord gave two ‘28-day notices’ to [Ms S] to end the tenancy in October 2025 and [Ms S] successfully challenged those notices on the basis that they were retaliatory because the notices were given in response to complaints she had made regarding the behaviour of other tenants, including noise and not observing the boarding house rules (case name and citation redacted).

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 66U(1)(a)(iii) of the Act provides that a landlord of a boarding house may terminate the tenancy immediately if the tenant has “caused or threatened to cause, serious disruption to other tenants”. The basis of the landlord’s application is an incident that occurred at the premises on 19 December 2025. The landlord claims that [Ms S] caused or threaten to cause serious disruption to another tenant (the tenant of room 2, [Ms J]) during that incident.
It is clear that there are relationship issues between [Ms S] and some of the other tenants of the boarding house that they do not seem to be able to resolve. The incident on 19 December between [Ms S] and [Ms J] was also clearly unpleasant and both sides claim the other was at fault. Both filed Police complaints as a result of the incident. The incident also led to two other tenants making complaints to the landlord about [Ms S’s] behaviour in the premises.
While there is some evidence that supports the landlord’s claim, I make no finding on whether the landlord has established that [Ms S] did cause or threaten to cause serious disruption to other tenants. This is because section 66U of the Act gives the landlord to power to issue a notice terminating the tenancy on the grounds listed in the section; it does not give the Tribunal the power to terminate the tenancy on those grounds.
The application for termination of the tenancy pursuant to section 66U of the Act is therefore dismissed. Is [Ms S] entitled to compensation?
[Ms S] claims that the other tenants of the boarding house, but particularly the tenant of room 2, breached her right to quiet enjoyment including by being noisy, slamming doors, using the kitchen after 11pm in breach of the boarding house rules, leaving lights on, not using the extraction fan or ventilating the kitchen when cooking food, leaving the fridge door open, and moving or ‘tampering’ with her food.
[Ms S] also claims that the landlord interfered with her right to quiet enjoyment when it sent two emails regarding rent arrears when she had paid the rent claimed to be in arrears.
Section 66G of the Act provides that every tenant of a boarding house is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or other tenants, and the landlord must not cause or permit “any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant”.
Thus, to be successful [Ms S] must prove that her right to quiet enjoyment has been breached by other tenants of the boarding house and that the landlord caused or permitted that interference.
When determining whether [Ms S’s] right to quiet enjoyment has been breached by the actions of the other tenants, it needs to be kept in mind that the sharing of communal and other areas in a boarding house situation, or in a flatmate situation for that matter, requires a certain amount of tolerance to noise and the differences in the way people live. It is also important to not allow a personality clash or a break down in a relationship to become the sole basis for a claim for breach of quiet enjoyment.
Many of the matters complained of by [Ms S] appear to be as a result of relatively minor inconveniences (particularly those that relate to leaving lights on, smells from cooking food, fridge door being left open, and moving or tampering with food), which likely have been amplified by personality clashes or a breakdown in the relationship between [Ms S] and the other tenants, this is particularly so with respect to the tenant of room 2. Thus, I do not consider these issues are of sufficient magnitude to constitute an interference with [Ms S’s] right to quiet enjoyment of the premises for the purposes of section 66G of the Act.
While some noise at night by other tenants needs to be tolerated in a boarding house situation, I accept that it is important for tenants to be respectful of the needs of other tenants when returning to the premises or moving round the premises late at night. I also accept that noise at night, including slamming of doors, is frustrating for [Ms S] when she is trying to sleep. However, even if I consider that the noise and slamming of doors by other tenants is a breach of [Ms S’s] right to quiet enjoyment, I am not satisfied that she has established the second requirement, that is, that the landlord “permitted” the interference.
I consider that the word “permit” in section 66G(2) means that the landlord must either be aware of the interference or must have turned a blind eye to the obvious and must not have taken reasonable steps to prevent the breach from occurring.
[Ms S] accepts that she has not advised the landlord of any issues she has with other tenants since the Tribunal hearing on 11 November. However, [Mrs L] said that she is aware of incidents between [Ms S] and the other tenants in the past but said that many were minor and that it was not feasible for her to mediate or attempt to address every minor incident that occurred in the premises. I agree.
She said that after receiving complaints from [Ms S] regarding breaches of house rules and noise from other tenants she would send an email to all tenants advising them of the need to respect the needs of other tenants and to keep the noise level down, particularly at night. She said that she has also spoken to the tenant of room 2 (who works shifts) about being quieter when she returns home late at night so as to not disturb others who may be sleeping.
Thus, I am satisfied that the landlord has taken reasonable steps in the circumstances to try to prevent further breaches by tenants after becoming aware of the issues.
The other ground that [Ms S] claims is a breach of her right to quiet enjoyment is the issuing by the landlord of two emails in November 2025 stating that she had missed paying rent for that week, when she had not.
[Mrs L] said that the two emails were automated messages in their system and in were sent in error. When [Ms S] brought it to their attention, [Mrs L] apologised and promised to have it rectified. The error has not occurred since.
I accept that it was simply an error which caused the two emails to be sent to [Ms S] regarding non-payment of rent. While it may have been frustrating for [Ms S] to have to deal with the error, I do not consider it constitutes a breach of her right to quiet enjoyment. [Mrs L] apologised for the error and [Ms S] appears to have accepted that and, in an email dated 21 November, she thanked [Mrs L] for getting it resolved.
[Ms S’s] application for compensation is therefore dismissed. Suppression
Both parties applied, in their respective applications, for name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
While both have been unsuccessful in their own claims, both have been successful in defending the claim against them, and the limited exceptions set out in section 95A do not apply. I therefore order that the names and identifying details of both the landlord and the tenant be suppressed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Mrs L] represented the landlord.

The tenancy is a boarding house tenancy and commenced on 1 November 2024.

The landlord applied to terminate the tenancy pursuant to section 66U(1)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) and the tenant, [Ms S], filed a cross application for compensation for breach of her right to quiet enjoyment.

This is the second time in recent months that the parties have been to the Tribunal. The landlord gave two ‘28-day notices’ to [Ms S] to end the tenancy in October 2025 and [Ms S] successfully challenged those notices on the basis that they were retaliatory because the notices were given in response to complaints she had made regarding the behaviour of other tenants, including noise and not observing the boarding house rules (case name and citation redacted).

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 66U(1)(a)(iii) of the Act provides that a landlord of a boarding house may terminate the tenancy immediately if the tenant has “caused or threatened to cause, serious disruption to other tenants”. The basis of the landlord’s application is an incident that occurred at the premises on 19 December 2025. The landlord claims that [Ms S] caused or threaten to cause serious disruption to another tenant (the tenant of room 2, [Ms J]) during that incident.

It is clear that there are relationship issues between [Ms S] and some of the other tenants of the boarding house that they do not seem to be able to resolve. The incident on 19 December between [Ms S] and [Ms J] was also clearly unpleasant and both sides claim the other was at fault. Both filed Police complaints as a result of the incident. The incident also led to two other tenants making complaints to the landlord about [Ms S’s] behaviour in the premises.

While there is some evidence that supports the landlord’s claim, I make no finding on whether the landlord has established that [Ms S] did cause or threaten to cause serious disruption to other tenants. This is because section 66U of the Act gives the landlord to power to issue a notice terminating the tenancy on the grounds listed in the section; it does not give the Tribunal the power to terminate the tenancy on those grounds.

The application for termination of the tenancy pursuant to section 66U of the Act is therefore dismissed. Is [Ms S] entitled to compensation?

[Ms S] claims that the other tenants of the boarding house, but particularly the tenant of room 2, breached her right to quiet enjoyment including by being noisy, slamming doors, using the kitchen after 11pm in breach of the boarding house rules, leaving lights on, not using the extraction fan or ventilating the kitchen when cooking food, leaving the fridge door open, and moving or ‘tampering’ with her food.

[Ms S] also claims that the landlord interfered with her right to quiet enjoyment when it sent two emails regarding rent arrears when she had paid the rent claimed to be in arrears.

Section 66G of the Act provides that every tenant of a boarding house is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or other tenants, and the landlord must not cause or permit “any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant”.

Thus, to be successful [Ms S] must prove that her right to quiet enjoyment has been breached by other tenants of the boarding house and that the landlord caused or permitted that interference.

When determining whether [Ms S’s] right to quiet enjoyment has been breached by the actions of the other tenants, it needs to be kept in mind that the sharing of communal and other areas in a boarding house situation, or in a flatmate situation for that matter, requires a certain amount of tolerance to noise and the differences in the way people live. It is also important to not allow a personality clash or a break down in a relationship to become the sole basis for a claim for breach of quiet enjoyment.

Many of the matters complained of by [Ms S] appear to be as a result of relatively minor inconveniences (particularly those that relate to leaving lights on, smells from cooking food, fridge door being left open, and moving or tampering with food), which likely have been amplified by personality clashes or a breakdown in the relationship between [Ms S] and the other tenants, this is particularly so with respect to the tenant of room 2. Thus, I do not consider these issues are of sufficient magnitude to constitute an interference with [Ms S’s] right to quiet enjoyment of the premises for the purposes of section 66G of the Act.

While some noise at night by other tenants needs to be tolerated in a boarding house situation, I accept that it is important for tenants to be respectful of the needs of other tenants when returning to the premises or moving round the premises late at night. I also accept that noise at night, including slamming of doors, is frustrating for [Ms S] when she is trying to sleep. However, even if I consider that the noise and slamming of doors by other tenants is a breach of [Ms S’s] right to quiet enjoyment, I am not satisfied that she has established the second requirement, that is, that the landlord “permitted” the interference.

I consider that the word “permit” in section 66G(2) means that the landlord must either be aware of the interference or must have turned a blind eye to the obvious and must not have taken reasonable steps to prevent the breach from occurring.

[Ms S] accepts that she has not advised the landlord of any issues she has with other tenants since the Tribunal hearing on 11 November. However, [Mrs L] said that she is aware of incidents between [Ms S] and the other tenants in the past but said that many were minor and that it was not feasible for her to mediate or attempt to address every minor incident that occurred in the premises. I agree.

She said that after receiving complaints from [Ms S] regarding breaches of house rules and noise from other tenants she would send an email to all tenants advising them of the need to respect the needs of other tenants and to keep the noise level down, particularly at night. She said that she has also spoken to the tenant of room 2 (who works shifts) about being quieter when she returns home late at night so as to not disturb others who may be sleeping.

Thus, I am satisfied that the landlord has taken reasonable steps in the circumstances to try to prevent further breaches by tenants after becoming aware of the issues.

The other ground that [Ms S] claims is a breach of her right to quiet enjoyment is the issuing by the landlord of two emails in November 2025 stating that she had missed paying rent for that week, when she had not.

[Mrs L] said that the two emails were automated messages in their system and in were sent in error. When [Ms S] brought it to their attention, [Mrs L] apologised and promised to have it rectified. The error has not occurred since.

I accept that it was simply an error which caused the two emails to be sent to [Ms S] regarding non-payment of rent. While it may have been frustrating for [Ms S] to have to deal with the error, I do not consider it constitutes a breach of her right to quiet enjoyment. [Mrs L] apologised for the error and [Ms S] appears to have accepted that and, in an email dated 21 November, she thanked [Mrs L] for getting it resolved.

[Ms S’s] application for compensation is therefore dismissed. Suppression

Both parties applied, in their respective applications, for name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

While both have been unsuccessful in their own claims, both have been successful in defending the claim against them, and the limited exceptions set out in section 95A do not apply. I therefore order that the names and identifying details of both the landlord and the tenant be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418669 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418669 — Rent arrears

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